Lords Sitting of 12 May 1988

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

Dentistry: Refresher Training
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to keep practising dentists abreast of developments, in view of the advances in understanding of dental treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, dentistry has seen considerable changes in materials and techniques as well as approaches to clinical problems. The Government therefore consider it important that dentists in practice should undertake regular refresher training. Such training, funded by the department, is provided specifically for dentists providing National Health Service general dental services. Over and above this the department has now sent the first of a series of training videos to all NHS dental practices in England.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative reply. While assuring him that the majority of my profession is in favour of the initiative by the DHSS, may I ask him whether he has received any representations from the British Dental Association, particularly in relation to the timing of the distribution of this video and of the press release which seem to have become reversed? Secondly, can he explain why the video sent to every national health practice in the country should show a technique which is not available under the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: It did not, my Lords. The scale of fees for general dental practitioners already includes payment for the treatment of the early signs of tooth decay using the technique shown in the video. We shall shortly be discussing with the profession whether any clarification of the description of this treatment in the scale is needed in the light of developments in clinical practice. I am indeed aware that the profession is concerned that dentists did not receive their copies of the video until after the public launch and that they felt disadvantaged when patients were aware through the media before them. I can confirm that this will not happen again.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will understand the lack of wisdom I would show if I were to become involved in this discussion between two experts. I have two questions. The first is: to what extent is the need for training facilities and courses for dentists, as opposed to time for treatment of patients, taken into consideration in assessing the 7·9
1216
per cent. pay award in the Doctors and Dentists Review Body? Will he comment on the need for the training that is referred to in this Question and the extent to which that is reflected in the Government's White Paper on primary health care?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, in answer to both those questions. Training is of the essence and it is important that the dental profession, as any other publicly-funded profession, produces value for money. The Government are concerned that dentists who have been absent from active practice for long periods for whatever reason and dentists in practice should undergo some refresher training either to continue in their practice or before they re-enter a practice. We have made this quite clear in the White Paper, and in our discussions with dentists we shall continue to pursue it.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing concern at the continued use of mercury in amalgam in dental fillings? Will he comment on the conclusion of the Swedish health authorities that mercury in amalgam is a toxicologically unsuitable material?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware of the growing concern on this matter. That is why the issue was put to the committee on toxicity in 1986. The committee stated that in its opinion the use of dental amalgam was free from the risk of systemic toxicity and only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Government get their teeth into this problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can truthfully say that, speaking on behalf of the Government, I have been studying this problem for quite a long time.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of many people and in the form of a question may I express intense appreciation of the vast distance that the profession has advanced in recent years, which makes it almost a pleasure to go to the dentist rather than to the old horror torture dungeon one used to expect in years long ago?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is exactly why training is so important.

University Libraries: Finance
3.8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, owing to the illness of my noble friend Lord Russell (who has succumbed to the current epidemic) and at his request, I ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the arrangements for financing university libraries which contain rare books and manuscript collections of national importance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the University Grants Committee already makes special provision for the copyright libraries at Oxford and Cambridge within its resource allocation. The committee, however, intends to review its special factor provision for libraries later this year.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer which I anticipated with striking accuracy. Is she aware that the grants as at present administered are on a strict ratio per head of undergraduates at the university, with no reference to the holdings of the libraries or their manuscripts or books which need special preservation measures? The Question asked whether the Government were considering any changes, and as the UGC under the Education Reform Bill will become something quite different for which the Government are very much more responsible at their own desire and request, may I once again ask the noble Baroness whether she can give any encouragement and hope to museums, so that museums such as the Bodleian or the Cambridge University Library, which have enormously expensive and valuable collections which are deteriorating at this moment, can be helped?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have no doubt that the review will take these factors into consideration. It would not be proper for me to pre-empt the conclusions of that review.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, when the review is taking place, will the Minister take into account the endowments that many of the older institutions have compared with the newer institutions which are not so fortunate?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. Universities are, after all, autonomous institutions, and it is not axiomatic that all their costs should be met by the taxpayer.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the autonomy of a university or anything else is seriously inhibited if it has immediate duties which must be looked after, yet it is not given the money to do it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all universities have some items of expenditure which could be regarded as out of the ordinary, but the UGC is prepared on current practice to make a special factor allowance, but only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, will my noble friend consider as a possibility for Great Britain the American system whereby people receive enormous sums of money by way of tax reimbursement for that purpose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that that has already been considered and no doubt it will be an element in the review.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large number of books and rare manuscripts of considerable historical importance are housed in museums and not in university buildings? I refer both to national, such as the former British Museum, now the British Library, and to local museums. Will the Minister ensure that similar financial facilities are available to those which have collections of valuable manuscripts and books?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware of the distinction, but the Question on the Order Paper focuses especially on the financing of university libraries.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Oxford and Cambridge are not the only universities in Britain? Is she aware that, for example, the University of Durham has a large collection of extremely valuable books and manuscripts of national importance? Will she bear that in mind? Incidentally, if the noble Baroness would like to visit the university I should be happy to arrange that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and for his invitation.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when there is insufficient financing to keep the books in good condition, universities are encouraged to sell some of them, as happened at the Rylands Library at Manchester University?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, and I believe that the matter was discussed on another occasion. We are aware of the factors attaching to the sale of books in the Rylands collection. I should like to reiterate the fact that the sales were of second copies of books in that collection.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising from the noble Baroness's question, is the Minister not aware that the so-called "second copies" were not duplicates? In most cases they were the better copies which were taken by the auction house to sell and they reached very high prices. However, there was a small escape clause in the original contract with Mrs. Rylands. It was envisaged by those who witnessed it at the time, and who have since written to the press, that that was only to enable duplicate runs of magazines and periodicals to be sold. In no way was it envisaged that Grolier bindings and items of national importance were to be sold in order to keep going financially.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that the bequest made an express provision that books may be sold, exchanged or otherwise disposed of.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there are attached to many libraries—and there ought to be attached to all libraries—various charities, such as the Friends of the Bodleian, to which generous donations are always welcome?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that contribution. It is a point that we should all bear in mind.

Water Companies: Overseas Investors
3.14 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards foreign investment in statutory water companies.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, European Community law does not allow discrimination against investment by nationals of other Community members. As a trading nation we do not discriminate against foreign investment, just as we are pleased to see British firms expanding their interests overseas.
Transactions in the shares of statutory water companies are subject to the merger provisions of competition legislation, in the same way as these apply to companies in other sectors.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative but not very helpful Answer. Is he aware that in recent weeks shares in the East Worcestershire Water Company and the Mid-Southern Water Company have been sold at eight to 10 times the market price and have been bought by French water companies? Does he agree that the prospect of increased profitability, which the companies will have next year when my noble friend removes the statutory dividend control, is improving the prospect of profitability in the minds of such purchasers? In the interests of the consumers will he consider changing his policy and maintaining the statutory limitation of dividend?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that some shares have been bought at the market price, which is higher than it was some months ago. However, I disagree with my noble friend's comments as regard whether the dividend control—the present statutory control over statutory water companies—is the right method. We believe that to be an outdated and inflexible method of forming a modern company. We consider that the profit motive is the most effective means of providing a permanent incentive to greater efficiency. However, in the legislation that we intend to bring before Parliament that must be coupled with a strong system to ensure the consumers' interest.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that within the industry there exists a strong body of opinion that little profit is to be made from the actual supply of water? Therefore is it not safe to assume that interest in shares in the water company may be based on the fact that we have notoriously under-valued our assets in previous privatisations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the statutory water company is already private.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, has the noble Baroness taken into account the fact that they may wish to bottle British water and sell it as French water?
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, although profitability is an important factor in such matters, purity of supply is the paramount concern? Will he give an assurance to your Lordships here and now that in any changes to be made to the control of our water companies nothing will be done to put at risk the purity of the supply?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The water industry is highly regulated and it will continue to be so for the purpose outlined by my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister answer my first question which was: is he aware of the opinon within the industry that there is little or no profit in selling water?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mowbray said, the selling of water in bottles can be extremely profitable.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, will my noble friend take fully into account the amazing rise in the value of water company stock, which has been 1,000 per cent. in one or two cases? Does he appreciate that, even if there is greater competitiveness under the proposed new system, it will still not make up the expected return for those investing at such a high price? Consequently, will he look again at the statutory model for water companies under which dividends and assets are controlled?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that this matter is of concern to a number of your Lordships as well as to others outside this House. I look forward to debating the matter fully when the main legislation comes before the House.

Southern Africa: London Conference
3.19 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What part they played in the London conference on Southern Africa held on 3rd to 4th May and what were its results.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the United States convened the talks to which the noble Lord refers. In addition to the US, South Africa and an Angolan delegation, which included Cuban representatives, took part. In accordance with our policy of support for negotiations on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, and on implementing the UN plan for Namibian independence, we welcomed the convening of the talks in London and provided some assistance on administrative matters. At the end of the talks, the

1221
participants issued a joint statement announcing that progress had been made and that there would be a further meeting soon.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is time that Her Majesty's Government took a lead in this issue rather than following the lead of the United States, particularly because Her Majesty's Government originally passed over to South Africa the mandate for what was then South-West Africa and is now Namibia? Her Majesty's Government are also a member of the United Nations contact group. Secondly, will the noble Lord assure the House that in any negotiations Her Majesty's Government will be steadfast in refusing any deal which does not include the full implementation of Resolution 435 regarding the independence of Namibia?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he has asked in his second question. On the first point, which arises from the noble Lord's second question, our position is clear. The United Kingdom remains committed to UNSCR 435 for free and fair elections.
The noble Lord asks whether the United Kingdom should become more closely involved. It is fair to say that these talks were a valuable step in trying to achieve peace for Angola and independence for Namibia. It was agreed at the talks that there would be follow-up talks and my understanding is that that is being put into effect.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome what the noble Lord has said about Her Majesty's Government's commitment to Security Council Resolution 435. Perhaps he will go a step further and say to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to linkage, about which there has been a good deal of discussion over the past few years.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we set no precondition for the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 but we realise that the South Africans are unlikely to co-operate while the Cubans remain in Angola. Therefore, as a practical matter we support the approach of the United States on this.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept the pleasure that many of us feel at seeing him in good health?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount. The only trouble is that there are some people who are stretched out flat.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has given an assurance to the House on Her Majesty's Government's support for Security Council Resolution 435 and we all welcome that. However, is he not aware that there are suspicions that the United States is concerned only about the removal of Cuban troops and might try—and in the view of some observers has already tried—to make a deal for the removal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola without the essential element that that
1222
requires the implementation of Resolution 435 for Namibia?
Perhaps I may repeat my original supplementary question. I did not ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government supported the talks. I suggested that the time had now come when the Government should take the lead rather than leave it to the United States.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord is doing less than justice to the United States talks. I understand that they were businesslike and constructive and that all at the talks stressed their desire for an early settlement with—and this is the answer to the noble Lord's specific point—Cuban troop withdrawal and implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 as the basis for it. I believe that negotiation is the only way to solve the future of Namibia and this has been quite a valuable step forward.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been a good deal of informed press comment by those who know Southern Africa well, indicating that there seems to be no intention on the part of the South African Government to make such a settlement along the lines of the Security Council resolution and that there is a necessity for negotiation to be accompanied by effective economic pressure on the South African Government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that since the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 there has not been much of consequence to see, although there has been a great deal of work. However, we should bear in mind that these talks were attended by United States, South African, Angolan and Cuban representatives. I believe that they reached a very hopeful agreement.

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Weights and Measures (Knitting Yarns) Order 1988 and the Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988 will be taken.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday 26th May and return on Monday 6th June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 26th May.

Business of the House
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Basnett set down for 18th May shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Finance Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 21,

Schedules 2 to 4,

Clauses 22 to 43,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 44 to 48,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 49 to 51,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 52 and 53,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 54 and 69,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clauses 70 to 72,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 73 to 133,

Schedule 13,

Clause 134,

Schedule 14,

Clause 135,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 136 to 147,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 148 to 150.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform Bill
3.26 p.m.
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 42 [Duty of Secretary of State to maintain certain schools]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 36, line 22, after ("Chapter") insert ("and the granting of approval to proposals submitted under Section 52(2) below in accordance with the provisions of that section").
The right reverend Prelate said: The amendment provides that the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain any school shall be limited beyond peradventure to the schools for which he has granted approval of the proposals permitted under Clause 52(2) in accordance with the provisions of that clause.
To my mind, as a layman in the legal sense, it seems that what I seek to secure is covered by Clause 42(1) and (4) in that for a school or government body to be incorporated requires approval by the Secretary of State of the proposals under Clause 42(4)(c). Clause 42(1) specifically refers to:
"any school conducted by a governing body incorporated under this Chapter".
However, I am advised that this amendment is necessary to make certain that the Secretary of State does not find himself under any obligation to maintain a school which was established as a grant-maintained school for which this procedure had not been adopted. I am advised that that is the case.
This amendment means that there can be do doubt about the limitations of the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain any grant-maintained school unless he has approved actual proposals which meet the requirements set out under Clause 52(2). It may be that the noble Baroness will assure me that this is not necessary but I am advised that this point needs to be settled so that it is beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Baroness David: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I could ask him whether, as is listed in the groupings, he is also speaking to Amendment No. 214A.
The Lord Bishop of London: In that case, perhaps I may continue to speak to Amendment No. 214A. When we come to Amendment No. 214A I find it quite astonishing that I should have to move this simple and straightforward amendment. Whatever is the Committee's view on grant-maintained schools, I believe it is agreed on all sides of the Committee that this represents a major change in our educational system. It introduces a new partner into the whole operation of schools. It seems to me quite extraordinary that such a proposal should be allowed

1225
to take place on what inevitably will be a minority vote.
If the Government intend to establish the means by which schools are allowed to opt out of the local authority system, then it must be a fair system and one which serves the majority of parents. The Government claim to be very keen to give parents as much choice as possible in the education of their children and, as I have said, these proposals form a key part of the Government plan. Why then are the Government not willing to accept the principle that the majority of those eligible to vote should be required to make the decision for a school to opt out? If the Government wish to provide parents with a choice in the education of their children, logically this should mean a greater choice for the majority of parents; yet the Bill does not ensure that choice for the majority in the opting out. On the contrary, I maintain it inevitably allows a minority of parents to decide the future of the school simply because one must assume, human nature being what it is, that for a variety of reasons not all parents will vote even in a secret ballot.
For example, there will be those whose children will be leaving in the next year or two; there will be those who do not feel moved to take part in the vote, or parents who are away. One knows of the situations which arise. It will be quite unreasonable to assume that all parents will vote in the ballot on this matter. Even if one takes a reasonable application in a school of, say, 320 children—which is not much above the limit that is set and below which this procedure cannot be carried out—and assuming that there are two parents per child, that is 640 parents. If one thinks of the number in the top classes, the number who might be away and so on, it is not unreasonable to say that there might be 200 parents who, for one reason or another, will not exercise their vote. That leaves 440 parents. If one takes half of that number, with a few more to make the majority, then 225 parents out of the 640 in that school would be able to vote on this matter. That seems a most unreasonable and undemocratic number upon which to make such a major change.
There are other problems in connection with voting, but I am not proposing to talk about them this afternoon. For example, there is the definition of a parent and the question of information being required to be given to the Secretary of State when a proposal is put forward. Those are all matters that need to be attended to. Today I am concentrating on the one point—that we should ensure that a majority of parents are eligible to vote and not merely be concerned with those who actually vote.
Once the decision has been made to ballot parents it does not matter how few the number of parents who vote in the ballot so long as there is one more in favour of opting out than there is for staying with the authority. In theory, it would therefore be possible—I agree it is a very extreme case—for one parent to vote in favour of the grant maintained status and, if no other parent voted against, there would be the necessary majority for opting out. It may be argued that in a case of that kind not for one moment would the Secretary of State dream of
1226
approving the proposals. However, since he is apparently prepared to act on a minority vote anyway I am not given great confidence in the way he will act if there is a minority which votes in favour. As I say, it is impossible to know how many parents are likely to vote in a ballot, so I cannot see why on earth the Government should resist this amendment.
It is particularly important that a majority of the parents eligible should make the decision as the decision is irreversible. It is not as though they can return and attempt to change their minds. The provisions do not allow for the possibility of a further ballot to be taken at some time in the future in order that the school may be given the opportunity of opting back into the authority system.
From what I have heard, I imagine that the Government will argue that the elections of representatives in local and central government require only a simple majority of those voting and not a majority of the electorate as a whole. But the decisions made in such elections are not irreversible, and that is one of the really significant factors in this case. Surely the Government must accept that in many instances a simple majority is not appropriate. Perhaps I may say that their own legislation shows this to be the view of the Government. At the moment they are putting forward proposals in the Housing Bill which contradict the arguments they are putting forward as regards this Bill. How can it be logical that where it is acceptable for a minority of parents at a school to decide its future, it is necessary for a majority of council tenants to decide to remain with a local authority? I am afraid one is driven to the point—much as I regret having to make the suggestion—that one purpose of the minority is to encourage schools to opt out. I cannot avoid drawing that conclusion.
There are a number of other areas of legislation in which the Government prefer a different system from a simple majority. For example, in company law the Government have laid down that changes require a 75 per cent. majority; in the Employment Act 1982 for the status quo to be changed inside a bargaining unit there must be a majority of either 85 per cent. of those voting or 80 per cent. of those eligible to vote. In the Standing Committee for that legislation the argument was put forward by the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment that the closed shop raised major issues for individuals' rights, so that a larger majority was required.
If that is true for those matters then it must also be true for the future of the education of children. It is on the future of our children's education that I base my plea to this Committee to support the amendment. At Second Reading of the Bill I said,
"To my mind it is not a question of a simple, plain franchise or a fancy franchise but a question of what is an appropriate franchise".—[Official Report, 18/4/88; col. 1233.]
Bearing in mind what I have said about parents voting, I still maintain that it is unreasonable to expect a vote of 100 per cent. It is unreasonable to expect more than the average kind of voting that one gets in these affairs. It may be said that parents are desperately concerned about the education of their children, but there are also involved parents of older children who will not be affected by the issue. In

1227
addition, we must face the fact that there are parents who do not pay great attention to the education of their children.
What worries me is that this legislation is really an open invitation for any small group—albeit on the extreme Left or the extreme Right, it does not matter from where it comes—to press certain parents to exercise their vote to ensure the necessary majority in a minority vote for the proposals go forward. As I say, we must bear in mind that parents whose children will be in the school once the decision on the school's status has been implemented will have no say; and other parents whose children will have left by the implementation date will have no vote.
My amendment does not deal with that situation but it takes the effect of it into account by saying that we can at best not expect a complete vote. Once it has been accepted that not all parents will vote then, if one accepts a bare majority of those who do vote, one is inevitably committed to saying that the decision will be taken by a minority of parents. For the sake of our children's education, I beg the Committee to support the amendment so that it is education issues and the wishes of the parents together that affect our children's education. I beg to move.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I very much want to support the right reverend Prelate, especially on Amendment No. 214A. I suppose that I have longer experience of the education service than most members of the Committee. I spent 50 years of my life in the service. I have great experience of the reaction of parents. I remember a school with 1,600 pupils calling an important parents' meeting. Twenty-five attended. The most recent survey of attendance at parents' meetings in the schools of our country showed an average of 16 per cent. Members of the Committee should combine that knowledge with the intention of the Bill and ask how many more would vote and would take the trouble to attend an important meeting of parents. I can find no evidence that the figure would exceed 50 per cent. anywhere. Therefore I very much hope that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 214A.
Lord Kilmarnock: The right reverend Prelate has already mentioned the various other percentages that are required for ballots in other walks of life. He mentioned the majority required for council house tenants to move out of local authority control. He mentioned the change in company law, requiring 75 per cent. The Building Societies Act 1986 requires a 50 per cent. majority of shareholders not weighted by their shareholding to support a contested merger.
Those are interesting percentages for different purposes but the most important consideration in my mind is that this is a constitutional change in the nature and method of the governance of a school. I was recently involved in various prolonged arguments about changing the constitution of the party to which I belong. But I know of no arrangements to change the constitution of a body that require less than a 50 per cent. majority of those entitled to vote or possibly a further requirement of a two-thirds majority of those voting. We are talking about a constitutional change. This is the essential
1228
difference in this type of ballot and other types of ballot.
In Standing Committee in another place the Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, referred to the referendum on Europe. He said correctly that this had required only a simple majority. The essential difference is that a referendum is a consultative exercise and is not binding on Parliament. A vote taken by parents on this issue would be binding. There is an essential difference between a referendum and a binding vote for the changing of the constitution of a school.
In Standing Committee J the Secretary of State advanced a further argument which I did not find convincing. He said:
"If a small and unrepresentative group of parents was behind the proposal, there would be powerful objections from the local community which would weigh heavily in the Secretary of State's decision".
If that is the case, why not avoid the necessity of making the difficult and invidious decision that would be placed on the Secretary of State's doorstep by a rather small and unconvincing ballot of parents, albeit that there was a majority of those voting to take the school out of the maintained sector? I cannot understand why the Secretary of State should wish to put himself in the position of having to make invidious decisions on the basis of a small ballot. Surely the Secretary of State should be making his decision in the confidence that a clear majority of the community want the change to take place.
On those grounds—and I am sure there are many others—I put my name to the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. The Secretary of State coined this rather colourful phrase "fancy franchise", which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, as a way of condemning anything other than the simple majority. However, I think that all the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate, and I hope by me, show that this is not a fancy franchise. It is a minimum franchise for a constitutional decision. That is the point behind the amendment and I hope the Committee will support it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: It seems to me that there is a singular difference between the two halves of the noble Lord's argument. He talked about a constitutional change as though the vote of the parents is the final settlement of the issue. Then he went on to expatiate on what is more important—the role of the Secretary of State in considering, among other things, when asked to make such a decision what the voting of the parents had been. It is important to remember that this initial ballot—by whatever majority and out of whatever proportion—is a triggering instrument for a process that is likely, as the noble Lord said, to take considerable time and bring other voices into its consideration.
If such a display of parental feeling fell short of what might be thought conclusive evidence the Secretary of State might say that it was not good enough. On the other hand, even a ballot of that kind would surely have the great merit of showing to the local authority concerned that at least a considerable number of parents were dissatisfied, and the opting-

1229
out procedure would be fulfilling what I believe to be its main purpose of bringing pressure on some local authorities to mend their ways.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is skilful at defending the indefensible. He is underlining the fact that the powers of the Secretary of State in this matter are once again very considerable and that there is a greater concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State than many of us are prepared to accept. It has been denied that the Bill gives more powers to the Secretary of State. This is a good example of the way in which it does.
I do not wish to detain the Committee but I want to underline one point made by the right reverend Prelate. Once taken, this decision is irreversible. Some of us will try later to alter that. We may or may not be successful. A school can be taken out of local authority control, but however much it wishes later with the evidence and experience of what has happened to reverse that decision, it is not able to do so. Surely an irreversible decision should be taken only if there is overwhelming support by parents that it should be done.
Baroness Young: If we return to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London when he moved the amendment, I think it would clarify the position. He said that he was only concerned with the voting of parents. It is most important to consider all the stages which, as I understand it, must be gone through before a school can become a grant-maintained school.
My noble friend Lord Beloff touched on some of the difficulties in this connection. As I understand it, it must be a joint decision of the parents and of the governors, and that the governors must then make detailed statutory proposals for consideration by the Secretary of State. Further, that all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the outcome of such considerations before anything happens and before a decision is taken. Therefore, the process must pass through many stages of careful consideration before the school can become a grant-maintained school. The main principle behind the two amendments is a great concern about the whole concept of a grant-maintained school.
However, if one considers what might trigger parents off to decide to take up the option, it should at least cause the local education authority to consider why people want grant-maintained schools. When I consider the position, based on the schools that I have looked at which might conceivably wish to take up the option, it seems to me that such schools are more likely to want to become grant-maintained schools if the school, the parents and the governors are concerned about the proposals for the possible change in the character of the school; its possible closure; and possibly about its amalgamation with another school. Those are all issues which in my experience have motivated parents to be so active in wanting to maintain their school as they perceive it to be.
Although the right reverend Prelate said that parents of children in the top classes would not really
1230
count because their children would not be involved, the truth of the matter is that many schools have a considerable following of old members who have always supported them and who would, no doubt, again rally to their support. The parents would do likewise because they would want to maintain the school for subsequent generations. Therefore one cannot say that that constitutes a minority of parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, quoted the example of the annual meetings. I share his view. It is most disappointing when one realises how many annual meetings have been so badly attended. However, one never quite knows how much notice was given or how much effort was made to ensure that people attended. Therefore until one has all the evidence on that point one could not write off parents as not having properly fulfilled their duties by attending the meeting, any more than one should write off the publication of information about schools because, sadly, only one-third of parents—if this is the case—take the trouble to visit schools. The whole emphasis of the matter is to achieve greater parental involvement; all the emphasis must be on the provision of better information about schools, meetings and other such matters. If, at the end of all this, parents are not interested—if that is indeed the argument—and they decide to vote on the matter, then something is seriously amiss. The whole grant-maintained provision merely provides another alternative for parents to express their views. I understand why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made these proposals.
Lord Glenamara: The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, described his experience, going back 50 years to the time when he was a distinguished director of education in a large city authority. I should like to tell the Committee of my experience, although it was admittedly 40 years ago. I count mothers and fathers separately. Incidentally, I must ask: do mothers and fathers each receive a vote? If that is so, is that not unfair to single-parent families of whom there are many these days? However, counting mothers and fathers separately, if I received 10 per cent. of parents at a meeting—I held a meeting once a month—it was a mass meeting; if 5 per cent. attended, I regarded it as a very good meeting.
Further, my wife has been a headmistress much more recently than that. She tells me that it is even more difficult now. People who have fought elections and tried to hold political meetings know that television has changed attendances at any meeting. In fact, there are only two nights a week when one can hold a meeting. For example, Mondays and Wednesdays are out because of "Coronation Street"; Wednesdays are out because of "Dallas"; and Fridays are also out because of "Dynasty".
A noble Lord: What about "Eastenders"?
Lord Glenamara: I do not count "Eastenders" because to me that belongs to an alien part of the country—although, I suppose, that makes the situation even worse. However, in all seriousness, I feel that something along the lines proposed in the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate is essential if the process is to be carried out fairly.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I shall try to reply to one or two of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is correct to say that behind the amendment lies a deep concern about the whole principle of opting out and grant-maintained schools. It would of course be difficult to deny that fact. Yet, the fact of the matter is that, presumably, a great majority of members of the Committee have accepted that that is the intention of the other place. Somehow it must be made as effective as possible if it is to succeed.
The fact that the decision should be irreversible is vital. It is a decision about a school's future which will be taken at a certain point in time. We all accept that this is part of a considered process as outlined in the Bill. However, I was most unhappy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. It seemed to me that he was almost saying that because the vote takes place in the initial stages it is not as serious as all that; it could even be represented as some kind of charade in view of what is to come later. However, it will be treated very seriously indeed, not least by the parents themselves who will have voted in the schools concerned. Therefore I believe that the terms upon which the response is set up, and what the ballot is to do, are absolutely vital.
On Second Reading, although I was not able to be here, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, put his finger right on the point when he said:
"we could face the prospect that these very parents, or worse, an unrepresentative and politically motivated minority of them (although a marginal majority of those who voted—and of course it could be politically motivated on either side), could set the school on a certain independent path from which subsequently there could be no turning back. Surely this House must try to ensure that there is a sounder basis for such an irrevocable and potentially damaging change".—[Official Report 18/4/88; col. 1259.]
I think that is the main problem with which we are faced.
Baroness Young: I hope the right reverend Prelate will give way for one moment. Is he not himself confusing the two points: the one about the vote that triggers off the process, and the other being the whole process itself? The whole process itself will be far more than just the vote of the parents.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: No, I do not think I am confusing the issue at all. I have already said that we recognise that there is this process and that that is generally respected. I am saying that the initial vote is a most important one and therefore it should not be taken on a simple majority. One of the points which I think is difficult for us to recognise is that many parents find it hard to proceed on the basis of postal ballots; they do not live in that sort of world. This concept is very remote, if I may say so, from the kind of world which most of us inhabit. We must have as clear a perception as we possibly can as to what postal voting actually means to parents in inner-city schools, on large council estates or wherever they may live.
If we return to the original intention of the grant-maintained schools, and read what the Minister said at the outset of Second Reading, we will see that she said:
"But above all the provisions for grant-maintained schools in Chapter IV offer parents and governors who are not satisfied with the
1232
service offered by their local authority, an effective alternative at no extra cost to themselves."—[Official Report 18/4/88; col. 1215.]
Well, standards of local authorities come and go; they change. No one will deny that there are cases where local education authorities fall down on the job and that there is some dissatisfaction. Surely it is the duty of this Chamber to recognise that the dissastisfaction expressed by some parents is of such a level that it cannot be ignored. That is why a simple majority should not be maintained. We need a majority of all the parents who are eligible, as indicated by the amendment.
Perhaps I may make a further point. One difficulty that worries a great many people who are much better educationally informed than I am is that education is a co-operative venture across a very wide field. It is not only the individual parents who are concerned; it is not only the individual school which is concerned. We are concerned with education provisions which affect a very wide area, and decisions made by one school may well affect other schools or education provision in general. Surely those sorts of considerations also ought to be thought about carefully by parents. The difficulty is getting them to think beyond the immediate future. I believe that making the hoop a little more difficult to get through would help to ensure that.
4 p.m.
Lord Bramall: I doubt whether I shall put my finger on the point again, as the right reverend Prelate so kindly suggested. I was going to apologise to the Minister for rather straying off my subject expertise. However, I understand that my erstwhile colleague, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, may be dealing with the amendments on grant-maintained schools and opting out; therefore I do not feel quite so embarrassed.
When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed considerable apprehension about the opting out proposals on three main counts. I should like quickly to mention them in relation to the amendment: first, on the machinery with which the amendment deals for bringing about grant-maintained schools; secondly, on the subsequent financial arrangements for these schools, should they take the irrevocable step; and finally what would happen to the remaining schools in the system if individual schools were encouraged and able to negotiate the considerable hurdles of opting out. All these have a bearing on the desirability, necessity and practicability of opting out and therefore on how easy or difficult one makes the arrangements in the first place.
As regards this point in the amendment, it seems to me inconceivable that such an important step in the life of a school should be taken without widespread, and manifestly widespread, parental and other support. Bearing in mind that parents with children at school would in any case be committing parents with children not yet at school, the very least that would suffice, to be at all convincing and credible, would be a clear majority of all the current parents and not a simple majority of those voting.
As the Conservative Education Association itself so aptly puts it, in favouring (as I do) such a change in the ballot arrangements, any school that cannot

1233
get a majority of its parents to do something as simple as putting a cross on a ballot paper and posting it, would not have the necessary support to sustain it over a period of time, once it became independent of its local education authority. I therefore most earnestly hope that the Government will consider accepting this amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his place but is he not, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asking us to forget the policy objectives of the Bill? Very senior Ministers, indeed the Prime Minister herself, have made it clear that one of the central thrusts of the Bill is that the Government wish to see as many schools as possible contract out. That is why the Secretary of State has to say that he thinks that a great number of schools will contract out and that is why the figures are so low. This is the central thrust of the Bill.
Why should we believe that if majorities are passed as specified in the Bill, and if this is the central aim of the Bill, the Government will not take it any further?
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I was surprised to hear that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is to reply to this debate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has already fled the field. The Minister is present but is apparently not training her guns on us for the moment and only the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is left to defend the indefensible.
I am bound to say that I am horrified at this proposal. If it were put forward in any other connection—in relation to public companies' prospects, and certainly in relation to trade unions—can we not imagine the formulations that would come from the Benches opposite about a proposition of this enormity? I say to the Government, as I have said in the past, that there are good things about the Bill, but this is not one which can be defended on any democratic grounds at all. I believe that it is impossible for anyone to put his heart into the defence, even though his intellect may enable him to construct one or two rather weaker arguments for its purpose.
Let me put this to the Minister who is to reply. The Government try to have it on both grounds. First, they say, "We shall give powers to the local community which they may take. We are giving them freedom, we are giving them greater powers". Then they say, "Ah, but if the local community gets it wrong, we have got a long stop because the Minister will come in. He will be able to assess much more correctly, in the light of further information, what is the real view of the parents and what is the degree of dissatisfaction".
Let us take that step by step. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says, "Yes, but if even a minority of parents is dissatisfied and expresses its dissatisfaction in that way, the Minister clearly has a signal hoisted which enables him to say that he is aware of the dissatisfaction, and as he is there he will be able to express it thoroughly". Let us carry that argument one step further. If a small minority of parents is capable of alarming the Minister in this way, how much more alarmed would he be, and how much
1234
more likely would it be that he was correct to be alarmed, if a majority were to express itself in this way? The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is on a totally intellectual hobbyhorse when he argues that it is enough for a small minority of parents to express their dissatisfaction.
One argument has not been adduced. None of us in this House is elected by anybody, so far as I know, perhaps with the exception of the Bishops' Bench. Very few of us are elected and some of us have been elected more recently than others. One group which has clearly emerged over the past 20 years in the body politic is the minority single interest group. As I have constantly argued, that group is opposed to the cohesion of society in this country today. That group looks at things through a very narrow focus; it does not examine the body as a whole; it pursues only its own interest.
I should like to place my own experience before the Committee. I shall not go into details on how single interest groups can manipulate opinion in a way that was not known 30 or 40 years ago when I first entered politics. I am telling the Government that they are opening a Pandora's box here. Any single interest group can organise, get funds and then place itself in a position where it can organise a ballot and get a temporary majority. I have seen such temporary majorities obtained. I have seen them obtained in trade unions. But in all these cases—whether of local councillors in a ward or trade unions—these decisions are reversible. New ballots are taken. The decision can be changed. In this case, as the Bill stands, the decision cannot be changed. Once taken, the decision stands.
Let me put another point to the Government. Let us suppose that we have a Conservative Secretary of State for Education—because a great deal is placed upon him as a long stop—who is totally opposed to opting out. That is possible. The present theory may not stay for ever. Suppose a minority votes in favour and he says, "Oh no, because I can interpret the position much better than the local community, I am now going to use my powers to oppose this and to refuse to allow an opting out." Let me put the contrary. Suppose we have a Labour Secretary of State for Education—which I must say is much more likely to happen after the next election—who is very much in favour of opting out. He may take the same view. He may decide that, despite all these minority views, he is going to allow opting out, even at a time when we know that it is not the view of the parents.
There is too much power left to the Secretary of State in this connection. If the Government are to follow through their philosophy of giving power and freedom to the local community, and if they are really to exert it, they should say that they wish to have a vote by the majority of people in the local community. That is really the only way in which this proposition is at all defensible.
For myself, I am not very much in favour of opting out. I express my prejudice quite clearly. But having expressed that prejudice let us at least say that if we are going to give this power to the local community it should be a real power. We must avoid the problems that the Government may well run into where well organised minority groups with particular views twist local opinion and break up a community.

1235
There are very few occasions on which this Chamber is entitled to set its opinion against that of another place, but I believe that on a matter of this kind in which we have all been inundated with correspondence from all over the country, from governors, from headmasters, headmistresses, parents and pretty well everybody representing local opinion, this Chamber is entitled to ask another place to think again on this matter.
Lord Monson: As somebody who at three o'clock this morning was hit in no uncertain fashion by the malady which has afflicted so many Members of the Committee over the past few days, I was not intending to speak to this amendment. But may I just point out that when Scottish devolution was being debated a few years ago the Conservative Party was almost unanimous in supporting the amendment moved by, I believe it was, the honourable Member for West Lothian, which stipulated a much larger majority than a simple majority of those voting before devolution could take place. Surely the analogy between the two situations is an extremely close one?
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: If the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him, I must say that the final decision in that case, as in these other cases, rested with Parliament. In the case that the noble Lord mentioned the decision was to be taken by Parliament. The vote was to be an advisory one. They had to secure a certain majority, but at the end of the day it was for Parliament to take the decision. That is not so in this case.
Lord Monson: I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord at all.
A noble Lord: Is it not the case that in Parliament a majority of one in either House is enough?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the Minister replies I wish to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this is in fact one element in a process. Of course she is perfectly correct in saying that, but we are debating the point of the parental ballot before we are debating the vote on the board of governors as to whether the process shall be initiated.
As the Bill is written at the moment, the requirement on the board of governors to initiate the process of calling a parental ballot is again by a simple majority. So in fact what we are faced with in the Bill as it stands is not only a weak requirement for the parental ballot, but an extremely weak requirement for the trigger mechanism in the governing body.
If we had a strong parental ballot perhaps we could accept a lower governmental trigger mechanism or vice versa; but what we have are two very easy hoops through which to jump, and we cannot accept this.
Baroness David: I think that the case has been made so well for the amendment of the right reverend Prelate that I really need say nothing myself. However, I would say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, although he has now gone, made
1236
rather a poor effort to speak against it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a slightly better effort but it was still a very poor one, and it has been dealt with, too. I only wish to say therefore that we from these Benches will be supporting the right reverend Prelate.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies, I should like to join my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lady Young and defend not the indefensible but I believe the defensible. Much has been made about the objectives of this Bill, and I think that the reference made by at least one Member of the Committee was that the objective was that all our schools, or as many as possible of them, should contract out.
The objective of the Bill is in fact to place some power in the hands of parents to make decisions about their children. The powers of the Secretary of State have been much talked about in this debate. I believe it is appropriate that that is where the power should lie. When a school is going to be closed—and I have been on the painful end of trying to do that in a local authority—I have always argued, even if I have agreed with the proposals that the school should close, that it is absolutely right that having gone through all the processes at a local level somebody at government level should be the final arbiter. There should be a final arbiter to consider everything that is to be taken into account.
In the case of this particular proposal that includes not only the results of a ballot however many people in a school vote, but also the views and representations from governing bodies, from the local community, from those people who do not believe it is a good idea, from those who do believe it is a good idea, from the staff and others involved. All of those factors are taken into account.
As has been said by my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Beloff, this is a very small part of the process. It is the initial part of the process. There is not a single school in the land that simply sends out an envelope and asks parents whether they want to vote on the future of their school. Something has to lead up to that action. A number of parents have to get together to decide that it would be a good idea if, for various reasons, the school were to follow the road of grant maintained status.
I think it is unfortunate that we have only talked about the negative reasons for opting out. On Second Reading I said that I believed that there were two reasons for opting out. One of course is negative, and I believe that we should be thinking very seriously about those people for whom the opting out proposals and the power to do this is an absolute lifeline. One has only to think of the limited powers of the Secretary of State in the Maureen McGoldrick affair to believe that this is a very important power for parents.
But there is the other positive reason for opting out. Why should a school that is able to manage itself well, look after its budget well as it will be given powers to so do under the proposals of this Bill, which has a good relationship with its local authority and its parents and which has a fine governing body, not be allowed to exercise that power if it feels able to

1237
go it alone? Why should it not be able to request that the Secretary of State considers the school for opting out?
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about opting out, as though, somehow or other once grant maintained status occurs without the umbrella of the local authority the world will fall apart for that school. But the teachers are still there, the children are still there, the school is still there, the buildings are still there, the resources are there and indeed all the requirements of the national curriculum and the requirements of this Bill are also still there. That school is still accountable to the Government and to the inspectorate for the way in which it conducts its affairs.
There is no compulsion to opt out. A school does not have to opt out. But I wish to come straight back to the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate about a minority of parents. If for example a number of parents have decided that they would like to be considered for grant maintained status and a secret ballot is called, and the case as regards opting out is put to the parents, it is my view that if a majority of the parents simply do not even bother to send back the envelope saying that they have a view one way or the other, that also says something about the school. That is a very important decision. Going back again to first-hand practical experience of considering a school for amalgamation—
Baroness David: The noble Baroness is not in fact speaking to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am speaking precisely to the amendment. I am speaking about the effect of a minority of parents initiating the process for opting out. I am also talking about the majority, who have been referred to many times in this debate. I am simply saying that if the majority show such a degree of apathy that they do not take part in that vote, that also says something about the school.
If a request went to the Secretary of State, it having been asked for by a minority of parents and where the majority of parents have no view one way or the other as regards the future of that school, at least the Secretary of State would take a long hard look at that school. Only if that silent majority were motivated in some way to defend the continuance of that school in the system would the Secretary of State also take their views into account. As I believe that this is the start of a process and not the end of a process, and because I believe that parents will get involved in such a decision, this proposal certainly has my support.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): I shall deal very briefly with Amendment No. 202C which I hope I can persuade the right reverend Prelate is in fact unnecessary. No school may become grant maintained unless it has followed all the procedures set out in Clauses 50 to 52 of the Bill. These culminate in the making of a formal proposal to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State which he may approve or reject. Only if he approves the proposal will the school become grant maintained. His duty in Clause 42(1) of the Bill
1238
extends only so far as to maintain grant-maintained schools. With respect, the amendment is tautological, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate, on reflection, will see that that is so.
Turning to Amendment No. 214A—
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. My understanding of the word "tautological" is that it means self-evidently right. Did the Minister mean to say "tautological"?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It does not mean that. The noble Lord's understanding is wrong.
Lord Trefgarne: What more can I say, other than to underline the observation which was made from a sedentary position from the Privy Counsellors' Bench on my right.
Turning to Amendment No. 214A, which was moved by the right reverend Prelate, the arguments on that are almost identical to those on Amendment No. 214, which stands in the name of other Members of the Committee. Amendment No. 214A relates to the procedure by which a school may become grant maintained. It suggests that a ballot of parents should be valid only where a simple majority of parents eligible to vote are in favour of seeking grant-maintained status. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it requires that where there are, say, 1,000 parents on the electoral roll, at least 501 must be in favour. I believe that that is a tall order, even given the high turnout which one would expect to see in a ballot of that kind.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord will not have forgotten that that was obtained in the London parents ballot.
Lord Trefgarne: That was not a ballot of the kind which is envisaged under the Bill. If 800 parents vote—that would be a very respectable turnout—at least 501 of them must still be in favour. To take my example further, 499 of the 800 parents could be in favour, and yet the application would not go forward. I fear that that would lead to discord and disputes about whether one or two names on the admissions register should or should not have been there. Parents will not be able to understand why a proposal which had such strong support is not even to be considered by the Secretary of State. They may begin compaigning immediately for a further ballot to be held the following year. That cannot be good for the stability of the school community. It would be better to have the issue out there and then.
I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been put forward today. I recognise that there are concerns over the ballot. However, the Government believe that those concerns are exaggerated and that the proposed remedies would themselves introduce new dangers and difficulties. A simple majority of voters is a straightforward and widely understood concept. It is the only approach which is difficult to dispute because it underlies so many of our existing democratic procedures.
The main burden of my argument is that the amendments seek to tackle a problem which does not really exist. The minutiae of balloting procedures can

1239
sometimes lead us to lose our sense of proportion. Proponents of these amendments have painted a chilling picture of a very small, unrepresentative and perhaps even dangerous group of parents smuggling an application for grant-maintained status through to fruition, taking advantage of the apathy of the vast majority of the parent body. I find it extremely difficult to take that prospect seriously, however committed and cunning such hypothetical parents may be. Let me spell out how the process will work.
At the very beginning of the process set out in Clauses 50 to 52 of the Bill, such parents will have to mount a petition in order to force the governors to hold a ballot of all parents. They will have to obtain the signatures of a significant number of parents for that petition to be valid. Such a petition will trigger the formal notification of the local education authority and the school's trustees, if any. They are unlikely to stand idly by and to keep quiet if they believe that the parents concerned are unrepresentative or dangerous.
The governors must then hold a secret postal ballot in the course of which they are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that those claiming parental rights in respect of the pupils get a vote. All voters will receive with their ballot papers factual information to enable them to form a judgment on the proposition.
Around three-quarters of adults vote in general elections. They have to leave their homes, often in foul weather and often to travel some distance, to cast their votes at the appointed time and place. All parents have to do in such a ballot as this is to mark their ballot paper and put it in the letterbox the next time they go out. Are Members of the Committee really suggesting that most parents will instead simply throw them into the wastepaper basket? I simply do not believe it.
I adduce one further piece of evidence to support the Government's belief that parental apathy is highly unlikely. This Committee boasts seven former Ministers and Secretaries of State for Education. Each of them will, in his time, have had the sad task of agreeing to the closure or reorganisation of a school. I call it a sad task because, however justified in educational or economic terms that closure or reorganisation may be, it is almost always very plain that a substantial number of parents, pupils, staff and other members of the local community have invested a huge amount of time, energy and commitment—I might almost call it love—in that school over the years. Past and present Ministers will know only too well that in those circumstances the parents have no hesitation whatsoever in making their views known loud and clear about what is being proposed.
That is why both local education authorities and the Department of Education in turn themselves invest a good deal of care and thoughtfulness in formulating and considering each such proposal. I believe that the parallels with consideration of the proposition that a particular school should become grant maintained are self-evident.
In a ballot on grant-maintained status the vast majority of parents will similarly have strong views one way or the other and will be keen to express them.
1240
They will campaign for their point of view in the run-up to the ballot, as will others no doubt. They will do their utmost to ensure that friends and neighbours with children at the school also cast their vote when the time comes. If the ballot supports an application, they will make their views known in commenting on the formal proposal which comes forward to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The procedures in the Bill offer a whole series of opportunities for parents to make their views known. The ballot itself is central to those opportunities, but it is by no means alone.
But just for a moment let me assume for the sake of argument that a very small number of parents vote in the ballot and of those a very small majority favour the making of an application. What would happen then? My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will determine each proposal on its merits, taking all relevant factors into account. The formal proposal itself will tell him how many parents voted for and against the proposition in the ballot. One important factor for the Secretary of State will obviously be the extent to which the parents have demonstrated a commitment to grant-maintained status for their children's school, because their interest in and influence over that school will be crucial to its success. I find it very unlikely that my right honourable friend would approve such an application where he was not persuaded that the parent body was sufficiently behind it.
I believe that what I have said makes it clear that the Government do not believe these amendments to be necessary or desirable. They attempt to apply a spurious mathematical precision to what must essentially be a question of judgment. At the same time they complicate a process which should be as simple and straightforward as possible in order to tackle a problem which I do not believe to be a real one. The concept of a simple majority of those voting is clear and widely understood. I expect parents to be keen to make their views known.
In any case, the ballot itself is not decisive. A supportive parental vote is necessary but not sufficient to a successful application, and the Secretary of State will be able to take a broader view of where the balance of the argument lies in considering the subsequent proposal.
If Members of the Committee are genuinely concerned about a group of fanatics silently stealing a school away in the night, and not merely seeking to put additional obstacles in the path of eager but responsible parents, I can assure them that all the safeguards necessary are already in place. I strongly urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: It will not come as a surprise to the Committee to know that I am very disappointed with the answer which we have just received from the Minister. I find it extraordinary that on what seems to be such a straightforward matter we should have had such a barrage trying to convince us that we are all wrong.
I should like to make one or two remarks. I shall not be able to move Amendment No. 214 for a little while but I hope that the Committee will hold all

1241
these points in mind and not let them escape before the time comes to vote, if that is necessary.
First, the Minister says that this is a problem that does not exist. It does exist. Anybody who knows schools, school governors and the way our small towns operate will know that it is a problem. The Minister says that we have lost our sense of proportion. I do not think that I have lost mine. I think that I am seeing this matter with a singularly clear sense of proportion and seeing what really is at issue.
I speak for the moment for the Church of England and in a sense from my experience as chairman of our Board of Education. There are aspects of this Bill that we have made very clear that we do not like. We have not sought to wreck it; we have not sought to be in total opposition to it. We have sought to work with the Government to see what can be done. We are very grateful for what has been achieved by careful, honest and long negotiation. It is not as though we have taken an ideological stance against anything in the Bill.
I accept, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester says, that there are those in the Church of England who are deeply worried about grant-maintained schools. However, I should like to point out that in such documents that we produced to the Church of England and in our debate in General Synod we did not take a single stand on this matter. We recognise that there is a difference of opinion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that my requirement for this amendment was somehow based upon a dislike of grant-maintained schools. Frankly, I have an open mind on grant-maintained schools. In some cases they may be right and necessary and in other cases they may not be. I do not have a doctrinaire view of this matter. I view the issue which we are discussing today as something quite independent of grant-maintained schools for the reasons that have been set out in the debate.
I could not understand the Minister's argument at one point. He said that people would go out to vote in inclement weather and he then said how much easier it would be in the case of the ballot because they would have a nice paper in their warm home. In that case, why on earth should we not expect a much higher turnout? Why on earth should we not press for a higher vote to be required?
I should like to make three brief points. The first is that there is a fundamental difference here in that, whatever may be said about the process—I entirely accept that—it is an irreversible vote which sets the process in motion. That gives it a significance which none of the other elements in the process has.
Secondly, although I did not mention this earlier, I should like to stress that I have had support for this amendment from an enormously wide range of educationists, teachers, administrators and both parties. This is not a one-party or one-attitude amendment. I believe it expresses a deeply held concern.
The last point I should like to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, misquoted me by saying that I said that the parents did not count. That
1242
is precisely my objection; under the Government's proposals the people who did not vote would not count, and they would be ignored. There is no requirement in the Bill as it stands. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would take into account the percentage of those who had voted against. No mention was made of the percentage who are actually voting and no account is taken of those who, for one reason or another, some of which may be good or bad, do not take part in the vote. I believe that it is essential that the number who can vote should be known and passed to the Secretary of State and that the percentage of those who voted should also he recorded.
I wish of course that I could move this amendment now, but I am not allowed to do so. We have to deal with Amendment No. 202C first, and then perhaps later I may move Amendment No. 214.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Gifford, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amherst, E.

Gloucester, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Grimond, L.

Basnett, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Hankey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bramall, L.

Hayter, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Broadbridge, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jacques, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jay, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kagan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lawrence, L.

David, B.

Leatherland, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Denington, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Edmund-Davies, L.

Longford, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fitt, L.

Milford, L.

Flowers, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Foot, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

1243

Monkswell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monson, L.

Sherfield, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Somers, L.

Mulley, L.

Soper, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Stallard, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Swann, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Reilly, L.

Underhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Walston, L.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

White, B.

Scanlon, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Seear, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winstanley, L.

Serota, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hesketh, L.

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bauer, L.

Ilchester, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Killearn, L.

Beloff, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Benson, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Luke, L.

Birdwood, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolton, L.

Manchester, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Milne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Cathcart, E.

Newall, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pym, L.

Cowley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodney, L.

Dormer, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Southborough, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Haig, E.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

1244

Tweedsmuir, L.

Wolfson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Young, B.

Westbury, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 36, line 43, after ("voluntary") insert ("or special").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 203 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 204 because both endeavour to extend the principle of opting out to types of school not covered in the Bill at present. Perhaps I may emphasise that these are only enabling powers: no school in either category would need ever to consider opting out if it did not wish to do so.
Amendment No. 203 would extend the opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status to special schools. That is desirable because at present the clause as it stands does not permit special schools to opt out of local authority control even should they wish to do so. It seems that there is no good reason in principle why they should be denied that freedom, which is available to schools and parents of children who do not have special needs.
It is perhaps particularly important for some special schools to have the opportunity to opt out because it could be a life saver. In some local education authorities some schools may come under threat of closure at some time in the future. For example, in July 1985 Leeds City Council Education Committee stated in its interim report of a working party on special education:
"It is the working party's view that the authority should adopt a policy for the long term which has as its ultimate aim the closure of all special schools and the full integration of all pupils with special educational needs into mainstream schools".
In September 1985 the Education Committee reaffirmed its commitment to that aim.
In London in 1986 the Fish report, initially accepted by the Inner London Education Authority, had as its central recommendation:
"that the authority adopt a policy which aims to meet all children and young people's special educational needs within nursery, primary and secondary schools and colleges".
Many parents were horrified at the idea of losing their special schools and fought long and hard to encourage ILEA to modify its plans. This to some extent it eventually did but it was not an easy battle. There are about 6,000 children in ILEA special schools and about 12,000 people signed a petition demanding that special schools be saved. Yet last November ILEA was still arguing for implementation of the Fish report recommendations over the long term.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it is widely recognised that ILEA has until now had an excellent, indeed an admirable, record of provision for children with special needs. I am not in any way casting aspersions on the record of ILEA in this field until now. It is the future for which one is trying to plan and prepare.
It is sometimes said that special schools could not manage without the wealth of support services

1245
provided by their local authority such as educational psychologists and therapists of many kinds. However, there is no reason why they should not be able to buy in those services in the same way as other opted-out or grant-maintained schools could do.
It is important to emphasise that the Secretary of State would still retain the right to approve or reject any application for grant-maintained status. He could therefore reject an application from a special school if he thought that it would be in the best interests of the children and of special education to do so.
Therefore I would argue that the Bill should permit special schools the freedom to apply to opt out just like any other maintained school. There is no reason that I can see why schools and parents of children with special needs should be discriminated against, as they are effectively at the moment, in the Bill in this way.
I turn very briefly to Amendment No. 204. Its purpose is to extend to smaller primary schools the opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status. As it now stands the clause does not permit primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils to apply for grant-maintained status. This means that most primary schools—in fact, around 70 per cent. of the total—will be unable to opt out of local authority control and become grant-maintained schools even should they wish to do so. The effect of the amendment would be to remove that restriction in subsection (6) from the Bill.
I suggest there are five lines of argument which support the amendment. First, many small schools, especially village schools, which may be under threat of closure, but also some small urban schools, would welcome the opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status and thus retain the freedom to control their own future. Secondly, small schools are simpler to run than large schools and are therefore intrinsically more suited perhaps to taking on the responsibilities associated with grant-maintained status. Thirdly, recent research by the National Foundation for Education Research has shown that small schools, and small primary schools in particular, are educationally very effective. There is therefore no reason why they should be deemed inappropriate to develop as grant-maintained schools when they think that this would better serve their educational interests. Fourthly, experience abroad, especially in the Netherlands, has shown that large numbers of grant-maintained, small primary schools are both feasible and popular. Schools operating in that way have been in existence there for decades. Finally, 300 seems an arbitrary number. There will therefore be many borderline cases and schools could move in and out of the eligibility criterion as rolls fluctuate from year to year.
My final point is that in this case too the Secretary of State will retain the power to reject any particular application that he considers inappropriate. In summary, I see no good reason why the freedom to apply for grant-maintained status should be denied to smaller primary schools and many good reasons why they should be given that freedom. I conclude by reminding the Committee that for some special
1246
schools and primary schools this may be a lifeline without which they could not survive. I beg to move.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I rise to support this amendment. First, however, I must apologise to the Committee because I shall not be able to stay very long. I am supposed to be in Cambridge in about 55 minutes, so I shall have to hurry.
Perhaps I may say right at the beginning that I make no claim to be an expert in this matter. However, I confess my interest in it because I have a grandchild who is a Down's Syndrome child. I therefore know something about how parents feel in such circumstances. My grand-daughter has had very happy experiences in special schools. She started in the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee School, which was an ILEA maintained school, and is now at the Rudolf Steiner/Camphill School near Ringwood. From her experiences I appreciate the value of such special schools.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, the 1981 Education Act changed the atmosphere in regard to special schools. The noble Baroness also told us the views of the Leeds local authority. Everyone agrees that handicapped children have to be integrated into schools and that the schools must be able to look after them in a way which will not interfere with the pupils already there. That is all very sensible and reasonable. I believe however that there is a danger of mixing up the thoroughly proper sentiment that handicapped children should have equal—by which I mean "just as good"—opportunities with the belief that the opportunities must be the same.
I do not question the motives of those who wish to phase out all special schools and meet the needs of handicapped children through ordinary schools. I know that such an aim would be extremely welcome to many parents, but I also know that many other parents would view it as extremely unwelcome. What is of most importance is that the needs of the individual child should be met as far as possible—and those needs can be endlessly varied—and that the maximum choice for parents should be available without recourse to too much sociological theory. Above all one must regard the handicapped child—indeed, any child—with the eye of compassion and especially realism. Special schools and particularly the good ones must be supported and maintained. They should have the freedom of any other maintained school to be released from local authority control if there are good reasons for it. I support the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: Parents of handicapped children must learn to be mature against fearful odds. They need to feel like other parents. If their rights are different from those of other parents then they are diminished. I support this amendment because it brings the parents of children who have special educational needs into line with the parents of other children.
Lord Thurlow: I should like to support very strongly Amendment No. 204 in favour of enabling small schools to opt out. I believe many Members of the Committee will share my dismay at the number of small schools that have been closed down for what

1247
were believed to be very good administrative reasons. In the 10 years up to 1986 that happened to 700 such small schools, a terribly large number. The Prime Minister has associated herself publicly with the educational value of small schools and at some stage most people have come into contact with excellent ones. This amendment would give local communities the opportunity to co-operate and take steps to enable serious consideration to be given to providing a status that would enable small schools under threat of closure to continue to be maintained.
The long stop of the Secretary of State's final word remains. If it is approved this amendment will not in any way prevent final and very careful consideration being given in instances where the administrative factors are too strong against continuation of maintained status. As the noble Baroness said, 300 pupils strikes some of us as being a very arbitrary line to draw between a school that deserves maintained status and one that does not. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to support the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 204.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, gave credit to the Prime Minister for having established the value of small schools. I should like to remind the Committee that it was when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the early 1970s that she introduced into Parliament a statute which required that the education of mentally handicapped children and of others with special needs should be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and not of the Department of Health and Social Security, which it had previously been. She has a good record in this field, and I know this from personal experience.
I too should like to support Amendment No. 203. Amendment No. 204 raises a somewhat separate issue, and I should like to deal with Amendment No. 203 first. Before I do so let me just touch again on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, when he referred to the way in which special schools vary in their quality, in the way in which they have been treated and in their attitude towards integration. There has been a great deal of confused thinking about integration. There are some special schools which would have done much better if the idea of integration had not been toyed with but instead they had got on with their job of providing the special education that the mentally handicapped need in such schools.
We all know that those schools vary tremendously. In ILEA there are some splendid ones and some not so good. There is the same pattern all over the country. But Amendment No. 203 moved by my noble friend Lady Cox is based upon an important principle. It is a broad and well-established principle, it is a fair one and it is one that the Government have accepted from the 1980 Act onward. It is that parents of children in special schools should, wherever relevant, have the same rights as parents of children in other schools. I do not see why that principle should be challenged, as it has been in this Bill.
I wish I could say that it seems to have been challenged inadvertently, but from the moment that
1248
the Bill was published the Government, for the first time in all these important years of legislation on mental handicap and special needs, have made it clear that they are not accepting the principle so far as this Bill is concerned. I am entitled to ask—and I ask my noble friend—the specific question, why have the Government changed their mind? What fair and logical reasons do they put before the Committee for treating special schools differently in this context?
Apart from that principle of course there are other reasons which have been well deployed (and which I need not repeat) for ensuring that there should be the opportunity for those special schools which are not giving a satisfactory performance or are not well-enough supported by the local education authority to be opted out, subject to all the rather stringent safeguards in this Bill, made more stringent as a result of the last Division.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I too should like to support Amendment No. 203, and not for the reason of opting in or out but for another reason. Some time ago in your Lordships' House an amendment was passed to stop disabled people being allowed to buy their council houses. I cannot tell the Committee the unhappiness, the sadness, and the struggles that some of these disabled people have had. Even today I have received another letter from Bristol, which is one of many, and I have also received many telephone calls saying that these people have been put in a separate category and they are being discriminated against.
If any Members of the Committee wanted to buy their council house and they were not allowed to, would they not feel unfairly discriminated against just because they had a disablement? These people have families, and they want to leave something as security for their families. This is a similar argument. If you put these handicapped people and their parents in a separate category just because they are disabled, they are being segregated and are being discriminated against. That is the reason why I should like to support Amendment No. 203.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: For a period of nine years I was chairman of special schools in Birmingham, and therefore I have quite a large knowledge of special schools. I do not know any other part of the country, but I would have said that the special schools in Birmingham were providing an excellent service for children who would not get that kind of education if it was not provided by the local authority. Therefore it worries me that we have an amendment such as this. There might be some children who will be debarred from education because they will not be able to afford it when it is a school that has opted out. That is of great concern to me.
If we look at special schools, it is an expensive provision that has to be provided for these children. For the deaf and the partially deaf the classrooms are entirely different. They have the LINK system for listening. They have the two-way system, so that not only can the teacher speak to the child but the child can speak to another person in the classroom. There are all kinds of facilities for the deaf and partially deaf inside schools, and it is the same for the blind

1249
and partially sighted. Extremely expensive equipment has to be brought in.
Not only that but fully trained staff have to be provided, and fully trained staff are thin on the ground at the present moment. I would agree with the noble Lord that the integration that is supposed to have taken place since 1981 has muddled the provision inside special schools. But if we look at them, they have to be at strategic places and therefore one has to think of transport. When you think of special schools—and I know the situation in Birmingham—there are taxis going round picking up the children. It is an expensive form of transporting pupils but they have to get to school. If they are chairbound, if they cannot see, they have to be escorted. If they are not travelling in taxis they are being escorted by guides on public transport.
When we look at special schools we are also looking at the physiotherapists and the speech therapists. Do we not all know, because questions are raised frequently in this House, that there are not enough speech therapists? There are not enough speech therapists being trained. There are not enough physiotherapists. Unless you can employ physiotherapists privately that service has to be provided by the National Health Service on a pro rata basis as to how many hours you can have the nurses and therapists there.
Also in many of these schools there are hydrotherapy pools that have been bought by parents of children who have been going to these schools. To listen this afternoon one would think that all these schools are very small. I know schools in Birmingham where there will be 90 to 120 pupils.
Baroness Cox: I wonder whether the noble Baroness is confusing the amendments? One relates to special schools. It was a separate amendment that related to small schools, so I think there is a slight confusion there.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I apologise. I am concentrating on special schools.
I am concerned that the provisions should be available for all the children who need them. It is important that handicapped children recognise handicaps in other children so that they do not feel isolated because they have one particular form of disablement. This is psychologically good for pupils. I observe that the noble Baronesss, Lady Cox, is shaking her head. For eight years I was the chairman of Baskerville School—
Baroness Cox: I do not wish the noble Baroness to mis-understand why I am shaking my head. I fully agree with her about the special needs of children. I am shaking my head because I do not think that this relates to the question of whether a school may wish to apply to opt out into grant maintained status.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With respect to the noble Baroness, I shall say what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says: I shall come to the point in a moment.
1250
The parents of these children are perhaps not as vocal as some others. This is almost the same argument as that used in the previous debate. Some parents are more vocal than others. Certain handicaps that I know have special groups which feel that they ought to have separate and special schools. This discussion has always gone on. It goes on with educationists as to whether brain-damaged children should in some way be put into certain boxes or categories. If that is done, they will be split off from the benefits of the majority of children, and their opportunities will be lessened. For that reason, I shall not support the noble Baroness. The amendment is shortsighted. Only very vocal people who want to get somewhere very special will benefit.
I close by giving an example to the Committee of how people can use the system. When I was chairman of special schools in Birmingham—we prided ourselves on the type of schools we provided—the schools medical office brought before the committee two special cases to be considered. The parents had come to live in the city of Birmingham and so were moving from another local authority. The local authority and the special schools committee had to consider the special schools provision. At this itime children were classified as delicate. Perhaps I may tell the Committee—I do not exaggerate—that one of the pupils under consideration had been paid for by a local authority to go to Eton, and it wanted to pass the bill to us. The pupil was classified as delicate.
The second case was of a boy placed at Gordonstoun by a local authority in this country being passed up to Birmingham. He too was a delicate boy. I told the committee that I did not think that those schools had provision for delicate pupils. It was decided that I, the chief education officer and the school medical officer should make a visit to find out what facilities existed at Eton and Gordonstoun for delicate pupils. In both cases the school said that they had no facilities at all. The fact is that some local education authority had paid for them. Birmingham decided in the circumstances that there were no special facilities and at the end of the term we did not pay for them to continue at the schools.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: One has some sympathy about special schools and what people may feel about them. I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. I should like to know what safeguards there will be for children in special schools if they opt out. There are at present tremendous support services from the local authorities, which would presumably have to be bought if the school opted out. A great many non-maintained special schools and independent schools deal with children who have special needs. The local authorities often pay the fees of such schools; but, when they do, I understand that the Department of Education and Science has to agree to it. There is therefore a safeguard that the children are being sent to schools where there is proper care and attention and the facilities that they need. What would be the safeguards if a special school opted out? This might be done without the parents and governing body having a great deal of knowledge, although one hopes that that would not be so.

1251
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 204 concerning primary schools. I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Mrs. Rumbold said in Committee in another place:
"If a school had financial delegation and fewer than 300 pupils and if on its application to the Secretary of State he deemed the school to be satisfactory and able to operate the system, then the Secretary of State would use his power in Clause 41(7) to allow that school to opt out".
I therefore wonder whether the amendment is necessary.
Baroness Hooper: The Government considered carefully the option of allowing special schools maintained by local educational authorities to be eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. However, we concluded that such a step would be inappropriate for several reasons. First, the prime objective of our proposals for grant-maintained schools is to increase the scope for parental choice, yet it often happens that the special school is the only one of its particular character for a very large area. I have to say to the noble Baroness that in this case I do not believe that greater parental choice would be the likely outcome.
Secondly, under the 1981 Act, local education authorities are charged with the responsibilities for making statements of special educational needs and for determining the school which a statemented child should attend. This is a very special reason why it would not be compatible with those responsibilities if the special school for the area in which the child lived was not under the control of the local education authority. It is possible that in these circumstances the local education authority might find it extremely difficult to place the child in a suitable school.
Thirdly, most maintained special schools could have considerable difficulty in taking on the responsibilities which grant-maintained status will bring. Many are very small; none currently exceed the 300 pupil level at which we have set eligibility for smaller primary schools, to which I shall turn in a moment. Only 13 maintained special schools have more than 200 pupils. It would not make sense for a tiny special school to be eligible for grant-maintained status while the rather larger primary school next door was not.
Fourthly, special schools vary widely in character depending on type of pupils admitted to them. This means that unit costs of these schools vary widely too. It would be difficult to calculate a budget for a special school that could be said genuinely to represent what the local authority would have spent on it. In practice, the DES would probably have to calculate individual budgets for each school concerned directly. The funding principle would be very different from that applied to primary or secondary schools.
Finally, the amendment as drafted would enable non-maintained special schools, as well as those maintained by local education authorities to apply for grant-maintained status. These are schools catering for special needs pupils, normally administered by major charities or by charitable trusts which have to conform to the same standards as LEA-maintained special schools. They receive
1252
their income from the fees which they charge for pupils placed at them. The Government do not think it is right that such schools, which lie outside the LEA-maintained system, should be able to become grant-maintained and thus receive grant from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government do not believe that it is best for special schools to opt out. If legislation were to be drafted to permit them to opt out, it would be necessary to ensure that they could obtain access to the appropriate services and pay for them. That would affect the budget point to which I referred before.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that the Government have thought carefully about the issue but that they have a number of reasons for remaining unconvinced that the course of action she recommends would be either appropriate or practicable. I trust that in the light of that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 204 would make the smaller primary schools immediately eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I suggest that in the amendment she is perhaps tempting the Government to run before they can walk. Let me make it absolutely clear that in time we fully intend to make available to every maintained school the option of seeking grant-maintained status if the parents so wish. But we believe it is only prudent to say that for some schools that time is not yet ripe.
Perhaps I should explain to the Committee the two reasons why we have initially restricted eligibility for grant-maintained status in the case of primary schools to those schools that have more than 300 pupils. First, managing a grant-maintained school will be a significant responsibility. There will be a need both for a sufficiently large pool of parents from which to draw the parent governors and, more generally, for sufficient parents who are committed to the grant-maintained concept to provide moral support. There will be significantly greater managerial responsibilities for the head teacher who, in some smaller schools, may have a teaching load as well. Some small primary schools may need to make a more gentle transition to autonomy than their larger neighbours.
Secondly, I must point out that there are nearly 18,000 primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils. That represents nearly three-quarters of all the schools in the country. At this stage we have no way of knowing how many schools might seek to take advantage of opting out of local authority control as soon as the Bill before us becomes law. We have therefore concluded that we must provide for some phasing of applications to ensure that each is carefully assessed. The most sensible approach is to start with the largest schools and phase in eligibility gradually as the concept of grant-maintained status becomes more familiar. Subsection (7) duly gives the Secretary of State the power to remove the 300-pupil restriction either gradually or at a stroke. In time, therefore, I expect the benefits which grant-maintained status can offer a school and its pupils to become a prospect for all.

1253
I hope that, in the light of these assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion and who have offered their support and clarified certain issues. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for clarifying the Government's thinking, although I am not totally reassured or convinced by the arguments concerning special schools. I still believe that the amendment—perhaps not drafted perfectly at the moment, but something along those lines—would have been more just and more humane to parents and children with special educational needs. However, I recognise that the problems are immensely complex. I shall therefore consider extremely carefully all that has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 37, line 20, at end insert—
("(9) A voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status for the purpose of this Chapter if notice of the governors' intention to discontinue the school has been served under section 14 of the 1944 Act and has not been withdrawn.").
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (8) of this clause provides that a county or voluntary school is ineligible to apply for grant-maintained status where proposals have been published by the local education authority under Section 12(1)(c) of the Education Act 1980 and approved by the Secretary of State or, where approval is not required, the local education authority has determined to implement them and notified the Secretary of State of its decision.
The amendment addresses similarly the alternative, and fairly uncommon, method of closing a voluntary school under Section 14 of the 1944 Act. This empowers the governors of such a school to give notice of their intention to discontinue the school on a given date at least two years ahead. Such notices are not always subject to the approval of the Secretary of State or the local education authority, although they may not be withdrawn without the local education authority's permission. The school therefore becomes ineligible to apply for grant-maintained status once the governors have served notice of their closure and remains ineligible unless notice is withdrawn. It is therefore in the interests of consistency that we propose the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: We wish to oppose Clause 42. This is the only opportunity to say that we do not like the principle of opting out. In spite of the recent vote where the ballot has certainly been made fairer than it was, it still seems to me all too easy for a school to apply to opt out. The parents of children coming into the school will have no say as the Bill stands at the moment. The parents of children who are just about
1254
to leave the school will have a say. A very few parents—20 per cent., unless we amend the Bill later—can trigger off the whole system, even if the governing body has decided not to do so. There is much that is unfair about the system still.
But the educational effects on the school and the surrounding area are the issues which perhaps worry us most. The school will become isolated. I worry about the local authority services it will lose: the inspection, the welfare services, and the careers services. The school might be able to buy them in, but it is surely very much easier to have services that are spread over the area by the local authority.
We are also concerned about the staff. It appears there is no consultation with the staff. They are moved from LEA status to grant-maintained status without having any opportunity to object. At Second Reading I said they were moved like luggage. That is how it appears to me. What will happen to contacts with other teachers in the area? What will happen to in-service training? I believe that opting out for grant-maintained schools poses all these problems.
If local financial managment is going well and has been delegated to the schools, surely the schools would have almost as much as they would have from grant-maintained status now and they would still have the benefit of those local authority services that I have mentioned. Whatever anybody may say, there is a danger that these schools could become selective. I know that they are not supposed to change their status for five years. But they can then, without the Secretary of State having to give his permission.
As for planning by local authorities, I see intense difficulties in reorganising the schools and trying to take out surplus places. It could be just when an authority is trying to reorganise its schools and make a sensible plan that a school that is perhaps to have its status changed—maybe its sixth form is to be taken away to enable a tertiary college or a sixth form college to be made— would choose to opt out so that it could keep itself as it is. That would make the planning for the whole area very difficult.
The Audit Commission, the Government's own creation, has very great reservations on this matter. It believes that the general effect will be bad, both in regard to expense, through not being able to take out the surplus places, and achieving a sensible reorganisation. The Bill will have a bad effect on local authority officers. We have some very good local authority education officers. I hope that that will be recognised. We sometimes hear about bad local authorities, but the great majority are very good. Education officers are dedicated people who also do a very good job. If they lose a number of responsibilities and their planning job is made infinitely harder in this way, I believe that fewer good people will apply for that kind of work. That will be very sad for the education service as a whole, and I fear that in the end education might deteriorate in the schools. For those reasons I wish to oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Government are committed to raising educational standards and enhancing parental choice. Grant-maintained schools offer a

1255
practical route towards those objectives. It is heartening to note that a considerable part of our discussion today has been about the way in which we may further extend the principals of grant-maintained status. The opportunity to apply for grant-maintained status will increase the diversity of the educational provision available within the maintained sector. That will stimulate healthy competition, which in turn will lead to higher standards in all our schools.
The clause and the whole of Chapter IV of the Bill represents a radical and detailed response to those parents who over the years have complained to Ministers in the department that something as important to them as their child's education is presented on a basis of "take it or leave it; like it or lump it". They are deadening slogans. We all know that where choice is limited or non-existent there is likely to be precious little stimulus to develop, change and improve. Complacency and inertia can have no place in a successful education system. We want schools to stretch each child to the utmost of its abilities and to equip pupils to achieve personal success and to contribute something to the community of which they are part.
We believe that in prospect and reality grant-maintained schools will be a spur to local education authorities and existing schools to take greater account of what the public needs and expects from their education system. The end of monopoly will be the beginning of opportunity.
As regards timing, interested groups and local education authorities, I should like to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the timing and procedures for the opting out process are such that there will be ample opportunity for all the groups and bodies to make their views clearly known in relation to a particular school.
The prime duty which the 1944 Education Act lays on my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales is:
"to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose…".
It is in that spirit of progressive development of a varied education system that our policy for grant-maintained schools has been conceived. I commend to the Committee Clause 42 of the Bill and the general principles it establishes.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The noble Baroness has not explained why the introduction of grant-maintained schools should make it possible to improve educational standards. My noble friend Lady David pointed out that such schools must go without a number of the services they now receive from the local authority or must buy them in from elsewhere. That would be a more expensive process for them and it would increase the cost of the educational provision over the country as a whole.
In what way is a school likely to be better because it is grant-maintained rather than run by the local authority? There are several possible answers to that question. The Prime Minister produced an answer when the subject was being informally discussed. She
1256
said brightly that possibly some of the schools could charge fees. As I ventured to say earlier, that cat was hurried back into the bag as soon as was decently possible and we are now assured that that will not happen. However, it is interesting to note the thinking behind the idea. Of course one can make the school better, or give it a good chance of being better, if one can put money into it.
I regret to say that in recent times a number of schools have become more dependent on gifts from parents. They have been made not merely to add special amenities and dignities to the school but to provide for necessary items which should have been provided by the local authority. A school may then be better because its provisons are being properly met with the aid of gifts from parents who are wealthy enough to be able to give them. I suppose that one can understand the feelings of a parent who believes that he lives in a local authority which, either because of its own behaviour or because of the way in which it is treated by the Government, is not able to provide as good a service for his children as he would like and he wishes to supplement that with his own money. The grant-maintained system will make that possible. I do not believe there is much doubt about the fact that one of the reasons why it was devised was in order that that could happen.
In the grant-maintained system one will find a group of people who wish to make their school rather special and better endowed than the rest. If they can obtain grant-maintained status, and if their school is in a more prosperous part of that area covered by the local authority, they can make it a better school, in a sense, by adding gifts from the parents to the money normally available to run the school from public funds. They will then have no difficulty in filling the roll. There will be competition to be admitted to such a school. They will then be able to deal with the situation because when deciding which children to admit to the school, they will ensure that those children whose parents are in a position to subsidise the school have a better chance of being accepted. The word would get round throughout the local authority that it is the better-off school, one where they run school journeys better than anywhere else. However, in that respect one must be the kind of parent able to pay a little more than most.
Such an incident can happen all too easily and there is no safeguard in the Bill to prevent it. I believe that it is significant to note that from the start the Government have wanted schools to opt out. Basically, they dislike local authorities. They want schools to opt out partly because of their dislike and partly because it gives schools in the better-off part of the authority's area an advantage from the start. We shall have greater divisions of schools than before. At the moment there are the wealthy public schools. Then there are the schools run by local authorities. Now we shall have what in some cases will be an intermediate grade; the grant-maintained school where, on the whole, the parents are better off than average and where additional educational benefits can be provided.
We must ask ourselves whether we want that. I believe that there are some elements in the Government who want that and see such a division as

1257
being desirable to promote. That was brought to my attention during the short time that I held the office of Secretary of State for Education, and earlier during my office as Shadow Minister for Education.
I was especially concerned with the argument about comprehensive schools. The significance of that argument was that a large number of people were not tremendously interested in whether a grammar school was intellectually superior or more academic in the kind of education it provided. They wanted to know whether it was a better school socially. One saw that from the kind of letters one received. I remember receiving a letter from an indignant parent who had read a report of a speech that I had made about comprehensive schools. That parent asked whether I realised that people want grammar schools because they want their children to go to a school where they will meet other decent children and not ragamuffins.
On one occasion I received what I regard as the most unpleasant kind of letter that one can receive: a letter not only from a child but obviously, if not exactly dictated, then heavily inspired by an adult. The school was to be transformed from a grammar school into a comprehensive school by the local authority. The girl wrote to say, "We do not want rough girls coming to our school". One might sympathise with her; I do not know. I am not sure whether a school full of smooth girls is necessarily better than one full of rough ones. However, it was significant that that was how that child had been encouraged to think about what was a good school. That is the danger which the Government are creating by making it all too easy for the existence of that kind of school, a school whose real difference from other schools is social and economic in the sense of the size of the parents' pockets. I cannot believe that that is a good thing although I believe some people want classes segregated and divided in that manner.
I remember another quotation. Someone was writing to a local newspaper to justify the maintenance of the tripartite system as against comprehensive schools. He said that parents do not like comprehensive schools because it means that they might find their child sitting next to a social outcast. That is a significant phrase. Noble Lords may say, "People are much wiser and more sensible than that". I wish that were true. I do not want to see the opportunity for snobbery and class division to be let loose again in the way in which this grant-maintained business does in this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: The proposals embodied in Clause 42 are at the very heart of the Bill. I believe that they are sound and desirable both in principle and practice; first and foremost because the opportunity to apply for opted-out status will increase greater public accountability both formally to the Secretary of State and, since grant-maintained schools will need to attract pupils, informally to parents. Accountability is the hallmark of professionalism. It is therefore heartening to hear the incoming president of the Secondary Heads Association say, at his association's Easter conference, that many of his
1258
members were seriously considering the advantages of opting out.
So much in general terms for the principle of accountability. But the question has been quite validly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, as to whether such schools will work in practice. Here we are fortunate in that we can look across the North Sea and learn from a system which has already been operational for many years in the Netherlands. Ever since 1917 it has had a school system which encourages what is, in effect, a system of grant-maintained schools. It is so successful that around two-thirds of schools are now opted-out and are grant-maintained schools, and only one-third are run by local authorities.
I suggest that that experience also gives a lie to the claim also heard in Committee on Tuesday, in the debate about open enrolment, that government policies will make it impossible for local educational authorities to plan. In the Netherlands each school has to inform the local authority of its plans for the next few years and the authority can take account of those proposals in making its own plans. Therefore, far from being unworkable, this system of opting out has proved extremely successful for many decades in another country not far from here.
There are many fundamental advantages in the Government's proposals for opted-out status. First, and perhaps most fundamental, they can provide a lifeline for many schools which are threatened in some way by the policies of their local education authority. It is important to remind members of the Committee that proposals to opt out are entirely optional. Where a school is happy and the local education authority is doing a good job in satisfying schools, teachers and parents, then no one will have any incentive to opt out and the question need not arise for consideration. The situation really matters where parents and teachers in schools are unhappy with their local education authority.
Examples of those situations include successful schools threatened by closure or reorganisation; schools where thriving sixth forms are being threatened. Many teachers, parents and pupils believe passionately that the educational opportunities and experience provided by a good sixth form benefits not only the sixth form but the whole school. Many teachers and parents are passionately opposed to policies of sixth form closures. Another category of school which may stand to benefit from the opting-out provisions is village schools, particularly if, as I hope will be the case when a subsequent amendment is discussed, the limit of 300 pupils might be removed. A fourth category of schools which may wish to seriously consider the freedom provided by the opportunities of opted-out status are those threatened by the politicisation of the curriculum or the imposition of policies offensive to parents and, indeed, to many teachers. Examples have been discussed many times in the Committee and I shall not rehearse them now. Therefore, there are some fundamental and practical reasons for opting out being extremely necessary in the interests of parents, teachers and pupils in a number of local authorities in this country.
However, perhaps a more important general point is this. I do not believe that one wishes to play the

1259
numbers game. I do not believe that it matters very much either in the short or long term whether five, 50, 500 or 5,000 schools decide to opt out. What matters is that the possibility of opting out exists, together with the effect that that will have on the accountability of local authorities to the parents, teachers and pupils for whom they are responsible. Therefore, even if very few or no schools opt out, the existence of the possibility will encourage local education authorities to adopt policies in matters both large and small which are more in line with the wishes of parents and the public.
The possibility of opting out, even although perhaps no more at the moment than a small cloud the size of a man's hand on the horizon—a slightly smaller hand than it was at the beginning of this afternoon—is already having an effect on some of the more politically meddlesome local education authorities, even before the Bill is enacted. In several local education authorities it has been reported that school reorganisation plans which had been met with great resistance because they were intensely unpopular among many parents have been recast to take better account of local wishes.
To noble Lords opposite, who sometimes speak as though those of us on this side of the Committee do not have much idea of what is going on in comprehensive schools, I say that all my children attended comprehensive schools in what I may call "the people's republic of Brent". In Brent, which is where I live, it is an open secret that the school reorganisation plan about to be announced has been heavily influenced in a direction which is much more sensitive to local wishes of schools, teachers and parents than that which had been on the cards before the opting-out provisions were under discussion.
For example, a proposal to leave schools with successful sixth forms untouched is being retained instead of closing those sixth forms, which had been very much on the cards. Similarly, the proposal of a Christian voluntary aided school on the site of one of the least popular and most politicised schools in the borough is now up for consideration, and one doubts that that would have happened if this reorganisation in terms of the possibility of opting out had not been present.
As the noble Baroness has argued, despite these advantages, opting out might have a negative effect on other maintained schools. The argument was that it might be all right for the schools that opt out, but what about those left behind? That may well have been said by another noble Lord on the Benches opposite. The argument is that that it is a non-sequitur. The fact that some schools may have exercised the opportunity to opt out does not mean that other schools will suffer. The question of competition will make schools more accountable and sensitive to parental wishes. It is a very sad fact that at the moment there are many—and I do not like the phrase—sink schools already in the area of some of our local education authorities. They will not suddenly appear. My hope is, and experience suggests, that the opportunity to opt out will encourage schools to be more responsive and to provide a better education service.
1260
As Peter Mortimore's research study Schools Matter shows, it is not just a question of social deprivation. There are many very good schools in areas of social deprivation. Therefore, the crux of this particular part of the Bill—and I believe it is one of enormous democratic importance—is that it is a basic freedom in a free society that people should have a right of exit from situations in which they are desperately unhappy. Many parents are desperately unhappy because they are trapped in local education authorities from which they have no escape. They cannot buy their way out and many of them—the maximum possible—have already moved out-borough.
In the borough of Brent nearly one-third of parents now send their children out-borough. The rest are left behind. They cannot afford to move house or to go to independent schools. Opting out gives those parents who are most vulnerable in our society some small measure of freedom for greater determination of their own education provision. I hope passionately that this clause will stand part of the Bill and that the resistance to it will not be effective, because that would be a sad day for many parents and pupils in the poorest parts of our land.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to say briefly why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is completely wrong on this matter and why I believe that the powerful and moving speech we heard a few moments ago from the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has the elements of the right way forward for the education system of this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke of the way in which many parents are dissatisfied with the present education system. Few of us would deny that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. After all, the education system is under-funded; there are many grave difficulties facing local authorities and it is very hard indeed to improve the standards of some of our schools. It is not surprising that large numbers of parents, if they have the money, wish to educate their children at independent schools.
I believe that a distorted picture has been given in the past few moments of the problems that face LEA's in our country. The impression has been given that the real problems come from those who are politically motivated, twisting the whole system and stopping parents from doing what they really wish to do. No indication has been given that very often the LEA's are faced with the problems of how to distribute resources and raise standards in schools affected by many very grave environmental problems.
It is argued that one can take into account schools which have comparable problems of the environment—vandalism and similar problems—and that some will come out better than others. I do not deny that, but the opting-out proposals and the attempt to encourage a certain number of schools to have grant-maintained status is in grave danger of damaging the education system as a whole. This is an act of vandalism which could have most damaging effects in the years ahead. I deeply and sincerely regret that these proposals have come before us at the present time. After all, what is the job of an LEA

1261
really meant to be? It is meant to look at the overall local education system, to distribute resources as fairly as possible and also to help improve the quality of all its schools. The problem with the proposals now before us is that they will undoubtedly assist some schools but they will not do anything for many others.
We have heard the Minister say that competition will improve the standards of schools all round, but no arguments have been adduced for this point of view or how it will happen unless more resources are provided. I believe that many of us, particularly in the Churches, are deeply concerned about some of the more deprived areas of our society and the effect on schools there. I was very moved when I read a report about a year ago when these proposals were first notified. A headmaster of a comprehensive school said that he was reasonably certain that his school would opt for the grant-maintained status because it would be to the benefit of the school for some of the reasons mentioned in the past few moments. He believed such a move would be utterly and completely morally wrong in the light of the education system as a whole, but in the interests of the school, and of himself, that is what will be done.
There are many people of a similar mind throughout the country who will press for grant-maintained status but who will also see that this can gravely damage the education system as a whole. For those reasons I believe that the great volume of criticism of these proposals which has come from informed education circles—not least from the Churches—has a real rationale behind it; namely, a concern for some of the poorest and most deprived areas in our society and the effect that this clause will have upon them.
Baroness Blackstone: Speaking as a rough girl, and that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I believe that the Minister's reply was nothing much more than a string of rather banal generalisations without any evidence or support for them.
Before I pick up one or two points that she made I refer to some of the matters which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox mentioned. It really is not good enough to make the statement that all over the country parents are desperately unhappy about the schooling of their children. It is not fair to the thousands of teachers who are doing a very good job in our education system. Her remarks give a totally distorted impression of what is going on.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way because she is actually distorting what I said. I never said "all over the country". I emphasised that there are many areas where there is political meddling and I gave categories of schools where such opting out would be most appropriate. I never said that this was occurring all over the country. I should like the record to be put straight.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness may not have used the words "all over the country" but she implied that parents are desperately unhappy. I dispute that. Those were the words used by the noble
1262
Baroness and they are not consistent with the evidence. Many surveys have been carried out which have attempted to establish what parental attitudes are to schooling. The vast majority of parents are relatively satisfied with what they get.
However, that does not mean to say that the system is perfect because it is by no means perfect and there is a great deal to be done. I do not believe that the Government's proposals for grant-maintained schools will achieve very much for such problem schools, because the real issue is the quality and nature of the teaching that takes place in such schools and not whether they happen to be run by the local education authority in terms of financing and overall administration or whether they are run by the DES. I believe that to be a fundamental problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke about giving parents the right of exit. Let us suppose that some schools opt out and there are parents who achieve that exit. What about the rest? Many of the pupils will be in schools which are less good than the schools that opt out. One cannot assume that the schools which opt out are necessarily the poor schools or what the noble Baroness rather pejoratively called "the sink schools". On the contrary, they may be some of the best schools that are run by the local education authorities but, for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham gave, parents of children in those schools want to leave the state-maintained local authority system.
What the noble Baroness Lady Cox said was riddled with illogical comments and points. The noble Baroness referred to a deterrent in regard to the local authorities. That is a terribly simpliste and an ill thought-out term to use. Local authorities do not react in that way. It is a far more complex system. If things are going wrong in some places—the noble Baroness referred frequently to the borough of Brent—I doubt very much whether the existence of grant-maintained schools will suddenly reform the ill-motivated and malicious people who are behaving so badly in such places. The motives of such people are more complex than that. This clause will not solve the problems.
I return to what the Minister said. On a number of occasions she said that the purpose of these provisions is to increase parental choice. I cannot accept that the existence of the opportunity to opt out will increase parental choice for the majority of parents. In fact, for many parents it will reduce their choice. As my noble friend Lady David said earlier, there is every likelihood that these schools will become selective. There will be pressures on them to raise their test scores and reduce their costs. As a result, outside the framework which local authorities have set for common schooling at the secondary stage, head teachers will feel under great pressure to pick out children who are most likely to do extremely well and who are well-disciplined and easily manipulated, and exclude those pupils who are likely to be disruptive and difficult and who have unsupportive parents. The schools will be choosing the parents rather than the parents choosing the schools.
The Minister spoke about greater diversity of provision. There is a fundamental inconsistency in

1263
what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. They are trying to reduce diversity by having a national curriculum right across the board. At the same time they claim that they are creating greater diversity by this structural means. That is inconsistent. The noble Baroness suggested that ending the monopoly will increase opportunity for children. Opportunity for whom? This appears to be terribly simpliste. As the right reverend Prelate has already said, many young people will have their opportunities reduced, because special status will attach to grant-maintained schools, giving them a cachet which can only depress the expectations and support of other institutions. Many of the questions put by my noble friend Lady David about the administrative and financial problems and the inefficiency of two parallel systems were not answered by the Minister.
In conclusion, I should like to reinforce a point made by my noble friend. Why do we have to go through all this? We are creating uncertainty about the future and conflict between parents, between teachers and among governors on the whole question whether it will be desirable to opt out. Is it once again to deal with the problems of Brent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, suggested? Are we really to have legislation by anecdote?
I am becoming a little fed up with the anecdotes about Brent. The local education authority system is very varied and many local authorities provide excellent schools. They do not interfere with their head teachers or their governors but let them get on with what is properly their role. Do we really need this sledgehammer? Head teachers are strongly opposed to it. There is no evidence that parents want it. It will be divisive and disruptive. I oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: I have already spoken once and so I shall be very brief. Some parents will be satisfied by the greater vitality and responsiveness that will result from our reforms of local authority schools. However, if some governors and parents want to go further and take complete responsibility for running their own schools, we believe that they should be free to do so. True choice should not simply be the privilege of the rich who can afford to pay fees. Parents should not have to accept second best within a local authority monopoly of free education. If parents are perfectly happy with the service offered by their local authority, they will see no need to assume the burden themselves. The existence of an alternative should itself help to raise standards in all authorities and schools.
Local government will have to decide how to respond to the expressed wishes of the community it serves. That is what democracy is all about. On this side of the Committee we believe in competition. We believe that this option will help to improve standards to the benefit of the children of this country. That is what the Bill is all about.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 42, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Annan, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bauer, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

London, Bp.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Monson, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Pennock, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pym, L.

Colwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Reigate, L.

Cox, B.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renwick, L.

Croft, L.

Rodney, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saint Levan, L.

Deedes, L.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Seebohm, L.

Dormer, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Somers, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Southborough, L.

Erroll, E.

Sudeley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Suffield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrier, L.

Swinton, E.

Fortescue, E.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gainford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Greenway, L.

Thurlow, L.

Haig, E.

Trafford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hankey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Vestey, L.

Harvington, L.

Weir, V.

Havers, L.

Wise, L.

Henley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Basnett, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Birk, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

1265

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Denington, B.

McCarthy, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milford, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mishcon, L.

Falkender, B.

Monkswell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gifford, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Peston, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hirshfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Stallard, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
6.13 p.m.
Clause 43 [Constitution of the governing body of a grant-maintained school]:
Lord Somers Lord Somers moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 37, line 32, leave out ("five") and insert ("not more than three").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, and with the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 216, the purpose of which is exactly the same as Amendment No. 206. During his reply to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that it was undesirable to introduce complicated mathematical calculations into these discussions. However, I do not think that it takes a senior wrangler to understand the difference between the figures three and five. Therefore I hope that the main issue will not fall into that category.
First, I should like to dispel the rather widely-held opinion that parents have an inborn capacity to understand the problems relating to the running of a school. I can assure the Committee that that situation is rare. However, what they do understand is the type of education they want for their particular child. That is why, above all else, they should have freedom of choice—which of course the Bill goes a long way to produce. But to throw upon them the added weight of actually running the school, except to a limited degree, is I think a mistake. One should leave the problems relating to teaching and other such matters to the staff. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that three parent governors on a board would be quite adequate rather than five. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I am not speaking directly to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, but to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton and myself; namely, Amendment No. 218. That amendment has been grouped together with the other amendments
1266
because it touches upon the number of governors. The effect of my amendment, should it be agreed to, would be to increase still further the total number of governors.
Amendment No. 218 is a relatively small matter and not a great issue of principle, so I can be quite brief in what I say about it. The amendment merely concerns the position of maintaining the school after the decision to opt out has been taken. That is, when the Secretary of State has agreed to it; the school has been set up and the new governors (made up to a large extent of parents) have started to run the school. It suggests that they should then turn their minds to the problems with regard to the future, when the children of those parents have left school and their interest in it has diminished.
The problems of maintaining the general spirit of the governors, their strength and enthusiasm, will of course grow as the years go by. Privately-maintained schools outside the state system—the great public schools—all have powerful old students' associations. It is that golden thread through the generations—and indeed through the centuries—that has kept such schools going and maintained their fame and quality. Such an organisation would need to be set up in the school which has opted out. Having been an active member of an LEA in the past, I am most conscious of the type of problems that an opted-out school will have to face. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to assist in appointing governors in the future, but, my word, the school will need all the help it can get!
If there is to be continuity in the future, I am sure that all opted-out schools will need an old students' association and they will have to work hard to build it up in the decades after their original formation. It is to that end that my noble friend and I have tabled the amendment. We have not suggested that the governors should tackle this task immediately—they will have plenty of other problems—but we think that perhaps after three years they should turn their minds to setting up such an association. I do not expect that my noble friend will accept our amendment in its present form—I can see he is already getting out his knife to chop its head off. In fact, it clearly would not fit in. However, I hope that he will consider it to be a sensible point and that he is prepared to think about it.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Nugent. It is not surprising that the amendment has been grouped with certain other amendments; but of course it has a much wider scope than merely the question of the appointment of governors.
I find it very interesting that Amendment No. 206ZA is not grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Somers; nor is our amendment because, in the case of a secondary school, there is a reference to one pupil governor being appointed. So we seem to have a certain consensus on the desirability of old boys or old girls being represented on the governing body, which is not a bad idea. There is one very famous school in this country where the governing body comprises old boys, although that does not necessarily have to be the case.

1267
As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, in these cases there is a golden thread. As this is the right moment, perhaps I may go beyond the limited scope of appointments to the governing body and briefly urge the consideration by the Government in due course of the setting up of an old students' association. Perhaps noble Lords would be so kind as to turn to Amendment No. 218, on which we claim no credit for good drafting or anything like that. We merely want to raise the principle and put forward some possible machinery. To establish an old students' association within five years does not seem to be rushing it, nor is it unreasonable. All former students should be invited to join. Obviously, when it has been formed, the new management committee will be convened and then make rules. That is sensible. Then we deal specifically with expenses in case it is alleged that they have not been covered. Apart from those very limited expenses incurred by the initial governing body, no expense, or only a very light one, will fall on the public purse.
Then we have the admirable aim that:
"The old students' association shall use its best endeavours to raise funds for the support and development of the school".
That is a very common practice in the case of many schools in both the public and private sectors. So I hope that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will at a later stage bear fruit.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may deal first with the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I think I am right in saying that in moving Amendment No. 206 the noble Lord spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 206B, 207, 216 and 217. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and my noble friend Lord Renton have also spoken to Amendment No. 218.
First, Amendments Nos. 206 and 216, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would reduce from five to three the number of elected parent governors on the governing body of a grant-maintained school. I am afraid that the Government cannot see their way clear to accepting those. With respect to the noble Lord, such amendments are entirely inconsistent with the Government's express intention in bringing forward our proposals for grant-maintained schools: that is, to give parents, as the best judges of their children's educational needs, a greater influence in the management and conduct of schools than they have hitherto enjoyed. Indeed, in a good many schools this would in practice mean that the parental representation on the governing body would be reduced if the school were to become grant-maintained. That surely cannot be right.
We believe that to have five elected parent governors on the governing body of a grant-maintained school strikes the right balance. It gives parents substantial representation without giving them untrammelled responsibility. The head teacher and teacher governors will continue to contribute a great deal in terms of professional insight; and the first or foundation governors will bring a longer-term pespective to the needs of the school over time. Together they will form a harmonious and effective partnership. But to have fewer parent governors would be to risk their marginalisation in the life of the
1268
school. That is precisely what the Government are committed to preventing.
I am afraid that I am equally unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 206B, 207 and 217, relating to the definition of a parent governor. Our proposals for grant-maintained schools are based on the principle that parents are the best judges of the educational needs of their children and that the performance of schools is likely to be enhanced if their accountability to parents is reinforced. But it is essential, if our proposals are to be fully effective, that in each case the parents' insight into the school and its affairs is soundly based. That means that parent governors must, wherever possible, have children at the school which they serve. It is sensible that parent governors, once elected, should be able to serve out their term of office if they wish even if their children have left the school a little before. But I do not believe that those whose children attended the school at some time in the distant past, or who have children at other schools in the area, are the best equipped to be parent governors.
That is not, of course, to say that those in the community who have a more general interest in the community have nothing to contribute; simply that their role should not be that of a parent governor. The governing bodies of grant-maintained schools will have places for first or foundation governors, who will provide a broader perspective on the role and needs of the school, and that is, I think, the right place for the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Somers had in mind.
I note the concern expressed during discussion on this Bill that we are being unduly optimistic about the number of parents we expect to put themselves forward to be governors. But I do not accept that those concerns are justified. Rather, I believe that the more challenging and influential role which our proposals will offer to school governing bodies will in fact stimulate interest among potential governors. They will know that service as a school governor will be a valuable contribution both to the efficient and effective running of the school, and to the wider community which that school exists to serve. We are currently conducting a publicity campaign to make just these points. At the same time we are considering how best the training needs of all school governors can be met, to ensure that they are properly equipped to tackle their new responsibilities with confidence. I hope that in the light of these considerations the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 218, moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that a thriving old students' association can be a valuable asset to any school. It links the present and the past, and the school with the wider community it is there to serve; and it helps to build up the traditions and reputation of the school, by giving current pupils people whom they can strive to emulate. But the thrust of all the Government's proposals in this Bill is towards autonomy, towards choice.
I do not believe that it would be desirable for the Government to lay down, in the way my noble friend suggests, precise details of how an old students'

1269
association should be established and managed. Nor do I believe that we should specify in statute the precise representation of former pupils on the governing body. These must be matters for each grant-maintained school to consider. There is nothing to prevent such a school from setting aside one or more first or foundation governorships to be filled by former pupils if they wish. I suggest that that is the right way to approach this subject. An absence of constraint is preferable to detailed statutory prescription. But I am sure that many schools will wish to take my noble friend's wise words to heart, and I hope that on reflection he will see that that is the best way in which to proceed in these circumstances.
Lord Somers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his very full answer. What he said showed me one thing very clearly—that he has never taught in a school. I can assure him that parents are very seldom the best judges of what their children need. However, in view of what he has said and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 206ZA:
Page 37, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a secondary school, one pupil governor;").
The noble Lord said: I do not necessarily want to comment on the groupings, but clearly this is part of the general argument about governing bodies and who should be on them. The argument here really does concern the role of pupil governors in grant-maintained schools, but I think it is of slightly broader interest and perhaps it is one that again outlines certain differences between us.
Certainly my own personal experience of pupil governors is that their contribution to schools is altogether valuable and that, apart from anything else, they add to a sense of a school community when one or more of them sits on the governing body. That is something of which I approve a very great deal.
I can remember when my daughter was a school governor. Of course there was one slight problem, namely that her view of several of the other governors, notably the local authority governors, was little short of contempt. One sometimes wonders whether the reason why one is trying to keep young people off governing bodies is because their standards are so high and most of the adults who are present cannot quite meet those standards. But that is another matter.
But more generally it seems to me overwhelmingly the fact that whatever concept one has of the school it is a concept of community. I cannot believe that the protagonists of the grant-maintained secondary schools are arguing that they do not wish to see them as community schools or as part of the community. Therefore it seems to me that the various interrelated amendments here add the possibility of not crowding out or squeezing out any other governors, but genuinely seek to add an additional elected student governor. I believe that is a good idea.
I do not wish to go over the whole ground about pupil or student governors in maintained secondary schools except to repeat that we remain fully committed to this and are grievously disappointed that the Government moved in the other direction on that matter. Therefore I simply commend the amendment to the Committee and hope that the Committee will be sympathetic to giving a role to young people on governing bodies which I think they can fulfil very well indeed. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like to support this amendment to which I have appended my name. Those of us who have had experience of students sitting on governing bodies and sub-committees know that they make a very valuable addition. It helps the non-student members to have some idea of what is going on, whether or not it is totally representative, and it has a very good educative effect for the young people concerned. I hope that this modest suggestion of one student governor will be accepted by the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, having moved Amendment No. 206ZA, was speaking at the same time to Amendments Nos. 207DA, 215DA, 215DB, 216ZA, 217ZA, 217ZB and 217ZC. I mention those only because I believe it is of help to the chair to indicate precisely which amendments we are discussing at this time.
The commitment of pupils to their school and its objectives is an important factor in that school's success. But I do not accept that these amendments provide a sensible way of fostering that commitment, or applying it in the most appropriate way. They seek to place pupils on the governing body of a grant-maintained secondary school. I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of the school, because I do not believe that it would assist the governing body in exercising effectively the duties and responsibilities it is given under the Bill.
The governing body is intended to be an efficient managerial organisation, dedicated to making the best use of the resources available to it in delivering a high quality education: it is not intended to be a "school Parliament", representing all possible interests. That would be a sure recipe for inefficiency and delay, however worthy it may seem in the abstract.
The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 does not provide for the pupils to have formal representation on the governing body of a local authority school. Moreover, it provides in Section 15(14) that no person shall be qualified for membership of the governing body of any county, voluntary or maintained special school unless he is aged 18 or over at the date of the election or appointment. That must be right, when such heavy responsibilities are involved. We intend that the exclusion of minors from the governing body shall be a requirement included in the instrument of government of a grant-maintained school.
In any case, it is surely common sense to say that the significant responsibilities given to a grant-maintained school's governing body make it

1271
inappropriate for young pupils to participate in them. These amendments would permit a child of as little as 11 years of age to act in highly complex matters of finance, or in decisions on the provision of sex education or religious instruction, of which they could have little knowledge or understanding. While no doubt their views would count for little in discussion, if the issue were to be pressed to a vote they might be decisive.
Furthermore, the governing body will be responsible for discipline and the appointment and dismissal of individual members of staff; I cannot believe that the presence of pupil governors at such discussions could be conducive to good discipline within the school as a whole. It might be suggested that the pupil governors could be excluded from some of the business that I have described, but I do not consider this to be a satisfactory solution. The governors of a grant-maintained school will together form a statutory corporation, enjoined to act collectively in the exercise of their responsibilities; it would not be desirable to have "first class" and "second class" governors in this fashion.
Nor are these amendments necessary. The Bill already provides alternative mechanisms by which pupils may make a more appropriate contribution to the conduct of the school if the governors so desire. Clause 45(4)(b) provides for a school's instrument of government to regulate the:
"establishment, constitution, meetings and proceedings of committees"
of the governing body.
It expressly permits such committees:
"to include persons who are not members of the governing body".
It is therefore open to the governors to set up an advisory committee of pupils which they can consult about those matters on which a genuinely useful contribution can be made. And among the governors themselves there will be no shortage of conduits for the children's views. The head teacher and teacher governors should know and can report their views on matters of moment. The parent governors will be aware of the views of their own children and those of friends. But in the last resort I believe that the governing body must be enabled to manage efficiently, and that parents, with the professional advice of the staff, are the best judges of children's educational needs, and not the children themselves. These amendments are incompatible with those beliefs, and I hope the Committee will not accept them.
Lord Peston: I just have one brief point to make and then I shall sit down. I should just like to go on record for saying that I believe that in many cases children are very much better judges of their educational needs and of the education that they are receiving than their parents are. That follows on from a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, earlier.
I thought that I would put that on record to show that I disagree with the Minister on that matter. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206A, 206B and 207 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 37, line 45, leave out from ("for") to end of line 46 and insert ("a number of first or (as the case may require) foundation governors which").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I should start by saying that in speaking to Amendment No. 207A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207C, 207E, 207F, 207G, 207H, 224A, 224B and 225E. The Government have made every effort to consider sympathetically the views of the Churches in respect of our proposals, and I hope the Committee will agree that wherever possible we have responded constructively to the concerns they have expressed.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear his intention to secure that if a grant-maintained school should at any stage need the assistance of additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State, the trustees will have the right to appoint more foundation governors to preserve their majority on the governing body. The amendments we have tabled to Clause 43 fulfil that commitment. Clause 43(6) empowers the Secretary of State to appoint up to two additional governors where it appears to him that the existing governors of a grant-maintained school are finding it difficult to carry out their responsibilities for its conduct or management.
Our amendment to Clause 43 will require the school's instrument of government to ensure, in the case of a school which was formerly a voluntary school, that the trustees can, if they wish, appoint the same number of additional foundation governors in those circumstances. In the case of a school which was formerly a county school, the other governors will, if they wish, be able to appoint the same number of additional first governors. By this means the Government have made clear their view that any temporary accretion of fresh blood and expertise to the school, while it may be invaluable, cannot and should not detract from the fundamental responsibilities of those who are already its trustees or governors.
The amendments we have tabled to Clause 46 are largely consequential on these changes. It is intended that any additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State will serve only for so long as their skills are needed. Since any appointment by the trustees or governors of additional foundation or first governors under those provisions will therefore be a response to a temporary measure, it is right that they too should serve for a briefer period than their peers. Each such governor will therefore be appointed for a specified period of no more than five years; it will not be possible to make an ex-officio appointment, which might well be of indeterminate length, to such a governorship.
I turn now to our amendments to Clause 77. That clause provides that the governors of a grant-maintained school may change the character of that school only if they have previously published a formal proposal to that effect, on which all interested parties may comment or object, and the Secretary of State has approved it.
The Government have consistently made it clear that they define "significant change of character" to include a change in the religious ethos of the school. But speaking in another place on 23rd March, my

1273
right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed that the safeguards against any perceived risk to the religious character of the school could be made stronger still. These amendments fulfil his commitment to provide that no grant-maintained school will be able to propose a change in its religious ethos without the prior consent of the trustees. This means that, in the unlikely event that the governors of a denominational grant-maintained school wanted to change the denominational character of the school, or to make it non-denominational, they would need to secure the permission of the trustees before publishing a proposal to that effect. I am sure that the Committee will welcome that step, and I commend the amendments to it.
The government amendment to Clause 90 is intended to set at rest one other concern expressed by the churches. It makes it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State is under a duty to consult both the governing body and the trustees of a school, if any, before modifying by order any trust deed relating to the school. This power is in any case intended simply to facilitate the smooth transition of a school to grant-maintained status, and any subsequent changes made to the school in that new status.
I hope that the amendments will be accepted as further and compelling evidence that grant-maintained status presents no threat whatsoever to Church schools. The partnership between Church and school will remain as valuable and as valued as before. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Lord Bishop of London: As the Minister has said, the amendments have arisen out of approaches made by the Churches to the Government. We very much appreciate them. I entirely agree with the Minister that they maintain a link between Church and school. However, from our point of view, there is the problem that they do not maintain the link between Church, school and the authority. However, in so far as the grant-maintained schools are here, we are grateful for the amendments. I hope the Committee will support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 207B, I must point out that if the Committee agrees to the amendment, I cannot call Amendment No. 207C.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 207B:
Page 38, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would leave out subsection (6) on page 38 of the Bill on the grounds that it once again underlines the extreme powers of the Secretary of State. In the subsection he is empowered to appoint not more than two additional governors if it appears to him—there is nothing in the clause which suggests any safeguard as to how he will arrive at the conclusion—that the governing body of the school is not adequately carrying out its responsibilities.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the present Secretary of State would use those powers with
1274
discretion and reasonableness. However, there are other people who may be Secretary of State and who may be very different. Such a person could form the view that a school was acting in a way which seemed to be, for instance, too radical or experimental. Without any need to explain or justify his actions, the Secretary of State could put in two governors of his own choosing to shift the balance of power within the governing body so that it would not be able to carry out its plans.
We are deeply concerned about the arbitrary powers of the Secretary of State throughout the Bill. We feel that this is an example of excessive power and we wish to have it removed. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Let me make it absolutely clear that the fears expressed in connection with subsections (6) and (7) are wholly groundless. These provisions are not, as some have claimed, the Trojan horse through which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be able to exercise ruthless, centralising control over grant-maintained schools, and it is preposterous to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she did not think that my right honourable friend was likely to do any such thing.
Speaking more generally, extensive accusations have been made about the centralising nature of the Bill. In our earlier debate, the noble Baroness made the same point. The fact is that the Secretary of State (whoever he may be) has enjoyed considerable powers under the 1944 Act regarding direction of schools.
Our discussions on the past few amendments were not extensive. However, the implications have underlined that point. We have made it clear that, where my right honourable friend appoints additional governors under subsection (6), the existing governors or the trustees of the school may appoint the same number of additional first or foundation governors respectively to preserve their majority. If that is a Trojan horse, it is a rather lame one.
Let me read to the Committee the text of these two subsections which the proponents of the amendments would omit. Subsection (6) states that the Secretary of State may:
"appoint not more than two additional governors if it appears to him that the governing body of the school are not adequately carrying out their responsibilities with respect to the conduct or management of the school".
Subsection (7) reads:
"make such provision as he thinks fit for filling vacancies for [first] governors if it appears to him that the governing body are unable or unwilling to fill the vacancies".
As will be seen, the provisions are carefully circumscribed.
My right honourable friend may appoint a maximum of two additional governors in the first case; and, in the second, will be able to fill first governor vacancies only when the governors themselves cannot or will not. He will do these things for one reason only: to assist a grant-maintained school for a short period when it is in difficulties.

1275
Under subsection (6) he will be able to give the school a limited but useful transfusion of commitment and expertise to help it get back on the right track. Under subsection (7) he will be able to ensure that the governing body continues to be equipped to run the school effectively during a period when it is finding it difficult to embed itself as far as it would wish into the local community. Such appointees will hardly be in a position to dominate the governing body as a whole; they will be there to help, not to take it over. That help can only be to the benefit of the school and its pupils.
I should like to remind the House of the alternative. If my right honourable friend cannot assist a grant-maintained school in difficulties in these ways, he will have to consider, perhaps at a much earlier stage than he would otherwise have wished, whether he needs to terminate the school's grant under Clause 81. I cannot believe that this approach, with all that it implies in upheaval for the pupils, the staff, the wider community and the local education authority, is what the supporters of these amendments really have in mind. Termination of grant should always be a last resort, when all other remedies have failed. These amendments would forbid the doctor to cure, and, in doing so, might perhaps oblige him to kill. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendments.
Baroness Seear: I think the Minister somewhat gave the game away when he used the analogy of the doctor to cure. The assumption is that the Secretary of State always knows best. There is nothing written into these amendments to allow anyone to challenge his decision that the school governors are not acting properly. It is a one-sided arbitrary decision that can be made by the Secretary of State with no rights of challenge. I do not think that the present Secretary of State would be likely to do this and to act in an arbitrary way because he disapproved of the views or experimental interests and approach of the existing board of governors, or for any other reason. I do not wish to drag in names, but if the Secretary of State was Mr. Ken Livingstone, would the Minister have the same confidence that the Secretary of State would never intervene with a governing body behaving in a way which did not conform with the kind of approach to education that he might wish to introduce?
This Bill is not just for the lifetime in office of Mr. Kenneth Baker or even of this Government, which is not for all eternity, we on these Benches believe. It is for all Secretaries of State in the future. I do not intend to press the amendment but I am totally unconvinced by the answer that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 207C:
Page 38, line 8, at end insert ("; and
(b) for the appropriate appointing authority to have power, during any period when any additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State by virtue of paragraph (a) above are in office, to appoint a number of additional first or foundation governors not greater than the number of additional governors appointed by the Secretary of State who are then in office.
1276
In paragraph (b) above "the appropriate appointing authority" means, in relation to first governors, the governing body and in relation to foundation governors, the person entitled to appoint the foundation governors on the governing body or, if more than one person is so entitled, the persons so entitled acting jointly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 207D and 207DA not moved.]
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Governors' tenure of office]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 207DB:
Page 40, line 20, at end insert ("except for parent governors whose tenure should cease when they no longer have a child in the school.").
The noble Baroness said: Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, who was to have moved this amendment, is ill. I was not quite sure whether I was expected to take his place or whether somebody from the Liberal Benches intended to move this amendment.
We are considering the make-up of the governing body. The purpose of the amendment is to make a parent governor's tenure of office dependent upon having a child in the school, because that is not clear from the Bill. It allows parent governors to continue when their children have left the school. It could be argued that they do not have the same interest and involvement in the school when the children have gone as they had when they were there. They might have the same interest, in which case they could be there in a different capacity, but not as parents. However, other parents who have children in the school could be prevented from getting on to the governing body.
One may argue for continuity, but this could lead to inconsistencies. For example, although parent governors will be elected for a period of four years, many schools provide education for much less than four years. Sixth-form colleges provide education for only two years and occasionally three; 13 to 16 age group high schools for three years and 12 to 16 age group secondary schools for four years. Then there are infant schools and nursery schools; they provide education for a maximum of two or three years. Therefore it would be possible for a situation to arise where none of the parent governors of these sorts of schools had any children at the school. That seems ridiculous.
The only way of ensuring that this does not happen is to require parent governors to vacate office once their children have left the school. If children leave in the middle of an academic year it would be sensible for parents to remain until the end of that year, but otherwise the end of the academic year. I hope that the Minister is listening.
Baroness Hooper: Both of them.
Baroness David: Good, both of them. I do not know who is going to be dealing with this. I do not think parent governors should stay after the end of the year in which their child has left the school. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Minister will not be minded to accept this amendment. There seems to be a compromise here judging from some of the remarks that have been made by noble Lords opposite. They were asking: are parents the right people to be judges of education? I happen to believe they are. I also happen to believe that parents have a value as governors of schools immediately their children have left. There is a period—and it would not be more than a maximum of three years beyond—when a parent could be a governor of a school.
I believe that the build-up of experience is important. If you are a governor for one or two years, it is not long enough to build up experience. Thirdly, when a governor is elected, and the parent governor is elected by a body of parents, they know the year group in which the children are. Therefore, they know when a parent will have children in the school and the period beyond that. They would vote for a parents' representative in the full knowledge that this was a parent for one or two years, or maybe three, and an immediate past parent of a child in school for a very short period of time. However, throughout the whole period of their governorship they are accountable to the body of parents. There is great value in having a parent who may well overlap between being a parent of a child in school and an immediate past parent of a child in school.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness how long she thinks they should go on being members of a governing body.
Baroness Blatch: I can give the direct example of myself. My children left school last year. If I had been a parent governor rather than an LEA governor, I believe that my contribution to the school this year when my children are not at the school—and perhaps up to a maximum of three years—could be really valuable. I had a child go all the way through the school. I believe that if I had the backing of the body of parents who had voted me into office—
Baroness David: I asked the noble Baroness how long she thought parents should go on being governors after their children have left.
Baroness Blatch: A maximum of three years, which would be appropriate in this case.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may enter this debate. The last speaker has introduced a very interesting point. It is quite all right in her view for a parent governor not to be a parent.
Baroness Blatch: I did not say that. The parent when elected would have to be a parent of a child in school for that first election. But if their child happened to leave school during that time I believe they could continue to be a valuable asset to the governing body.
Lord Monkswell: If the noble Baroness had allowed me to finish, I would have said that the parent governor could effectively be a parent governor of the school even though having had no children at the school for a period of three years.
1278
It is a very useful argument. I would extend it the other way and suggest that it would be quite reasonable for the parent of a chld in a junior school who would go on to secondary school to become a parent governor (under the noble Baroness's definition) of the secondary school. That governor would have a great incentive to ensure that the school carried out its duties effectively because his child would attend it. The fact that the noble Baroness shakes her head suggests that she does not appreciate the logic of her own argument. If there is to be a parent governor, that governor must be a parent with a child at the school.
That is one of the problems with the way in which the Government are tackling the whole issue of opting out, circumscribing governors' positions and so on. It is likely that the character of the school will be set by people who within a very few years will have no involvement at all in the school. The last speaker suggested that parent governors should carry on for three years. I strenuously oppose the suggestion that people who do not have an interest in the school should be involved in it.
The noble Baroness also remarked that parent governors are accountable. I am not sure that that is true where a parent governor has no children at the school. So far as I can see, there is no provision in the Bill for the term of office of a parent governor to be drawn to an end by the schools' electorate. There is no power of recall.
Parent governors with children at the school go to the school periodically and have direct contact with the school through their children. They are accountable in some respects in that they have a direct involvement in the school. Once their child no longer attends the school they are virtually no longer accountable. There is no power of recall and they have no direct involvement in the school. Why should they be governors in that capacity?
I take the point that was made earlier that if they are good governors, respected and welcomed by the governing body and by the community, there are other avenues by which they could become governors. But surely they should not serve as parent governors.
7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: As has been explained, the amendment would require a parent governor to resign from office if he or she ceased to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 permitted governors at maintained schools to serve out their four-year terms of office even if their child had left the school. That might not be as long as three years without a child at the school, it depended entirely upon when they were appointed in the first place. The chances are that it would be a much shorter period.
Many respondents to the Green Paper which preceded that legislation pressed us to relax the existing requirements in that way, and I believe that we were right to do so. Clearly in many cases such governors will choose to step down, but in some cases they may feel that they can still contribute much to the governing body in their remaining time in office. If that is the case the Government see no reason why

1279
their continuing enthusiasm and commitment should be wasted and valuable continuity disrupted by forcing them to go early.
I hope that those considerations will persuade the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness David: I can see that there are arguments on both sides. If one is really keen on having parent governors it is more important that they should be there when their children are at the school, and if they are useful they could be kept on in another category. I do not think that this is an issue I wish to press, but I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said and consider whether to come back to the question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 207E to 207H:
Page 40, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").
Page 40, line 26, at end insert—
("(2A) An additional foundation governor appointed by virtue of provision made in the instrument of government in accordance with section 43(6)(b) of this Act may not be appointed to hold office ex officio.").
Page 40, line 27, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
Page 40, line 31, at end insert—
("(3A) The term of office of any additional first or foundation governor appointed by virtue of provision made in the instrument of government in accordance with section 43(6)(b) of this Act shall be such term (not being more than five years) as may be specified in the terms of that governor's appointment.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Weights and Measures (Knitting Yarns) Order 1988
7.5 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to implement Council Directive 87/356/EEC, which is a simple harmonisation measure to establish throughout the Community a mandatory and exclusive range of quantities between 10 grams and 1 kilogram in which knitting yarns can be packed. From 1st January 1990 only yarn packed in the quantities in the range will be permitted on the EC market. These will then be guaranteed free circulation in the Community.
The mandatory range has the backing of all European Community countries and European Community producers, including UK knitting yarn manufacturers. The coherent size range will help consumers to make value for money comparisons,
1280
ensure producers compete on equal terms in the quantities in which they pack and guarantee access to Community markets. The directive which the order implements was debated in the House of Commons Second Standing Committee on European Community Documents on 12th November last year. The committee unanimously agreed that legislation in that area would be desirable and supported the adoption of an effective measure which would help the creation of a common market for knitting yarns.
I firmly believe that it would be in our best interests that the directive should be implemented in the UK and commend the draft order to the House.
Finally, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to know that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this important development about knitting yarns. I should like to support the measure from this side of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988
7.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to commend this order to the House. It also gives us an opportunity to discuss the progress we are making in implementing the housing defects legislation. That legislation had all-party support when it came before the House in 1984 and I am sure we shall be approaching the order today in the same spirit.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will recall that it was in this House that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale introduced the amendment to the Housing Defects Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power to make orders of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, agreed that it was sensible to have this power in case it might be necessary to amend the grant conditions and, indeed, that has proved to be the case.
As noble Lords will know, it was very much in response to the pleas from various local authorities in the Midlands and Wales, to the effect that grant condition test (d) was too restrictive, that we brought forward the proposal to drop that test altogether, and to rely on the more flexible test (c).
Perhaps it would help the House if I took a few moments to explain in a little more detail what this change will mean. As the Act stands, there are four tests, tests (a) to (d) set out in Section 538 of the Housing Act on which an authority has to be satisfied before it can offer assistance by way of grant for

1281
reinstatement. If it is not satisfied on any one of these tests grant for reinstatement cannot be given and the owner must be offered repurchase instead.
The first two tests, (a) and (b), require the repaired property to satisfy a durability requirement (30 years further life, though in practice the PRC Homes Ltd approved repairs will achieve 60) and for it to be mortgageable in the private sector. Again, PRC Homes Ltd approved repairs are designed to achieve that too. So there has been no suggestion that those tests should be altered and they are not affected by this order.
The next two tests—(c) and (d)—concern "value for money", if I can put it that way. Test (c) says that grant for repair has to be justified in the light of the likely value of the property after repair. Test (d) adds the condition that the expected cost of grant must not exceed—even by a small amount—the direct cost to the local authority of repurchase at 95 per cent. defect-free value plus the appropriate legal fees.
However, practical experience of operating the scheme has shown that, first, authorities and owners often much prefer repair to repurchase wherever repair is a sensible course of action: as the Act stands, they are prevented from doing so by test (d). Secondly, authorities have pointed out that the direct cost of grant on the one hand and repurchase on the other are not the whole story because, if the authority repurchases, it may well then face other costs, such as immediate repairs and maintenance, as part of its normal obligations as landlord. In the longer term, it might well have to deal with the qualifying inherent defect—or take some other radical steps, such as demolition and rebuilding. Again, that means further costs.
So we had the situation where authorities were being forced into decisions which they did not regard as "cost effective". Often the margins between the two courses of action were very small. The more we looked at this, the more we felt that it was something that we could usefully amend to everyone's benefit. We decided to consult on the proposal to drop (d) entirely, and henceforth rely simply on test (c).
The consultation responses were generally positive and so we have now put forward this affirmative order to implement that change. If all goes well it will come into operation on Monday 16th May, which is next Monday. That I know will be helpful to several authorities and owners, who have been waiting for it to come into force, so that they can take steps to obtain the grant assistance that they would so much prefer.
I should point out that there is a provision—Section 538(4)—which states that a change to the conditions, such as the one achieved by this order, does not affect owners who have already applied for assistance when it comes into force. Fortunately, the Act also allows owners who wish to take advantage of this change to withdraw their applications and then reapply. If they do that, their application is processed afresh under the new set of grant conditions, and they can then get the benefit of "no test (d)", if I can put it that way. But, by the same token, those owners who do not wish to have that benefit can persist with their original applications
1282
and the authorities will process them as if test (d) remained in force. I think that this is actually a very fair result. It gives owners and local authorities a degree of choice: if everyone is satisfied that repair is sensible, withdrawal and reapplication can be done easily and quickly; but if they are not, owners can continue under the old dispensation and get the assistance that they were entitled to on that basis.
In all, we believe that some 2,000 to 3,000 owners in England and Wales will benefit from dropping test (d), in the sense that they will be able to get grant-aided reinstatement, rather than the repurchase they would have had, if this change had not been made. It could also save money, because on some estates authorities were facing a "patchwork quilt effect" where some owners just got through test (d) (and could get repair) but others just failed (and so had to go for repurchase). All being well, those estates can now be repaired on a cost-effective block contract, in the way that all the people concerned wish to see.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that we are now making progress in implementing this legislation in England and Wales. I know that we had a slow start and that in the North particularly there is still quite a bit to be done. This order could be a help, because the costs and values there have been something of an obstacle. I know also that resources—or the lack of them—are often quoted as a problem or a cause for delays. I should just like to say now that it was always obvious that we should all need time to work the scheme through: that is why the designations themselves allow 10 years for assistance. Sensible phasing is, in fact, in everyone's interests. We are all learning as we go and, of course, more approved repair methods are coming through all the time. There are now 50 in all, covering all major designated types. There were over 30,000 eligible owners: we are now approximately 40 per cent. of the way through and grant for reinstatement is now overtaking repurchase in terms of numbers assisted. That is very much as we had all hoped of course and this order will help continue that trend.
I appreciate that we do not have too long this evening and I should like to be able to reply at the end of the debate. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate not only the speed with which the noble Lord has brought this matter before the House but also the care that he has taken in putting before us the raison d'être of its introduction. This side of the House will raise no objection to fine-tuning the legislation upon which this order is based. However, there are one or two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord for clarification.
Towards the end of his introduction he gave a broad indication of the size of the problem and the extent to which it had already been tackled. In preparation for this evening's debate I turned up the Second Reading debate of the Housing Defects Bill. A re-reading of that debate brought back to me the realisation—and I say this without being in any way

1283
patronising or offensive—that we are dealing with little people who quite literally may put the whole of their life-savings into the purchase of a property which is at the disposal of a public sector authority. When one speaks of local councils one must remember that they are of course public authorities, and of course the coal board and other interests were also involved.
I was staggered when I looked at the extent to which this reinforced concrete nexus, so to speak, affected so many people. I was involved as much as anyone in the 1960s in urging that those systems should be used. Nevertheless, following reports from the Building Research Establishment we found ourselves faced with a terrifying situation. The Minister is quite right. It was for the best of reasons that authorities in the Midlands and Wales erected buildings of that kind. On re-reading the debate to which I have referred, I was interested to see the types of housing involved. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that there were 28 types, and those who know the business fairly well will recognise them. The debate on 6th July 1984 (Official Report, col. 526) mentions: the Airey, Butterley, Hamish Cross, Unity, Winget and Woolaway, among other names. One loses sight of these matters once they have passed from one's immediate interest but perhaps the noble Lord will tell us the extent to which the original lists were extended.
One of the agonies suffered by people who lived in houses with defects—and in the Midlands I remember that the Smith house was one of them—was that at that time they were excluded. The kind of building that is accepted has to be one which both the local authority and, perhaps even more importantly, the Government agree will qualify for the grant. Can the Minister tell the House whether there was any movement in the original base?
The original Act sought to give assistance to 16,500 people who immediately came under its provisions at that time. I heard the Minister mention a figure of 40,000—I am sorry, I stand corrected; the figure is 30,000 and it seems that there is to be no advance on that—which to me indicates that there must have been some later incorporation of housing types into the scope of the Bill. The Minister will appreciate that of course there are many more than 30,000 occupants of houses that have not been accepted.
Can he tell the House the difference in number over the past three years between those who went down the route of repossession and those who went down the route of reinstatement? I take his point. As a man of the world he will understand that in the past few years it has become a much better bet to hang on to one's property and have any defects put right than to claim one's money back, if only because of the escalation in prices. Can the noble Lord also deal with that point?
Since his colleague may be helping him in this matter, perhaps he would also say something about the attitude of the building societies. One of the problems was that building societies were chary of making their funds available for properties. One of the agonies of the owner was that he could not get money from the building society to assist in the
1284
reinstatement, even to the small extent that was needed.
The crux of the matter is that what we are trying to do is to assist people, many of whom thought that under the right to buy they were getting a bargain—and in broad terms of course they were—but then found that they had bought trouble for themselves. I understand, and put on record, that the Government have acted properly in trying to accept some responsibility for those people, but the Minister is well aware that there are far more people involved who suffer from defects in their housing than council tenants who bought their property.
This is not the occasion for the Minister or his advisers to go down that road, but I wanted to place on record that I am as concerned for the non-council tenant who bought property that subsequently proved to have a latent defect and wished to get redress over it. I agree with the Minister. Is it not remarkable that we are talking about Section 538 in this massive Act? It is a massive Act and a great deal was thrown into it of much more moment than the point we are discussing, but to the man or woman of perhaps 50, 60 or 70, what is happening to their house and how they will be able to get peace of mind is important.
I hope that the Minister can help me on those points, but I want to stress again that we on this side of the Chamber recognise that the Government have done what they can, with the limits to public resources, to try to ease the position for a great many people. We certainly in this House would like him to do a great deal more for other categories, but we have to be grateful for small mercies, and I certainly commend the order to the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, before commending the order to your Lordships' House I shall attempt to answer some of the noble Lord's questions. His observation concerning the number of houses, or types of houses, included in the scheme and the discrepancy between the original figure and the figure we are at now is an entirely correct one. The number of houses, the types of houses, has only in fact increased by two, which is the Smith that he represented and the Boswell. The reason for the rather substantial increase in numbers which would give the impression that there were more than that is that the number of houses that would be eligible was rather underestimated in the first place, which is in fact where the rest of that differential comes about.
The other main point that the noble Lord wished to have answered was how many houses have been repurchased since the scheme came into operation. Since the Act came in the total number is between 7,000 and 8,000. Between 4,000 and 5,000 owners have had their homes repaired or have repairs under way. That figure is climbing at a far greater rate than the repurchase figure. Those repairs are obviously going to proceed, and that represents about 12,000 homes out of a total of 30,000.
Therefore I hope that there is more relief, particularly as, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, so accurately pointed out, it is all very well to stand here at the Dispatch Box speaking dispassionately, but we are talking about people's homes, which is very

1285
important so far as they are concerned. I hope that we have been able to provide an opportunity this evening to discuss the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps it is not possible, but could the Minister give some indication of the attitude of the building societies to people in that position? Approval to do something is one thing. The Minister will well recognise the argument that, even though the house may be put in good order to the satisfaction either of inspectors or of the person, when the house needs to be sold the prospective purchaser of a once defective house has to get approval for a loan from the building society.
One of the agitations I recalled when I read this order was that there were some difficulties about building societies. I shall not say that they were not being generous, because building societies are not philanthropic societies. They are lending other people's money. But the building societies are there to be encouraged to co-operate with the Government, and I wondered not whether they had a bad attitude but whether the Minister was satisfied that they had been as helpful as they might have been.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, since the introduction of the HDA-NHBC scheme there has been a positive attitude from the building societies and an improvement on that score. That is as far as I can go tonight. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister made a general statement. I was anxious to know whether the building societies, in the context of being willing to advance money on mortgage on a previously defective house, were being fair, reasonable and understanding. The Minister may well be unable to give us the Building Societies Association's attitude on that point, in which case perhaps he could write to me later.
Lord Hesketh: Very well, my Lords. Without further ado, I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 to 8 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 47 [Powers of the governing body]:
Amendment No. 208 not moved.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Articles of government]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 208ZA:
Page 42, line 23, after ("arrangements") insert ("to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord McNair, who is smitten with the "dreaded lurgi", has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf. In moving the amendment, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss also Amendments Nos. 208AA and 281E.
The purpose of Amendment No. 208ZA is to ensure that the parents of children at grant-maintained schools retain the right to complain to ombudsmen about admissions and exclusions procedures.
Parents who wish to complain about a decision of a local education authority or voluntary school governing body about the admission of a pupil to, or the exclusion of a pupil from, a school have a right to complain to the local government ombudsman. This right will be removed when the school becomes a grant-maintained school.
The articles of government of a grant-maintained school require the governing body to make arrangements for appeals on these matters, but excludes any right of appeal over the method of disposal of the complaint by one of the ombudsmen. It is our belief that the most appropriate ombudsman to use, given that the grant-maintained schools will be directly funded by the DES, is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The amendment will give parents similar rights to parents of children attending local authority schools, which seems reasonable.
Amendment No. 208AA has the purpose to extend the scope of grant-maintained school complaints procedures required by the articles of government to all matters concerning the conduct of the school. The articles of government in regard to grant-maintained schools in Clause 48(5)(e) require grant-maintained schools to make arrangements,
"for the consideration and disposal of complaints relating to any matter concerning the curriculum followed within the school".
However, there is no reference to any other aspect of school policy. Although it is possible to interpret "curriculum" in a tautological sense—indeed, I understand that there is a dispute on the meaning of that matter that may now have been resolved by resort to dictionaries—
Baroness David: That is correct!
Lord Tordoff: I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are still in dispute on the question. The noble and learned Lord thinks that it is not necessary to refer to a dictionary since he believes that his Greek is better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As I said, it may be tautological in the sense that it could refer to anything that goes on within the school, since Clause 48(5)(e) refers to,
"governing body … duties imposed on them under Chapter I of this Part";
that is Part I, the national curriculum.
It appears that the grant-maintained school governing bodies do not have to make arrangements to receive complaints on other matters. One could give a number of examples of complaints that would

1287
not be covered, such as misconduct of a member of staff outside his or her specific teaching duties but still within a member of staffs role within the school; the decision of the head teacher on the application of the school's charging policy, such as the recovery of a wasted examination fee, or the decision of the head teacher on a disciplinary matter that was not a permanent exclusion, in other words, anything of that kind covered by Clause 48(5)(d)(ii).
I am sure that this is a sensible amendment, in that it would extend to people in grant-maintained schools the right to complain to the ombudsman that already exists in local authority schools. It does not seem unreasonable to include this backstop in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Although I was not expecting to speak to the amendment, I support it. There is at present the right to complain to the local government ombudsman. That is to go when the school becomes a grant-maintained school. There is to be no right of complaint to anyone. Although the articles of government for a grant-maintained school require that arrangements be made for appeals, any right of appeal to the ombudsman over the method of disposal of the complaint is excluded. We think that is wrong. Given that the grant-maintained schools will be funded by the DES, it is a government matter and so should be open to the ombudsman.
Amendment No. 208AA is also important. The complaints procedure should not be restricted to the curriculum only; there should be the ability to deal with complaints about the school as regards the conduct of the school in matters that do not concern the curriculum. Something like 75 per cent. of complaints to schools probably concern something other than the curriculum in terms of the conduct of some person or some group of people in the school. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I fully understand the safeguards that it is proposed should be added to the Bill. However, it is the Government's firm view that as it stands the Bill provides adequately for the interests of parents of children at grant-maintained schools to be secured, and the amendments are therefore unnecessary. I should like to explain why.
Let us consider the avenues open to parents who believe that their child has been unfairly refused a place at a grant-maintained school. Before the decision is taken, the parents will know the criteria which the governors will apply in reaching that decision, because those criteria and other information about the school's admission arrangements will be published every year.
After the decision has been taken, parents first have a right to have it reviewed by an appeals committee, which will include independent representation and which, if the Committee accepts the amendment which I shall be suggesting later, will be under the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals. If the appeals committee upholds the original decision, and the parents still believe that that decision was unsoundly based, they will be able to ask the Secretary of State to consider whether there are grounds for him to issue a direction under Section 68
1288
or Section 99 of the Education Act 1944, which he can do if the governors' actions were unreasonable, or if they were in default of any legal duty.
If the Secretary of State upholds the governors' original decision but the parents are convinced that in doing so he has committed, or compounded, an act of maladministration, then they may seek to involve the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Alternatively, they could seek a judicial review either of the governors' action or the Secretary of State's, or both. And all this applies equally to appeals against the expulsion of a pupil from a grant-maintained school.
I hope that this exposition is enough to show that there are plenty of safeguards against irrational, capricious or inequitable decisions about the admission of pupils to grant-maintained schools; and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 208AA also seeks to safeguard parents' rights. But I believe that its effect will actually be to constrain, rather than facilitate, the normal and necessary exchanges between parents and schools by which questions and complaints are generally resolved. As it stands, the Bill provides explicitly for grant-maintained schools to institute arrangements for dealing with complaints relating to the admission and expulsion of pupils, and to matters connected with the governors' discharge of the duties placed upon them by Chapter I of the Bill. Most serious complaints about the conduct of a school will fall into these categories. But if a parent is dissatisfied about other aspects of the school's performance, there is nothing to stop that parent taking the matter up with whoever seems to him or her the most appropriate person.
In some cases, the full governing body might need to be involved: here the parent could ask one of the parent governors to make his case, or he could write to the governing body itself. In other cases, the matter might be better dealt with by means of discussion with the head, or with another member of the school staff. Again, a failure to reach a satisfactory agreement could, in the last resort, be referred to the Secretary of State under Section 68 or Section 99; but these cases should be few and far between. It is the Government's view that, for the most part, informal and flexible channels are the best means of dealing with such matters, and that the provision envisaged by the amendment would simply increase bureaucracy to no good effect. I therefore hope that that amendment likewise will not be pressed.
Perhaps I may just touch on Amendment No. 281E, a government amendment which I shall speak to now and move formally when we reach it. I have already mentioned that Clause 48(5)(d) of the Bill provides for the establishment of appeals committees against any decision or action by the governing body of a grant-maintained school in relation to the admission or permanent exclusion of pupils. Each governing body may arrange such a committee individually or jointly with other grant-maintained schools. The amendment places such committees within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals, which already has responsibilities in relation to appeals committees for schools maintained by local education authorities. This measure will help to ensure that they are fairly and efficiently conducted.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does the Minister's answer mean that, under the Bill as it is printed, the Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsman, can come in but only after the Section 68 or Section 99 direction from the Secretary of State? If so, I do not see why giving a direct approach to the Parliamentary Commissioner, cutting out the Secretary of State who is not really equipped to be a judge in such a case, is necessarily reducing bureaucracy.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: In addition to that I should like to make a point to the Minister so that he can perhaps comment on both questions in his reply. As I understand it, the rights of appeal are largely centred on the failure to be admitted or being wrongfully removed from the school, whereas there can be other matters about which parents feel strongly—the way the curriculum is being covered, the behaviour of the staff or the physical standards of the school. One could think of a whole range of issues in the actual running of the school about which parents may wish to make complaints. We want to be satisfied that if they feel something is serious it can be taken up as a matter of bad administration, through the commissioner.
I wish to make a second point because this matter comes up quite often in the replies given by the Government. We are told that we can go to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State by definition in the grant-maintained schools is the ultimate boss of those schools because they are financed by the DES, of which the Secretary of State is in charge. So one is simply appealing up the line within the system. The whole point of going to an ombudsman is that one would be appealing outside the system. That is what one wants. It is not much comfort to appeal from governors who have not satisfied one to the people who control the governors. We want somebody independent of them. That is the whole point of the ombudsman.
Lord Trefgarne: There is a limit to the avenues of independent review of actions that can be arranged. The fact is that the Parliamentary Commissioner is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. His remit runs when the Secretary of State has done something or has failed to do something which in the view of the complainant he should have done.
The ultimate responsibility, short of going to the ombudsman if someone believes that the Secretary of State has been guilty of maladministration, or maybe even further for judicial review if one thinks that is right is, of course, that of the Secretary of State. I believe that the arrangements for access to the Secretary of State are right and proper.
Having said that, I hope and believe that the number of occasions upon which the Secretary of State needs to have such problems put to him will be very few and far between. I hope and believe that the vast majority of these matters will be resolved at local level, particularly given the special committee arrangements to which I have referred.
Baroness Seear: I agree with the noble Lord that the vast majority of these cases will be dealt with in
1290
the way he suggests, but the whole point of putting such provisions into legislation is to deal with the exceptional very bad case. This matter comes up again and again. The answer we get from the Government is no answer and it comes so often from the Government Benches. In the vast majority of cases there will be no problems. What we are concerned with is the few cases where it will not be all right. It is for those cases that we believe we need legal protection.
Lord Tordoff: If I may I shall follow that merely to ask why it is appropriate that for local authority schools, where the local government commissioner is in the system, this is not regarded as excessively bureaucratic—at least not on this side of the Chamber. The reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is merely put in because that safeguard has been removed by the Bill. The route which is available to people in a local authority is not available to people in grant-maintained schools. Our amendment seeks to put a similar proviso into the Bill. We may be seeking to put it in the wrong place, and the Government can explore some other device whereby grant-maintained schools can still have a right of appeal to the local government commissioner. But we had assumed that that was not possible because of the changes in the Bill. Nevertheless that is a backstop that local authority schools will still retain. The Government are removing that backstop from grant-maintained schools. Our amendment seeks to put something in its place.
If the Government believe in the ombudsman and from what the Minister has said it sounds as though they do not because of too much bureaucracy—let us hear it.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. The role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is to look into cases of alleged maladministration by the Government. That clearly cannot arise until the Government—in this case the Secretary of State—has done something or failed to do something which the ombudsman or the commissioner is invited to examine. There is already the committee I have referred to, which I hope will be conducted under the arrangements of the Council on Tribunals. I believe that that is the right procedure for determining difficulties of this kind. The procedure is a good deal better than exists in many other walks of life. I believe it is the right way to proceed in this case.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope that the Minister will at least take this matter away and think about it. It appears to us that his answers have not been very satisfactory. In fact, I have yet to hear the answer as to why it is still appropriate that the local authority ombudsman should have a right to deal with any local authority school.
Lord Trefgarne: That is not quite correct; I do not believe that he does. For example, he does not have the right to inquire into the actions of the governors.
Lord Morton of Shuna: He has certain rights in the administration of schools. Why should that right be removed and not replaced except by the Secretary of

1291
State? It may well be that the amendment could have been redrafted to name the local authority ombudsman.
It will not do for the noble Lord to say in his answer that there must be government maladministration before the Parliamentary Commissioner comes in. When Parliament passes an Act providing for the Parliamentary Commissioner to do something, that gives him the power to do it. Therefore, if the amendment were accepted, in general it would involve government maladministration plus this issue. It will be provided for in the Act which will be as powerful as any other Act.
I hope that the Minister will consider again this amendment together with Amendment No. 208AA. The question of whether children are being wrongfully excluded from certain courses because they do not have an expectation of passing certain exams is sometimes an area of great difficulty for governors and parents. It is an area which should be dealt with under the complaints procedure.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to reiterate what my noble friend has said. We accept that there are rare occasions when this kind of procedure should come into operation, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 208AA. One can envisage such occasions and those more acquainted with the facts of school life support this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I beg the Minister to think about the matter a little more. Under the Bill the Government are removing from parents and schoolchildren the right to appeal to an ombudsman and are apparently putting nothing in its place. It may be the wrong route to take; there may be another and better route by which one can appeal to the local government ombudsman. However, will the Government think again and try to find a way round the difficulty? Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 42, line 25, leave out ("articles") and insert ("instrument of government").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is largely technical. We have in general applied a distinction whereby the composition and procedures of governing bodies and their committees are governed by the instrument of government, their powers and duties by the articles. This amendment duly clarifies our provisions in the light of that distinction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208AA not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208B:
Page 43, line 6, leave out ("whom the governing body propose to dismiss").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 208B I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 208C, 208D, 208E, 208F and 208G. These are technical amendments which do not change the substance of the provision. The Bill requires the articles of government of a grant-maintained school
1292
to include provision for a member of staff faced with dismissal to have the right to make representations before a decision is taken and to appeal against the decision before action is taken to implement it.
As it stands, however, the text might imply that the whole governing body would both decide on dismissal and hear the appeal. Such a procedure would be unfair to the person facing dismissal. These amendments are designed to clarify the position, so that the articles can provide for a person facing dismissal to appeal to a body other than that which has initially decided on his dismissal. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I am pleased to hear about these amendments because we have previously complained of staff not being consulted and taken into consideration as regards grant-maintained schools. The amendment provides them with a little help at least.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208C:
Page 43, line 8, leave out ("the Proposal") and insert ("any proposal to dismiss him by the governing body or any persons authorised under the articles to dismiss him").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208D:
Page 43, line 10, leave out from beginning to first ("to") in line 11 and insert ("may be appointed for the purpose;
(ia) for requiring the governing body or any such persons").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208E:
Page 43, line 12, leave out ("their decision") and insert ("any decision to dismiss him").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208F:
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("the governing body have") and insert ("it has been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 208G:
Page 43, line 16, leave out from ("against") to end of line and insert ("that decision before any action is taken").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 209:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Additional provision in Articles of Government.
.—(1) Without prejudice to section 48 above, the Secretary of State may include, in particular, additional or supplementary provision in the Articles of Government for a grant maintained school which satisfies the requirements of this section.
(2) Additional or supplementary provision satisfies the requirements of this section if it is provision requiring the governing body to have regard to any representations with regard to specified matters, functions or services made to them by the local education authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "specified matters, functions or services" means matters, functions or services specified by the Secretary of State as being, in his opinion, matters, functions or services that could with advantage be subject to joint arrangements or agreements between the governing body of the school and the local education authority.

1293
(4) In determining specified matters, functions or services for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made to him by the local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: We have reached the stage in the progress and content of the Bill where we must envisage the possibility that, given the opportunity provided, some schools will wish to opt out of the system. The amendment deals with the situation in which a school exercises all its rights and subsequently opts out of the system together with the impact of that opting out on other matters.
Yesterday evening, I took part in a useful discussion in an Edmonton school attended by the Member of Parliament for Edmonton and over 100 parents. I assure the Minister there was not only interest in all one needs to understand about the opting-out process but also in what will happen to a school not opting out and having relationships with another which has. For example, there are consortium arrangements whereby the provisions in one school are enjoyed by a number. Many community adult educational provisions exist at the school I visited last night.
I am asking the Minister to take on board the need for the Government to ensure that when a school opts out, those provisions will still be freely available to the rest of the community. I am sure that the Minister will understand the anxieties. No doubt I shall be told that relationships will be sweet and that understandings and accommodations will be accepted. I should like to say, "It ain't necessarily so". One can always envisage that there will be no problem until the problem arises.
The amendment seeks to anticipate a need for the Minister to receive advice from a local authority of the necessity to write into the articles of government of the opted-out school provisions that will ensure that the current interests enjoyed by the community are not inhibited and that equal access will be available in the future.
I am sure the Minister will understand that this is a reasonable amendment. I hope that there is some sympathy for it. In subsection (3) I ask that there should be joint arrangements or agreements between the governing body of the opted-out school and the local education authority which will be in the best interests of the community. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has raised an important issue here. I believe that the Bill already provides an adequate framework within which grant-maintained schools and local education authorities can work together if they so wish. Let me suggest a number of important areas where the Government have taken action on this score. In Clause 47(5) of the Bill we have empowered governors to act as agents for local education authorities in providing youth or adult education at their school.
In Clause 91(3) we have also taken into account the continuing obligations which local education authorities will have towards grant-maintained schools and their pupils—for example, the provision of free school transport to those eligible to receive it,
1294
the educational welfare service, clothing grants and assistance in some cases with any board and lodging charges. Clause 91 requires the governing bodies of such schools to provide relevant local authorities with the information they will need to exercise any functions they continue to have in respect of the school or its pupils. I am sure that will be a welcome provision.
But I would be reluctant to go further than this. The very purpose of Chapter IV of the Bill, after all, is to offer schools greater autonomy from local authority control: governors will be able to become masters of their fate and captains of their destiny if they so wish. It would be the height of illogicality if my right honourable friend were to loosen governors' constraints with one hand and tighten them again with the other; yet that is exactly what the noble Lord's amendment would achieve.
It is not for my right honourable friend but for grant-maintained school governors and local authorities themselves to identify any areas of mutual advantage and to agree how that mutual advantage can best be secured. In some cases, for example, the school may choose to invite a representative from the local education authority to serve as a first governor or simply to attend governors' meetings as an observer, but I see no need to force a formal relationship on them. I trust to the common sense of both parties to act in the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment where it is appropriate to do so, and on that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness David: I have never heard anything more patronising for a long time. If the grant-maintained school has chosen to opt out, it may ask someone from the local authority to come on the governing body. That is rather monstrous. If it requires the services of an inspector, welfare and so on presumably it will need to pay for them. Perhaps the noble Lord could confirm that.
Lord Trefgarne: That depends on the basis on which the Secretary of State's grant is calculated. In principle I do not see any reason why not.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord's enthusiasm for the sweetness of human nature is very unexpected. He has not given us any sound grounds for believing that we shall be sharing that faith with him. As I understand it, the whole point of the amendment is that there are now arrangements between some local authority schools and some schools which will become grant maintained where they share playing field arrangements, gymnasiums, use of language labs and so on by agreement. That is very sensible and economical.
The noble Lord is saying that it will now be unilaterally possible for the grant-maintained school to cancel all those arrangements and to leave the local authority schools, which may for years have enjoyed the shared benefits, to find some way of replacing them or else to do without them altogether. Does the Minister really consider that that is satisfactory or has he some other way of reassuring local authorities which are deprived of what they previously had in the grant-maintained schools? Is he leaving it to the

1295
sweetness of human nature? I cannot believe that coming from him.
Lord Hylton: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was rather unnecessarily brusque. I say that because the operative words in this proposed new clause are, "to have regard". That phrase appears twice, once in subsection (2) and once in subsection (4). I may be totally wrong, but I understand the words as meaning to consider some proposition seriously. When one has gone through one's considerations, one might throw out the proposal and decide to take no action upon it whatever. But all that is being asked is that it should be considered in a reasonably calm and rational way, and it does not commit anybody to anything. Perhaps the Government will look more closely at this matter.
Lord Trefgarne: I am rather perplexed because the noble Lord accuses me of being too brusque and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that I had too much sweetness and light, which she did not believe.
Baroness Seear: Too much sweetness and light for the world in general, but not enough by half to us.
Lord Trefgarne: I am mortified to find that I have not provided the noble Baroness with sufficient sweetness and light. I am not often accused of that. The fact is that we consider that a more informal arrangement along the lines proposed in the Bill is better than the rather tramline arrangement proposed by this amendment. For that reason we do not think that it is a useful addition to the Bill and I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press the matter at this stage but I believe that the Minister does not understand the real world. He started by saying that the Government have a concept that the opted out schools want to get away from a dependence on the local education authority and that they should stand on their own two feet and be captain of their fate. In doing that they could very well act to the detriment of the community and other schools. The Minister is right that in nine cases out of 10, or 99 cases out of 100, there will be understanding and agreement.
This amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should be given the power to insert into the articles of governors of the new opted out school the ability of the local education authority to have discussions. The noble Baroness raised very relevant issues. I take the example of community use. There are schools used by old-age pensioners' groups, adult education classes and swimming clubs. I would blanch if I felt that a school had opted out for the very good reason that it had an endowment which it thought it would keep to itself but which hitherto had been used by the community. That could be the issue on which whatever changes were to take place would founder. The Minister has given an unsatisfactory and uncharitable view of what will happen in the real world. I shall return to this, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Instrument and articles of government: procedure]:
[Amendment No. 209A not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 44, line 12, after ("passed") insert ("by a simple majority of the total membership of the governing body").
The noble Lord said: At an earlier stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, reminded us that the procedure for opting out was not a single act but carried out in several stages. The stage which we voted on earlier—the parental ballot—is the second stage.
These amendments seek to introduce into the prior stage of a resolution by the governing body that such a ballot should be held and should include the same requirement as was introduced by the amendment of the right reverend Prelate into the parental ballot; that is to say, that there should be a majority of those entitled to vote in favour of the process.
I must confess to the Committee that I believe that the passing of the amendment of the right reverend Prelate on the parental ballot has made these two amendments somewhat less necessary, because I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211. In the earlier debate I said that in the Bill we were presented with two very weak trigger mechanisms: the weak trigger of the governing body's resolution and the weak trigger of the parental ballot. As a result of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, the parental ballot is no longer a weak trigger. The governing body's resolution to set the parental ballot in motion has to be approved by a second resolution or confirmed by the governing body within 28 days. That gives the opportunity for any governors not present for the first resolution to be at the second meeting and to confirm that resolution, or otherwise.
What is the position if the governing body approves, by the first resolution, the institution of a parental ballot but that is not confirmed by the second meeting of the governors which has to take place within 28 days? If the first resolution is not confirmed by the second I take it that the proposal will fall. If that is so, from the wording of the clause, I am not clear as to what period must elapse before it can be revived—that is, before the governing body can again institute a resolution to opt out and to institute a parental ballot. I simply seek clarification from the noble Lord on precisely how that mechanism will operate if the first resolution of the governors is not confirmed by a second resolution. I seek enlightenment on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I support the amendment. It seems to be as important as the ballot that the resolution by the governing body should be reached by a real majority and not put through by a group which happens to know that for the next six weeks certain governors will not be around. This amendment would make it absolutely clear that a full majority of the governing body has to pass resolutions.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that these amendments are an unnecessary refinement of the procedures in Clauses 50 to 52, which are already designed to produce ample evidence of the nature and strength of views about grant-maintained status before any formal application comes to my right honourable friend. Let me first emphasise that what we are talking about here is not a decision to become a grant-maintained school. Only my right honourable friend can take that decision. The governors' resolutions to which the amendments refer are simply the first step in ensuring that the issue of whether the school should apply for grant-maintained status is properly aired.
Having said that, governing bodies are going to find that following the procedures for the acquisition of grant-maintained status set out in the Bill is a fairly demanding process. It will require a fair degree of commitment and enthusiasm to carry them through to the point where they are awaiting the Secretary of State's decision. They will know this when they embark on the process; they will also know that the issue at stake is one of the most important things they will ever have been asked to consider as governors of the school.
That is why we have ensured that the process is not lightly begun. Clause 50(1) of the Bill requires there to be two meetings of the governing body before a ballot of parents may take place. At the first, the governors may pass a resolution which, in effect, does no more than signal their intention to consult on whether they should hold a ballot. At the second, to be held not less than 28 days' later, the governors will have to consider any representations made to them on the issue by, in particular, the local education authority and the trustees of the school before deciding whether to confirm their initial resolution. Where a governor genuinely finds it impossible to attend the first such meeting we have given him or her a second opportunity to make his or her views known. But I cannot believe that any governor would deliberately absent himself from either of those meetings—unless, of course, to do so would have the effect of preventing the other governors from passing the necessary resolution. These amendments would allow an opposed minority—and we must recognise that some, at any rate, of the LEA-appointed governors are likely to be opposed—to thwart the wishes of the majority by simply being absent from the meeting.
I might add that these amendments would also introduce an unprecedented provision—
8.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Will the noble Lord give way? If the amendment calls for a vote of the majority of governors that exist to be in favour of the resolution I fail to see how it matters if the minority are present or absent. It does not seem logical. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain the point.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps I may add that these amendments would also introduce an unprecedented provision because there are no circumstances in which the governing body would currently take a decision at a maintained
1298
school other than by a simple majority of those present and voting.
Reverting to the point made by the noble Lord, it is conceivable that governors would absent themselves from a meeting and, by so doing, reduce the number of those attending below the quorum necessary for any business to take place. That is the point I make.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The amendment states,
"by a simple majority of the total membership of the governing body".
If there has to be a majority of the total membership—say there are 20 governors—that must mean at least 11. If there are 11 in favour it does not matter what the nine do. Therefore, I fail to see what the noble Lord's answer has to do with the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: There may still be circumstances where so few people turn up that the meeting could not take place.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the noble Lord, that is a totally different situation. I do not propose to lecture the noble Lord on electoral systems or matters of that kind, but this is a much simpler concept. If there is a majority of governors who are in favour of this process—whether the rest are there or not, voting or not voting, for or against it, abstaining or standing on their heads or doing anything they wish—that majority will carry. I do not understand why the noble Lord cannot see that.
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid my only answer is that I have never fully understood the intricacies of proportional representation.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord does not understand the principle. This has nothing whatever to do with proportional representation.
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to say that the noble Lord obviously does not understand simple arithmetic. It is nothing to do with proportional representation, as I have indicated. It is a question of a majority of the governors, present or not. They have to be present to win if they are a majority. Whether or not the people against the resolution are there makes not the slightest difference. That is quite contrary to what the noble Lord said.
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Lord wishes for a further explanation I am happy to give it. If, let us say, the LEA members decided to absent themselves at least one-quarter of the governors would not be there for the vote. Most of the governors present at the meeting would have to be in favour in order to achieve a majority vote. That is the difficulty I see with these amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The amendment says quite clearly,
"a simple majority of the total membership".
For the sake of argument, if one has 15 governors a simple majority is eight. Nothing is said about the need for a quorum. If one can assemble eight members at a meeting one can get a resolution

1299
through. It has nothing to do with proportional representation; it is a question of arithmetic. There is a noble and learned Lord not very far away who knows more about maths than I do and who certainly appears to know more than the Minister. I assure the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I are right on this issue and that he is wrong.
Lord Trefgarne: I am extremely sorry if my modest mathematical attainments are not sufficient to enable me to assist on the Education Reform Bill. I am also sorry if I have not made this point as clear as I should have done. If the LEA members were to absent themselves from a meeting, a quarter of of the governors overall would not be present and so very many more than half of those present would have to vote in order to achieve the requirements set out. That is not a proposition I am prepared to accept.
Lord Tordoff: This is not a question of opinion or of politics. It is a question of mathematical fact. It does not matter whether the LEA members absent themselves. The presumption in the noble Lord's mind is that the LEA people will be opposed. If the people who are in favour are there and vote, it does not matter what happens to those who are against it. If there is a simple majority within the governing body and that is represented by people who are present, that is all that matters. If people not in favour are not present, that is their problem. But if there is a simple majority of people in favour of the proposition and they are there and voting, it does not matter a jot what happens to the rest. I assure the Minister that that is a simple fact. It is not a matter of politics.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not going to argue with the noble Lord's arithmetic, which I am happy to concede is likely to be much better than mine. If a large proportion of the governors absent themselves from a meeting, a greater proportion of those present have to vote in order to achieve the requirements set out. That is not the proposition that I am willing to accept.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is not the proposition in the amendment. If the noble Lord cares to read it, he will see that it refers to,
"a simple majority of the total membership of the governing body".
Lord Trefgarne: In other words, more than a simple majority of those who may be present at the meeting.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord has got it! He is absolutely right. But it makes no difference at all.
Lord Dormand of Easington: It may be of no comfort to the Minister to know that I am not only the worst mathematician in this Chamber but the worst mathematician in the whole country; and I can understand it! I suspect that the noble Lord is far too intelligent to tell us what he is really about here. I suspect that there is something behind it.
A simple majority is what it says. If there are 20 governors, a simple majority is 11. If there are 15
1300
governors, a simple majority is eight. It has nothing to do with what the noble Lord said in his previous three replies. It has nothing to do with people being absent. He should forget that point. The Minister is saying it has. It has not. We cannot carry on repeating this simple arithmetic which has already been set out. Perhaps the Minister will come clean and say something different about this.
Baroness David: It is not my amendment, but I think we have had enough discussion on it. Let us come to a vote.
8.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 210) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

London, Bp.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bauer, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lindsay, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cowley, E.

Reay, L.

Cox, B.

Renton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denman, L.

Southborough, L.

Dormer, L.

Swinfen, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swinton, E.

Gainford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Haig, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hanson, L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 44, line 14, after ("decision") insert (", after the consultations required by subsection (3A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: While speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 211A, 211C, 211D, 211E, 211F, 281D and 284A.
I said earlier the Government have made every effort to respond sympathetically to the comments and concerns of the Churches on our proposals for grant-maintained schools. I would hope that they now fully accept that our commitment to Church and other voluntary schools is as strong as theirs. We have consistently made it clear that if a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, the foundation will continue to appoint the majority of governors; the trustees will continue to own all the assets of the school which they already own; and the school will be required to continue to offer religious education in accordance with its practices as a voluntary school. In every sense, therefore, the school will remain part of the broader Church community.
It is for those reasons that the Government do not accept that the trustees should enjoy a power of direct veto on an application by that school for grant-maintained status. However, speaking in another place on 23rd March of this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education identified a further area in which the Churches' concerns could be addressed. He said:
"it would be possible to bring forward amendments spelling out clearly the opportunities that would exist for the trustees in a Church school to make clear the consequences not only for that school but for others in that area. We would expect that to happen in the process of public consultation".
We have considered that proposition carefully and the amendments which we have tabled are the result.
Clause 50(1) of the Bill provides for a ballot of parents to be held on whether to apply for grant-maintained status if one of two events has occurred. The first is that the governing body has resolved to hold such a ballot at a governors' meeting and has confirmed that decision at a second meeting held at least 28 days later. The second is that the governors have received a written request from a given number of parents to hold a ballot. Our amendments will ensure that the views of those currently responsible for that school and for wider provision in the area are properly heard and carefully considered. In the case of a resolution by the governors, our amendments would require the governing body to consult both the trustees (in the case of a voluntary school) and the local education authority, by whom the school is maintained, immediately after the first governors' meeting. The governors will therefore have every opportunity to consider the views of the trustees and the local education authority when they meet a second time to decide whether or not to proceed with the ballot. If they decide to go ahead, they must inform the LEA and trustees of that decision.
In the second case, where parents have mounted a petition for a ballot, the governors will not be able to hold the ballot until at least 28 days after they received the petition. This will provide sufficient time for the trustees and the local education authority, if they so wish, to ensure by whatever means they think
1302
appropriate that the voters know their views. I am sure that the Committee will welcome these steps.
The amendments also require that the second governors' meeting, which is needed to ratify the governors' initial resolution to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status, must be held not more than six weeks later. This is to ensure that the decision to proceed with or abandon such a ballot is not prolonged indefinitely. We recognise that it is in everyone's interests that these matters are undertaken with as much briskness as is consistent with careful consideration of the issues. I believe that that strikes the right balance.
We seek also to amend Clause 50 to lay a duty on the governing body of any school eligible for grant-maintained status to give any parent of a pupil at the school, on request, the name and address of the parents of other pupils at the school. Parents may request this information only in connection with a ballot on grant-maintained status. Access to the names and addresses will allow parents to mount a petition under Subsection (1)(b) of this clause, in order to require the governors to hold such a ballot; or, where arrangements for a ballot are already under way, to lobby their fellow voters either for or against the proposition.
I should add, however, that we have introduced one safeguard to protect parents who feel strongly that they do not wish their names and addresses to be released for this purpose: any parents may request the governing body in writing to respect their privacy, and their details will be deleted from the list. Their right to vote in the ballot itself will not be affected as long as their names are still included on the admissions register from which the electoral roll will be derived. I commend all these amendments to the Committee.
The Lord Bishop of London: In welcoming these amendments from the point of view of the Church of England, I think it would be helpful for the subsequent debate in this Committee if I indicated why there may appear to be a difference of opinion between ourselves and the Peers who were speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. As regards the Church of England, the word "trustees" does not mean the same as it means for the Roman Catholic Church. In our case trustees are local bodies merely representing the individual schools. We are well content and pleased that they should be consulted.
The noble Lords concerned will speak for themselves, but in the case of the Roman Catholic Church I am told that the trustees are normally the diocesan bishops who have a far wider responsibility. In the case of the Church of England that responsibility is taken up into a statutory body (which we have by the nature of the General Synod) namely, the Diocesan Education Committee which we also wish to see consulted. I mentioned this point on Second Reading. After consideration it seems to us much better and proper that we should seek to embody that in a Measure of the General Synod—that is, the proper consultation with the Diocesan Education Committee—rather than bring what by necessity is a domestic matter for the Church of England into a Bill of this kind for everybody.

1303
I thought it would help if I explained our different understanding of the word "trustees" and said that the Church of England welcomes and is satisfied with the word "consult". Through our own legislative process in the General Synod we shall seek later, when the Measure is being revised, to secure that the position of the Diocesan Education Committee be preserved.
Lord Harvington: I wish to express concern about the position of the trustees in voluntary schools under the provisions of the Bill. The amendment provides for the governors of the voluntary school to consult the trustees. The noble Baroness has done something to meet the position of Catholic schools by allowing consultation to take place at all. But I do not think that it goes far enough. It is the trustees who are the owners of the property. Surely their consent should be required before an application is made for a change of status. I cannot help thinking that the Bill does not sufficiently distinguish between the position in county schools where the owner is the local authority and the position in voluntary schools where a private charitable trust is the owner.
The question of the role of the trustees has caused particular concern to the Catholic bishops. In the case of the Catholic voluntary schools, the diocese is the trustee, except of course for those schools which are owned by the religious orders. The diocese holds the schools in the interests of the Catholic community as a whole.
I know that the religious character of the voluntary schools becoming grant-maintained is safeguarded in the Bill, for which we are naturally grateful. But there is more to it than that. This amendment is not grouped with Amendment No. 224B, to which I know the noble Baroness will be speaking shortly. It is material to the trustee what status a school has. It is particularly material to the trustee when that trustee is the diocese, for the bishop has the responsibility for the welfare of the diocese. Yet under the Bill, he is not allowed any significant place in the procedures by which grant-maintained status may be achieved. It is the thesis of the Bill that change of status to grant-maintained schools is an important change. I cannot accept that this should take place against the wishes of the trustee, particularly when the trustee is a body as substantial as a diocese. I ask that the Government look at this again and perhaps put forward a proposition a little later on in the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of Longford: Also speaking as a Roman Catholic, I should like to support what the noble Lord has just said. We have many advantages, as have members of other denominations, but we do not have the advantage of being officially represented in this House. Of course we listened with great respect to what was said about our position by the right reverend Prelate, and I think he put it very fairly.
I am glad that this protest, because that is what it is, about the Bill from the Catholic point of view comes from someone sitting so close to the noble Baroness. I am against the whole business of opting out. Therefore my comments may seem a little biased or distorted, but the noble Lord could lean over and touch the noble Baroness if he wished. I am sure that
1304
great attention will be paid by her and others to the noble Lord's remarks.
I cannot be said to have wearied the Committee up till now; I have not broken my silence. I do not mean to spoil that record now. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, in expressing the hope that we shall have some reassurance. However, I am bound to admit that I doubt we shall receive it tonight. If we do not, then we shall have to consider what can be done at the next stage.
Lord Hylton: I also wish to support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. It may be helpful if I say something about the nature of Catholic secondary schools. They have by and large much bigger catchment areas than other kinds of secondary schools. Pupils travel to them from far greater distances.
Usually they will have a network of contributing primary schools, but that will not account for the totality of the pupils. There will be other pupils who have not passed through a contributing Catholic primary school. Therefore because of the size of the catchment area the schools are further apart and if one is lost there is a vastly greater hole in the entire network.
Will the Government say what is going to happen if a secondary school is allowed to opt out against the wishes of its trustee, the diocesan Bishop? Will the local education authority be willing to supply a replacement? If not, in what difficulty, with the enormously high present capital costs of new buildings, are the diocese, the local education authority and by implication, through the 85 per cent. machinery, the government of the day going to find themselves? We need a much better explanation.
Lady Kinloss: I wish to support everything that the noble Lord has just said.
9.15 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: I have heard the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Harvington and Lord Hylton, all of whom, like me, are Roman Catholics. This is quite a big subject. I wish to let the Committee know that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has circulated all the Roman Catholic Peers with a paper setting out its views. I should like to speak for two or three minutes on this. It was a very good paper and I am pleased to say that most of the requirements of that paper have already been met.
I shall go through it quickly in order to emphasise all the points in it. First, the paper required that the importance of religious education should be emphasised. It has been emphasised early on in the debates in the Chamber that religion will now be placed in the forefront of the national curriculum. That point having been made by the right reverend Prelate, it was agreed and supported by the rest of the Committee.
Secondly, the paper asked whether the Bill would preserve the dual system which was initiated by the 1944 Act. That is the case. The Bill preserves that dual system and does not interfere with it in any way. Catholic schools, with their distinctive charitable

1305
trust deeds, are run very successfully as a partnership between the bishops, priests and people in the life of the Catholic Church. That system is preserved under this Bill whether or not the schools are opting out. Clauses 71 to 77 and Clause 90 will provide the framework of the detail as a basis in law for this partnership of bishops, priests and people to continue. As I have just said, Catholic schools, whether or not they have opted out, will have full protection, as they did under the 1944 Act.
We are moving on now to opting out. This is where three Members of the Committee have criticised the Government. The situation is as follows. We all know that to opt out a majority of parents must demand that action by secret ballot and the governing body must then implement the procedure. We have heard at past moments in this Chamber how this opting out can start. But the most extreme cases which the Catholic Bishops are apparently worried about is that if a majority of the parents in a Catholic school decide to opt out they can carry the day in demanding that the governors implement this opting-out procedure.
The Catholic Bishops maintain that they have insufficient control in the opting-out procedure. I want to emphasise that that in no way changes the religious character of a school, whether it is continuing in the local government setting or becoming a grant-maintained school. The schools are exactly the same with regard to religion and control by the diocesan boards. The Catholic Bishops object that the trustees, who are the bishops, can only exert control by appointing governors. They say that that control is too remote and that the exercise of their powers through the appointment of governors is not direct enough as regards opting out.
Therefore, the Government are faced with trying to help the bishops. We have heard the Minister say that the Government have produced Amendment No. 211D. The relevant part of that amendment says that:
"The governing body shall consult—(b) if the school is a voluntary school, the trustees of the school",
before the opting-out procedure is undertaken. The Government have given in on the matter by saying that a right of consultation will be given to bishops and trustees.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Bishops are still not satisfied, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Harvington and Lord Hylton. I find that a very unreasonable demand. The Government have gone a long way towards giving the Catholic Bishops a chance to be consulted and to share their views. We all know that the procedure is a long one and that there are many gaps in the considerations. However, the Catholic Bishops still insist that they should be asked to give their consent, which they say would never be unreasonably withheld.
If you give your consent and agree that it shall never be unreasonably withheld, does not that amount to being consulted? I cannot see the difference. I shall be interested to hear at Report stage how the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, explain the difference
1306
between giving consent, while agreeing that it will never be unreasonably withheld, and being given the opportunity to consult. I can see no difference.
I support the amendment. I think that the Government have done everything possible to help the Catholic Bishops. I support the Minister, who as it happens is a Roman Catholic. I am sorry to have bored the Committee with so much Popery!
Lord Coleraine: I should like to support the group of amendments which have been moved by the Minister which will have the effect of ensuring that, where a ballot is initiated by the governors, the local education authority or the trustees shall have a right to point out to the governors the effect of what is proposed.
I pause for a moment to wonder whether a similar right of approach to parents should not be given to the LEA or the trustees if the ballot is initiated by parents rather than by the governors. It seems to me that the principle is the same in both cases.
A number of Members of the Committee have raised the question of an amendment which would give trustees a right of veto. However, that amendment is not on the Marshalled List this evening. The sort of provision which would allow the trustees an absolute veto on the right to go to the Secretary of State would have an entirely undesirable effect of denying to parents in voluntary schools the right that parents in the rest of the maintained sector have.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may raise a non-ecclesiastical issue in this group of amendments and speak about Amendment No. 211F which is at the tail end of the group. It seems perhaps not to give the safeguards which the Government intend that it should.
In the first place, under subsection (8), which is added by the amendment, the governing body is not to disclose the address of a parent who has written to the governing body asking that his name and address should not be disclosed. It is difficult to see that the parent would have thought of that. There may be large numbers of parents who may not wish their names and addresses conveyed but who would not have thought of that beforehand, found this section, read it up, and said, "We must write to the governing body because there may be a ballot in a year's time". It seems to me to be a rather unreal precaution.
The other point is that the governing body has the duty of determining whether the person who wants the list is a parent. I may be wrong, but it seems to me it does not have a duty to determine whether the parent who wants the list genuinely intends to seek a ballot or just wants the list in order perhaps to sell it to some company which might be interested in having a list of parents in the school in order to sell things. I am sure that the Government do not want that and wish to restrict the provision very much for the purposes of balloting or for people objecting to ballots.
As it is drafted, the amendment seems to be an open invitation to any parent of any school to go to the governing body and say, "I am thinking about a ballot, can I have a list of all the parents in the

1307
school?" There seems to me to be some danger in that. I wonder whether the Minister can deal with those difficulties.
Baroness Hooper: I fully appreciate the concern of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to maintain the unity of Catholic educational provision as has been expressed this evening. I also realise that in expressing their concern the bishops are not setting their faces against the concept of grant-maintained status and that they acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be right for their schools.
My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk was perfectly right when he said that the only thing that will change for the voluntary-aided schools in the circumstances is the source of finance. A Catholic school which becomes grant-maintained will remain a Catholic school providing religious education in accordance with the Catholic faith and, if the governors so desire, giving preference in its admissions policy to pupils from Catholic homes.
In all circumstances, foundation governors appointed by the trustees will be in a majority on the governing body. The assets of the trust will remain secure. The school will continue to be a part of Catholic educational provision in the area.
In relation to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I believe that his concerns may be met by the arrangements that will be made in individual schools for giving parents information and informing them about those arrangements. I note his concern about the possibility that some lists may be used for other purposes, but I believe that it will be possible to safeguard that information within the arrangements set up by individual schools.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will give way. I am sure that it is possible, but I think that the wording needs redrafting. All I am requesting is that the noble Baroness will perhaps take this back and see whether the provision could be tightened up. It seems that some restriction needs to be added such as that the governors need to be satisfied that the list is to be used for the purpose stated.
Baroness Hooper: To reiterate, there is nothing to stop the governors from informing parents when asking for their name and address that they have the right not to have those details disclosed to other parents. That may be a sensible precaution for the school itself. However, the governing body will need to satisfy itself that the parent is asking for the list for good reason. If it is not so satisfied then it is open to that body not to supply the list. I can reassure the noble Lord that I shall look further at that point.
The Government maintain that the Churches should have nothing to fear from the creation of grant-maintained schools. We stand by our commitment to see their interests safeguarded. We believe that we have done so in the amendments that I have proposed.
The Bill ensures that there is a central place for the trustees in the procedures that lead to grant-maintained status. The Government stop short only at the point where parents and governors could be denied rights and opportunities offered to parents
1308
and governors at other schools. We believe that we shall have the backing of many Catholic parents in doing that. Indeed, in my view, if the trustees had the power to withhold consent, the exercise of that power would tend to promote conflict within the Catholic community of exactly the kind that many wish to avoid.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I do not want to become too involved in this discussion but I do not think that the noble Baroness has answered the important point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton; namely, that Catholic schools tend to look to a wider catchment area than do many other maintained schools. I do not honestly believe that one can fear for the catholicity of these schools in the future, but I think that there could be a situation in which people who have contributed to the foundation of schools over a wide area could find themselves deprived of that facility by a new set of governors who take a rather narrower view of who will come to that school. I may be wrong because I see that the noble Baroness shakes her head, but I think that it is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is referring, and it is an important one.
Lord Hylton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for amplifying and intensifying the point that I was trying to make. Perhaps I may just make some further financial points. In many cases when a secondary school in particular has been built the diocese or parish will have provided the whole site free of charge. In addition there will have been a major cash contribution from the Catholic laity, the Catholic Church funds and a variety of Catholic sources to provide at least 15 per cent. of the original capital cost. In some cases— I believe in the early days of the 1944 Act—the proportion was in fact higher. Will the noble Baroness please include that aspect of the matter in her reply?
The Duke of Norfolk: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may raise a somewhat different point. It is well known that by the provisions of the 1944 Act Church schools—of the Church of England, the Church of Rome, the Jewish faith and so on—were allowed to be created and the Government agreed to pay for their running but said that the Churches would have to pay 50 per cent. of the building costs. That is what they have been paying. However, in Scotland the Presbyterians were fly enough to say that they would not pay anything at all, and so the Roman Catholics in Scotland pay nothing. That figure of 50 per cent. has now become 15 per cent. I should most willingly greet some future Bill in which it is suggested that we should pay nothing and not 15 per cent. I wanted to cover that point.
To return to the issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I want to emphasise that in the present situation in no sense is a grant-maintained school in any way different from a voluntary school run by the local authority. The Catholic bishops can control such a voluntary school through the trustees, whom they appoint. That is how they control the school, and I think that it is a very good method. When the school becomes grant-maintained it will be controlled in exactly the same way.

1309
The argument between me and the three other Catholic Peers in the Committee concerns the opting-out procedure. I maintain that the Government have gone a long way to try to achieve this. I also believe that the Catholic laity can be trusted. If the Catholic laity wish to opt out, it is very unfortunate that the Catholic bishops should want to control and maybe veto the decision. I trust the Catholic laity. I am a Catholic layman and I believe that we have done great things for the Catholic Church in this country. I much resent any attempt by the bishops of this Church to imply that the Catholic laity is not pro the Catholic Church in this country.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I believe that I should have already achieved that. Schools that become grant-maintained will continue with their existing catchment areas, so there is no change on that front. The property continues in the ownership of the trustees, so there is no change on that front. The only change is that the source of finance will come from central government instead of from the local authority. The trustees always have the power, in that they have the right to appoint a majority of the foundation governors. Therefore, I believe that there is no need for the sort of anxieties that have been expressed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 44, line 16, after ("days") insert (", nor more than forty two days,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 211B:
Page 44, line 16, leave out from ("that") to ("or") in line 17 and insert ("notice in writing has been given to parents of registered pupils at the school of the first resolution").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 211B would require that parents of pupils of the school be informed of the proposal by the governors to seek grant-maintained status for the school. The purpose of the requirement of a second resolution in the Bill is that there should be time for reflection and for representations to be made. If parent governors are to function in any representative capacity—and presumably that must be one of the main aspects of their role—the total body of parents must be informed. It cannot simply be those parents who by accident happen to know, or who live next door to a governor, or whatever, who should have access to knowledge of matters to which the majority are denied.
There can be no dispute about the importance of becoming a grant-maintained school. The Government constantly refer to it and they also constantly refer to the importance of the role of parents in the education of children. Indeed, most of our debates emphasise that fact. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the mechanics for achieving those objectives be correct, and this amendment will bring that about.
The Minister may in fact accept that not to provide for the notification of parents in such a manner was merely an oversight in the drafting of the Bill, although I suspect that I am a bit optimistic in saying that. If that is not the case the members of the Committee are entitled to an explanation of what would be a considerable reduction, a considerable diminution, in the importance of the parents' role in this particular matter. The amendment would also bring proposals to hold an opting out ballot into line with existing requirements for local authorities to consult those affected when school reorganisation takes place following the requirements of Section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
In tabling this amendment I tried to deduce whether the Government would say that there are practical difficulties in implementing it. Frankly, I do not see any, but if that objection is raised I say to the Minister that the importance of the principle and of the parents' decision is such that the onus is on the Government to surmount any practical problems which they feel exist. It is not simplistic to say that unless parents are informed of the proposals before the second meeting, there is surely little point in the same governors meeting again to confirm what they have already decided. This amendment reiterates, and indeed strengthens, the importance of parents, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that I shall not be accused of excessive cynicism if I say that I sometimes wonder whether calls for in-depth consultation at every stage represent a commitment not to clarity but to obfuscation and whether the prime objective may be not to ensure that everyone has a say but to make the demands of the process appear so daunting to the governors that they will recoil from entering upon it. The amendment tempts me to that conclusion.
The governors will have met and decided in principle to hold a ballot of all their parent body on whether to apply for grant-maintained status. The resolution is unlikely to have come out of the blue. Parent governors I am sure will have played their full representative part in the discussions preceding the resolution just as they will at the second meeting needed to confirm it. The amendment in practice would do no more than require the governors to consult the parents about whether they wished to be consulted. I do not think that is sensible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Any obfuscation would arise from the inability of or deliberate action by the Government not to proceed in the manner suggested by the amendment. The Minister's reply is completely unsatisfactory. He has not addressed the central requirement of the amendment. He has not dealt with what I said in moving it in terms of parents needing to be informed about what is happening.
Here we have a major decision to be taken that many parents will oppose. We are saying simply that they should be informed in the clearest fashion. What we have heard from the Minister is very unsatisfactory, and I should like to hear his further comments.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 211BA:
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("forty").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to clarify, and in our view to improve on, the number of parents who can requisition a ballot. Given what was said earlier in Committee, the amendment may be considered with more sympathy.
Clause 50(2) requires that
"the request must be signed (or otherwise endorsed in such manner as the governing body may require) by a number of parents at the school equal to at least twenty per cent. of the number of registered pupils at the school on the date on which the request is received".
On the assumption that most pupils of the schools will have two parents—in certain circumstances, some pupils may have one parent, some may have a step-parent, and in other cases there may be difficulties as to who the parents are—then one in five parents will have to sign. If there are 600 pupils at the school, 20 per cent. will total 120. Therefore, as I read it, just 120 parents will need to sign to requisition a ballot. They may be the parents of only 60 children, if my arithmetic is correct. I see the Minister raising his eyebrows, but I hope I have it right so far.
It seems to me that that is too low a percentage, especially as we now have to have a majority of the parents of the pupils at the school and we shall define later how that voting is to be carried out. It would be better if the ballot were requisitionable only on a larger quantity. For that reason the amendment suggests that "twenty" be deleted and "forty" inserted, which would in effect mean that the parents of at least 20 per cent. of the pupils at the school would need to be included. That would seem to be more reasonable than 10 per cent. Otherwise there would be scope for continuous requests for ballots, even if the vote in the end had gone against the opting-out procedure. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I understand that this is to be discussed in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 211BB, 212A, 213ZA and 213ZB.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My understanding is that this amendment is being discussed on its own; otherwise I should have mentioned the grouping.
Lord Tordoff: I apologise. I believe I have an earlier grouping here.
Lord Trefgarne: On the assumption that I am replying only to Amendment No. 211BA—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, if there has been some change of which he was not informed—let me start by emphasising yet again that what we are talking about is not a decision to become a grant-maintained school. Only the Secretary of State can take that decision. A parental petition is simply one way in which a group of parents can ensure that the issue of whether a school should apply for grant-maintained status is properly aired. It would be ridiculous to require that a group of parents equal to 40 per cent. of the numbers of pupils in the school would have to sign a petition which in itself
1312
was asking merely that the parental body be canvassed on the question of grant-maintained status.
There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the right of petition is not abused. Clause 50(5), for example, prohibits a second ballot from being called within 12 months and there are other safeguards as well. I see no reason to raise the hurdles which the Bill already provides in relation to petitions by parents. I suggest that only those who wish to see no grant-maintained schools at all would think otherwise. I hope the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment at this time of night. I shall read what the Minister said, though to me it sounded unsatisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 211BB:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert—

("(2A) Where the governing body of a school is under a duty to secure that a ballot of parents is held under subsection (1) above, it shall first consult the governing body of any primary school from which it considers that a significant number of pupils have been admitted in the previous year, and shall secure that the information specified in section 51(3) below is made available to that governing body.

(2B) The governing body of any primary school subject to consultation under subsection (2A) above shall take such steps as are practicable to seek the views of parents of pupils likely to be eligible for admission within the following four years to the school in respect of which an application for grant-maintained status is being considered, and shall report such views in its representations under the consultation procedure.

(2C) Consultation under subsection (2B) above shall take place so far as practicable within one month.

(2D) The governing body of the school in respect of which a ballot is to be held shall publish in respect of each primary school the results of consultation under subsection (2B) above, circulate a summary to parents under section 51(5) and shall include such results in any proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under section 52(2).").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee. I now have the correct grouping and I notice that Amendment No. 211BB is not grouped with anything.
Again I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNair who is on his sick bed. The amendment is perfectly clear. It provides for a consultation process to be introduced so that the parents of children who are at local primary schools—those who are going on to the secondary schools—have a chance to have a say in relation to those schools to which their children will be going because they will be affected. Clearly if a school changes its status the children most affected by the change will be those who have entered the school in addition to those who remain after the change has taken place. We make provision for parents to be involved even though they may be the parents of children who may be leaving school. It is clearly more sensible to include children whose future lies within the school; in other words children in local primary schools who are about to enter the school will be as affected by the change, as will the others. At present the Bill does not give those parents any opportunity to have a say in the decisions. This amendment would give the governing body of the

1313
potential opt-out school the duty to consult the governing body of local primary schools. Under the amendment all the primary schools within the catchment area from which at least one pupil has been admitted in previous years would be consulted. I believe that to be perfectly straightforward and helpful in obtaining the genuine concern of those most involved. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support the amendment because it involves consultation only with those parents who may well be attending the school in the future. I believe it to be only fair and right that they should have a chance to express their opinion. The amendment asks that parents should be consulted and that the results shall be given to those who will make the decisions. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment or the principle of it. The wording may not be perfect but I hope that he will accept the spirit of it.
Lord Trefgarne: We recognise that the views of parents of pupils in feeder primaries are relevant to consideration of the question whether a school should become grant-maintained. But I am not at all convinced that the provisions relating to the parental ballot are the most appropriate place for such views to be taken into account.
To begin with, I do not believe this amendment to be workable. It takes a decidedly cavalier approach to the problem of the identification of feeder parents. The notion of identifying the parents of prospective pupils of a school four years before those parents will be called upon to make decisions about applications for admission is wholly unrealistic.
In any case, this amendment would place a highly cumbersome and quite unnecessary process on the shoulders of the school planning to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status, and—even more unreasonably—on those of any primary schools which it considers to be a feeder. Feeder parents who feel that they have something to contribute to the Secretary of State's consideration of a formal proposal will be entitled to make their views on such a proposal known to him. The ballot of parents should be left alone. Its role is to identify the views of the parents of existing pupils at the school. Their views must necessarily be pre-eminent, but they will not be decisive. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Tordoff: The Government are remarkably intransigent about some of the issues. The Minister accepts that there is a point. The noble Baroness, Lady David, says that the amendment may not be perfect and I accept that. We are making the point that parents of children in primary schools have a right to be consulted. Why on earth cannot the Government make some kind of concession and come forward with an amendment to deal with what is clearly a problem? I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight. However, it would be nice to have an indication that he understands that we are not trying to demolish the whole system being put forward but are trying to be constructive.
Baroness David: I should like to add to the noble Lord's comments. The Minister appears to accept that there is a problem and that the parents should be consulted. Is he prepared to come back with his own wording making some kind of consultation process possible?
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid that I can give no assurance of that kind.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: This is becoming very tiresome. Here we have an absolutely clear case that parents of next year's children are not to be consulted about what will happen in the school that the children are to attend. Instead of the Minister saying that he will take the matter away and look at it—which is what we are entitled to expect—he says that he will not consider the matter at all. I believe that that is quite intolerable.
Lord Tordoff: Clearly the Minister will not reply even to that impassioned appeal made by my noble friend. I wonder whether the Committee is not totally wasting its time at this time of night when the Government have not the slightest intention of listening to what is being said. However, in the circumstances and at this hour of the night, I have no alternative but to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 211BC:
Page 44, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, there shall be cast in each case not more than one vote in respect of each registered pupil at the school exercisable by a parent or guardian of that pupil, or person otherwise responsible for the pupil.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 211CA, 212B, 213 and 213ZC. These amendments concern the qualification for voting: who is to vote and how many votes they should have. Amendment No. 211BC states that in respect of each pupil of the school there should only be one vote in the ballot. That is what the amendment says. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch may disagree with the intention but that is what it says. It is undefined in the Bill whether each parent is to have a vote; whether, if two parents have three children, they each have three votes on the basis of one for each child; or whether, if it is a single parent, she or he is considered by the Government half as worthy as the parent who happens to have a spouse.
It seems to us that the amendment is reasonable and certainly that some definition of how the vote is to be counted and how it is to be arranged must be arrived at. It is not enough to say that regulations will be published at some later date. Regulations cannot be fully discussed and amended. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 211BC.
Amendment No. 211CA is to exclude from a vote the parent of a child who is within one year of the end of statutory education or who is above the age of statutory education where that parent has no other child at the school. It is not that we are against

1315
children of that age. Our case is that by the time the ballot has taken place and, let us say, the school opts out, the child will have left school. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether or not that parent wishes the school to opt out. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 211CA. Amendment No. 212B is a consequential amendment. I am not sure why it is included in this group; perhaps it belongs somewhere else.
Amendment No. 213 states that not more than one vote should be cast in respect of any registered pupil. It seems to us that that is the only way to answer the problem of how the voting is to be done; otherwise there will be unfairness between the multi-child family, the single parent family and the family which has split up and the parents have re-married which may cause all sorts of problems.
Amendment No. 213ZC again says that there should be only one vote in respect of each child but adds,
"A parent or guardian of that pupil, or person otherwise responsible for the pupil"
because there are situations where a child may be in care without a guardian and where the parent is not available to exercise any reasonable choice. That pupil should not be disenfranchised. With that explanation I beg to move Amendment No. 211BC.
10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am told that there is a view in various quarters that we have not got as far as we should have done in this Bill by this time. I am anxious to help in any way I can. Perhaps I can say that I am prepared to take Amendment No. 211BC away and have a look at it and see whether we can move some way to meet the point which the noble Lord makes.
I have a string of objections to the other amendments which I am happy to recite for the benefit of the noble Lord, but if, on the basis of the concession I have offered on the first amendment, he is happy to take my objections on the other ones as read, I am content to proceeed in that way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Having heard what the noble Lord the Minister has given us already this evening, I am not entirely certain that I can lake as read anything because I do not know what might emerge. There was some difficulty with arithmetic. There may be even more difficulty over understanding. However, on the basis of the helpful and friendly undertaking, I think the best answer would be to delay consideration of the other amendments in the group, if necessary until the next stage, at Report.
Lord Tordoff: There are some amendments which are the converse of Amendment No. 211CA which we have just discussed, on primary schools. It is the other side of the coin about children in sixth forms and parents not being allowed to vote. I think it is better that we should take that away anyway and consider it in relation to the primary school amendment which we have already withdrawn. I think we would agree to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and press on.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the face of the Government's commitment on Amendment No. 211BC, I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211C:
Page 44, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211CA not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211D:
Page 44, line 27, at end insert—
("3A) Immediately following the passing of the first resolution the governing body shall consult—

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

(b) if the school is a voluntary school, the trustees of the school;

with respect to their decision to hold a ballot.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211E:
Page 44, line 34, leave out ("resolution or (as the case may be)") and insert ("second resolution; or
(ii) within the period of two months beginning with the date immediately following the period of 28 days beginning with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211F:
Page 44, line 48, at end insert—
("(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, it shall be the duty of the governing body of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status, at the request of any parent of a registered pupil at the school, to make available to the parent for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school, and to supply the parent with a copy of, a list containing the name and address of every person who is known to the governing body to be such a parent if the request is made—

(a) in connection with any proposal that a ballot should be held in accordance with section 51 of this Act; or

(b) where the governing body are under a duty by virtue of this section to secure that such a ballot is held, in connection with the holding of the ballot.

(8) A governing body shall not disclose to a parent under subsection (7) above the name and address of any person who has requested the governing body in writing not to disclose that information under that subsection; and accordingly the name and address of that person shall be excluded from the list there mentioned.
(9) A governing body who in pursuance of subsection (7) above supply copies of the list there mentioned may charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.
(10) For the purposes of this section, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 212:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Re-acquisition of maintained status.
.—(1) The provisions of this Chapter relating to an application for grant-maintained status shall apply in relation to any grant-maintained school as if they referred also to an application on behalf of that school to reacquire maintained status.
(2) This section shall apply in respect of any school from a date five years after the date of acquisition of grant-maintained status.").
The noble Baroness said: We now move into reverse and I will do so as quickly as possible. I think

1317
that is what the Chief Whip wants. Nevertheless, this is a most important amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for schools to opt back into the local authority system five years after the date of acquisition of grant-maintained status.
There are several reasons for this. One may arrive at a situation where all the governors do not want to continue to be governors of the schools. Secondly, let us suppose that there is a complete change of environment; and in this day and age that is not an impossible situation. For instance, if parents in a little sleepy and attractive Kent village undertake to be governors and opt out of the system but then find the Channel Tunnel being built with two, three or four thousand people coming to their area from a different part of England—I shall not say with a different ethos, but with a completely different background—perhaps they would not wish to continue and would prefer that the school returned to the local authority. This may be because the parents and the governors feel that it would be in the interests of the new population for the school to revert to the local authority. There could be a complete change of staff, which is not at all unlikely.
There is another point; for example, where there are enough children in the school but not enough to fill it and not far away there is a local authority school that it would like to link up with but one is outside the local authority system and the other is inside it. Therefore, it ought to be possible under certain circumstances and after five years for a school to opt to return to the local authority system. It is a pity not to have that written into the Bill. It may never happen, or it may happen only on rare occasions; but I believe it is wise in legislation to make it possible to happen where necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: I support this amendment. The word "irreversible" has been used a great many times today and I do not see the logic of it. If one can opt out then one must be allowed to opt back.
Lord Trefgarne: The amendment seeks to provide for grant-maintained schools to be able to reacquire LEA-maintained status after a minimum of five years' existence. The commitment to become a grant-maintained school is not something to be undertaken lightly. That must be clear to prospective governors and parents from the very outset; there should be no easy way out thereafter if things are felt to be getting a little tough. Possibly, some governors may find that the commitment to run a newly-constituted grant-maintained school proves heavier than they had anticipated. I need not spell out how undesirable it would be if in such circumstances this amendment provided them with a mechanism whereby they could simply change their minds and hand responsibility back to the local education authority.
If a grant-maintained school is to be an effective provider of high-quality education, as we intend, it must be left, once established, to operate in its new status without the continuing prospect of further institutional change. Indeed, it would be in no-one's interest—least of all the pupils—if a school were able to move easily back and forwards between the LEA and grant-maintained sectors.
1318
I do not think this line is unduly harsh. I would remind the Committee that Clause 80 of the Bill contains provision for the governors of a grant-maintained school to publish proposals to close it. I would expect the circumstances in which this step was taken to be most exceptional; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has consistently made it clear that he would not expect any such proposal to be published within the first 10 years of a grant-maintained school's life. But where he had received and approved such a proposal the local education authority would retain its responsibility to secure enough places for the pupils in its area, and it might consider whether to establish a school in the premises. That is I believe the sensible way forward.
The Government are confident that grant-maintained schools will be successful. The provisions in the Bill ensure that they will be fully accountable to parents. If problems arise, parents and governors will surely wish to seek their own remedies rather than return cap in hand to the local education authority. That is what genuine freedom and responsibility mean, and should mean. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Seear: I find that a most extraordinary answer. The Minister says that this is freedom. Freedom is also the freedom rationally to change your mind on occasions, especially if the circumstances change and the position is quite different from that in which you made up your mind in the first place. I remind the noble Lord that if it is necessary to have more than 50 per cent. of all the parents entitled to vote—he now understands what that means—it cannot be undertaken lightly because he would need to have the consent of that proportion of all the parents.
The noble Lord has not answered any of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, especially the important point of what will happen to schools that find themselves with falling rolls. This may happen for reasons that could not have been foreseen when the original vote was taken. Is it not sensible that they should amalgamate with another scheme? What the Minister is saying is that they would have to close and start all over again, whereas the sensible thing in those circumstances would be to make possible an amalgamation with what might well be a local authority school. He has not answered that point. He has not answered the point about a change in the nature of an area. To say that it is freedom to be able to come out, but then to deny freedom to change your mind and to go back in, is the most extraordinary definition of freedom. As on so many occasions, the Minister has asserted that the Government know they are right. That is all he has told us.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: What will happen to the children if the school closes? Will they be left without a school?
Lord Hylton: I should have thought that a transfer or merger is infinitely preferable to closing the whole thing down under Clause 80. If the amendment were modified to allow a 10-year period or even a 15-year

1319
period before any new change could occur, would the Government look much more favourably on it than they have done so far?
Lord Trefgarne: The short answer to the noble Lord is, no. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked what would happen to the children if a school closed. The answer is that they would be transferred elsewhere. The likely scenario of closure is where rolls are falling in more than one school. If one school closes, the children at that school would be transferred elsewhere.
Baroness David: Presumably they would then be transferred to a local authority school. That would be the only possibility.
Lord Trefgarne: Not necessarily. It depends on what other schools are available in the area.
The Lord Bishop of London: Below 300 pupils a school cannot seek grant-maintained status. If for reasons beyond the school's control the numbers steadily decline, does the noble Lord envisage that we shall have small grant-maintained schools in an area? If he does, what is the reason for the figure of 300? There does not seem to be any logic to it. If the number falls below 300 and you do not want smaller grant-maintained schools, you have to do something else about it. I do not see what is provided unless the Government are content to have small grant-aided schools because of the position that has arisen.
Lord Trefgarne: We have made it clear that we have no difficulty in principle with the possibility of smaller grant-maintained schools. We believe that it should be a progressive matter. There are powers in the Bill to make that possible. Indeed, there are powers in the Bill to enable it to happen fairly quickly. But as a general rule it probably will not happen until later.
As for the problems of merging schools, the mechanics of merger, which is very often a sensible thing to do, are to close one school and to move the students into another.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Does the Minister not accept that the freedom of which he speaks pertains only to one generation of parents? In one year one group of parents will have the freedom to chose, and thereafter the parents will have no further freedom in the matter whatever, save only to have the school closed.
Baroness Blackstone: Will the Minister also tell us what will happen to the curriculum in a grant-maintained school if the numbers decline considerably?
Lord Trefgarne: The arrangements for setting up the curriculum were covered in the earlier debate on the Bill and the noble Baroness was involved in those discussions. Naturally, if the number of students at a school declined considerably, then no doubt there would be difficulties in maintaining proper classes in some subjects. It is in such circumstances that schools will consider whether it is sensible for them to
1320
continue. However, I very much believe that that is not something they should take it into their heads to do overnight.
Lord Tordoff: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer my question?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Freedom for one lot of parents!
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to repeat myself at this time of night because it is getting late. I suggested that the Government were offering freedom to just one generation of parents; that is, the generation which chooses to opt for grant-maintained status. Subsequent generations of parents would not be allowed any freedom at all—save only to close the school.
Lord Trefgarne: Student rolls in schools change. One of the feaures of the policy we are now putting forward is that parents should have a greater choice as to where to send their children to school.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with the Minister to this extent: it will not be the ordinary thing for people to ask to opt back into the state system. However, there are certain circumstances which might make it advisable and wise, giving freedom to parents and governors, and, indeed, to children. It would be a pity not to write into the Bill the mechanism by which people can opt back to the state system, although I realise that such a course of action would not be undertaken often.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I should like to give further consideration to the matter. I shall think about his comments and bring the matter back at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 212A:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation prior to ballot.
—(1) Before a ballot is held under section 51 below, the governing body of the school shall consult with such voluntary and community organisations as appear to him to be concerned.
(2) The governing body shall allow a period of not less than ten weeks between the time that invitations to voluntary and community organisations to respond to the consultation are issued and the closing of the consultation period.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 213ZA. The combined purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the full consequences of a school opting out are explained and made known to all the parents entitled to take part in the opt-out vote. Schools are about a great deal more than providing formal education for school-age children; they are part of the wider community which therefore needs to be involved in the important decision about opting out.
Voluntary and community groups are involved in many ways with schools. For example, they provide nursery and pre-school education; they provide supplementary education for ethnic-minority young

1321
people; and they are major providers of adult education. Some of the arguments have already been discussed in conenction with Amendment No. 209 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, so I shall not repeat them. However, I hope the Minister will find this amendment a more acceptable way of covering some of the same concerns by different means. The community would lose in terms of facilities, but in a sense it is a symbiotic relationship. In the long run, the school could end up being a loser as well, because without those other activities, which link it to the wider community, it would be a poorer and a narrower place. The amendment calls for detailed consultations within a reasonable period with voluntary and community groups before the Clause 51 ballot takes place, rather than relying on an objection after the masters of their destiny have made their decision.
Amendment No. 213ZA would require the governors to send all parents involved the identity of each responding group and a short statement of the broad thrust of their responses. Together, these amendments would allow a more informed debate on the principle of opting out. Parents will be in a better position to make the decision if they understand and take into account the full range of connections between the school and the local community. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support that amendment to which my name is also attached. I understood that it was to be grouped with Amendment No. 218BF which comes after Clause 66 which concerns the community use. I am sorry, I now understand that that is not the case, and if so my grouping was wrong.
Baroness Hooper: As I understand it, the grouping is of Amendments Nos. 212A, 213ZA and 213ZB.
Lord Hylton: I wish to support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the Government Front Bench will no doubt be familiar with, for example, the village colleges in Cambridgeshire. They are an example where existing school premises are being used, adapted and sometimes newly built to allow a high degree of adult education to take place in them at the same time as normal school education.
That is not the only different purpose for which schools are often used. In my part of Somerset they are frequently used for youth activities. I know of one building which combines a school and a village hall in the same premises. Even where schools do not have formal hall facilities they are frequently used for vegetable and produce displays, for jumble sales, and for all kinds of fund-raising efforts within the local community. Anything that can be done in the present circumstances to save and preserve adult education in a rapidly changing society must surely be of the greatest importance.
Baroness Blackstone: I am speaking to Amendment No. 213ZB. The purpose of this amendment is very simple. There are large numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools in some
1322
parts of the country who do not speak English as a first language at home. Their parents may have some command of either written or spoken English or they may have none at all.
The issues involved in grant-maintained status are very complex. If the English of some parents is poor, they may misunderstand what is entailed. So if no information is provided for them in minority languages, some parents will de facto be disenfranchised when it comes to voting on the issue of grant-maintained status; or they will be voting either way without really knowing what it is all about. They could be victims of manipulation either by those voting to opt out or those voting to opt in.
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that most parents of children in the ethnic minority groups care passionately about their children's education. To exclude them from obtaining the information about something as important as this would, I am sure noble Lords agree, be quite wrong. In some parts of the country the ethnic composition of schools will not give rise to any need for governors to make such information available in minority languages. However, in others it will be very important. In London, for example, some 23 per cent. of pupils do not speak English at home, and if opting out were to be used by some parents to try to create racially segregated schools, it would be all the more important that they should be properly informed.
A recent Harris poll conducted by London Weekend Television found that only 15 per cent. of black Afro-Caribbean parents and only 19 per cent. of Asians were in favour of such schools for their own groups. If we look at surveys nationally, we can see that they suggest that about 8 per cent. of ethnic minority parents speak no English, and that 20 per cent. speak very little. The cost of providing that information in the relative minority languages would not be very great. In many other public services the information is provided and made available where there are non-English speakers concentrated in the area. The benefits will be considerable. Indeed unless the information is provided in languages other than English, the Bill's philosophy (which we are told is to increase parental choice and participation) will be compromised.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has spoken to Amendment No. 213ZB standing in my name. I should like to say how profoundly I support that amendment for the reasons which the noble Baroness has given.
It requires no mathematical knowledge to see its import. It is simply stating that parents who under this legislation are asked to take heavy responsibility should be provided with the information on the basis of which they can take a decision. Let me add that this absence of knowledge of the English language is not confined to what are known as the ethnic minority groups as they exist now. The figures for immigration into this country show that a much higher proportion of immigrants come from the European Community. Those parents will also in many cases be ignorant of the English language.

1323
That is not a temporary problem. It is a problem which will continue into the future. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord who will reply will listen to us in this case because the amendment supports the principles on which the Bill is based. I hope that on this occasion, having listened to the arguments, he will be able to consider in a constructive manner the purpose of the amendment and give us a positive and constructive reply, and that he will not just throw it away without any acknowledgement of the case that we are putting.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 212A and 213ZA. I do not think that it is particularly useful to require governors and parents to consult voluntary and community organisations, although of course there is nothing to prevent them from doing so if they wish. But again the proper time for such views to be taken into account is when the Secretary of State is considering a formal proposal.
The prospect of an application for grant-maintained status will be an item of intense interest to the local community. One has only to look at the amount of local interest in and knowledge of proposals which local education authorities make about changing the character of or closing a school to know that there is no need to write into the Bill specific opportunities for everyone to make their views known at all stages.
Those who have views on the issue will not fail to make them known. If the ballot favours an application, there will be plenty of opportunity for everyone who has an interest to put forward comments on or objections to the statutory proposals which will result. These amendments therefore achieve nothing except I fear a muddying of the waters. They add unnecessarily to governing bodies' tasks and may turn out to be just a delaying tactic.
If I have been a trifle harsh as regards those two amendments, I am glad to say that I am a good deal better disposed at least to the spirit of Amendment No. 213ZB. The Government believe that the opportunities which the Education Reform Bill offers to parents to guide and influence their children's education are and should be open to all.
The vast majority of parents, whatever their background, want the best for their children and our task is to assist them in that objective. That applies as much to the grant-maintained schools option as to any other aspect of the Bill. I entirely agree that all parents should have an equal chance to consider whether grant-maintained status for their child's school is an option they wish to pursue, and that all parts of the local community should be able to consider and comment on the implications of any subsequent application to the Secretary of State.
As soon as the Bill becomes law, assuming that it does, we shall be offering guidance to school governors on the procedures for applying for grant-maintained status. We shall remind governors of the requirement in Clause 51 that they should give all parents such information as may reasonably be expected to enable them to form a proper judgment on the proposed application. In some cases that may not be possible without some translation or
1324
interpretation into other languages, and we shall recognise that in our guidance.
For its part, the department intends to help by providing some standard information in some of the major languages spoken in this country. I believe that our record with the GCSE leaflet has shown that we can deliver. I am not persuaded, however, that those are matters that need to be covered in regulations. Regulations would introduce an unnecessary degree of inflexibility into the relationship between a governing body and parents. It is difficult to see how the Secretary of State, as the promulgator of such regulations, could judge whether the decisions which the governors took were the right ones. They, and not he, know best the needs of the parent body.
Nor is such formality necessary. I believe that the governing body of a school which is seeking grant-maintained status will have the strongest possible interest in demonstrating that the parent body as a whole is behind its application and will take the necessary steps to secure its support. We have said repeatedly that a low turnout in a parental ballot would be an important factor for the Secretary of State to consider as regards any application which may come forward. It is equally important that the Secretary of State is furnished by the community with all the information and comments that he will need to make a sensible decision on a proposal. I should prefer to proceed on that basis.
I hope that in the light of the assurances which I have been able to give—particularly with regard to Amendment No. 213ZB—the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel that their anxieties have been assuaged.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for that reply, and especially grateful that the Minister accepts the spirit of the amendment. Can he perhaps say what he will do when cases are drawn to his attention in which the guidelines have not been adhered to by governing bodies?
Lord Trefgarne: I am quite certain that the department would take a serious view of that matter and would wish to make sure that whatever was necessary was being done and that the guidelines were being adhered to. I am also sure that governing bodies, once they are aware of the guidelines, will be anxious to comply with them.
Baroness Blackstone: I had hoped that the position could be made clear in regulations which would have safeguarded it rather better than merely issuing guidance. However, in the light of that answer, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment in due course.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I moved Amendment No. 212A, although other amendments were spoken to. Therefore, perhaps I may thank the Minister for his less than encouraging reply. While I acknowledge some part of what he has said, particularly about publicity, I feel that the role of a school in the wider life of a community and the relationship between school and community are very important.
We are asking for very little. We are asking only that voluntary and community organisations should

1325
be consulted and that the results should be made known to parents before they vote so that they will realise the implications of opting out. I am sorry the Minister thinks that that would muddy the waters. In any case, I shall read what he has said and think about the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Ballot of parents]:
[Amendments Nos. 212E to 213ZC not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 45, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The provisions of sections 50 and 51 of this Act shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State shall have published a schedule explaining how the word "parent" shall be understood for the purposes of these sections.").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell who, like all too many of my colleagues, is laid low, I should like to speak to this amendment.
This amendment should not be necessary. In a Bill in which voting by parents is a matter of such importance it surely follows that there must be somewhere a definition of what is meant by the word "parent". It may seem at first sight to be fairly obvious what a parent is. However, it has been pointed out during the discussions that a number of people now have not only two natural parents but in divorced families there may be a great many people who claim to be parents. There may also be people who, while not being parents, are the people doing the job of a parent, namely, a grandparent or some official who is looking after the wellbeing of the child. It is essential if we are to make sense of the whole voting procedure that somewhere in the schedule there should be a proper definition of what is meant by the word "parent".
I understand that such a definition occurs in other legislation, but in this Bill it does not exist. For those who complain that it is taking us too long to deal with the Bill perhaps I may say that if it had been better prepared in regard to matters such as this we should have been able to make very much faster progress. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The amendment would prevent parents or governors from pursuing an application for grant-maintained status until the Secretary of State had published the definition of a "parent" for this purpose in a schedule to the Bill. The Government believe that this would be an unnecessary and over-prescriptive provision; but I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to provide, in an appropriate manner, all the information and guidance which governors will require to carry out their duties effectively in this context.
Let me begin by emphasising what governors will not have to do. It is already made clear on the face of the Bill that governors will be required to take all reasonable steps—no less and no more—to ensure that every person known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school is given the opportunity
1326
to vote. The duty laid on them under the Pupils' Registration Regulations, as amended, to ensure that their admissions register is up to date, in including the names of every person claiming parental rights in respect of a child at the school, will facilitate that.
The need for governors to do more is carefully circumscribed. Very occasionally a genuine question may arise as to whether a person qualifies as a parent of a registered pupil at the school. In such cases it will be for the governing body to reach a decision, taking account of the legal definition of a parent for the purposes of the Education Acts. These define a parent as including a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person, so there may be circumstances where a child has more than two parents. The natural parents of a child will normally qualify, even where they are divorced and a step-parent or other relative is also exercising parental rights—but sometimes a natural parent may have his or her rights and duties removed by a court order.
The burden of proof will be on the person wanting to be recorded on the admissions register as the parent of a particular child. A person who disputed the governing body's decision would have to demonstrate that it was a decision which no reasonable governing body could have taken. All those matters will be discussed in guidance we shall issue to every governor in the country once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
I hope that it will be recognised that the principles I have outlined offer a sensible and thoughtful way of proceeding. I am confident that sensible and thoughtful governors will have no difficulty in applying their common sense to the matter in those few cases where a question arises. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: The Government are incurably perverse so far as concerns this Bill. The Minister has made it quite clear that the position can be very confused. Of course, the right course of action depends very considerably on the amendment which the Minister agreed to take back and look at, which concerns whether it is to be one vote for one child and therefore only one parent. If that is to be the case—and surely common sense dictates that it must be—one can foresee all manner of difficulties about who can claim to be a parent.
I remain totally unconvinced yet again with the Minister's so-called explanation of what will happen. I can see nothing but confusion ahead by a refusal at this stage to decide on some definition, taking the two amendments together: how many votes there will be per child and, if they come to what is surely the obvious conclusion that there will be only one parent, how that parent is to be defined.
In view of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to press this amendment. I shall take it back and no doubt bring it forward again at a later date when, although the Minister has not said that he will consider the matter, I hope that he will do so and give us a more satisfactory reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 213B:
Page 46, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of the governing body to give information about procedures for and consequences of acquisition of grant maintained status for a school to teaching and non-teaching staff.").
The noble Baroness said: Many teachers will be unfamiliar with what is entailed in becoming a grant-maintained school. I think it is all too easy for governors to assume that teachers will know all about the matter simply because they are professionals. But they are professional educators; often they are not especially knowledgeable about financial, administrative or employment matters. For example, will they know that carefully worked out and agreed procedures which the local education authority may have negotiated with their representatives about equal opportunities in employment or opportunities for in-service training, say, may no longer apply?
Governor's contacts tend to be with head teachers and their deputies and with any teacher on a governing body, but all those three categories of teacher will inevitably be rather better informed than the run-of-the-mill classroom teacher. The whole teaching staff needs to know as employees and as professional educators what for them will be the consequences of grant-maintained status. Of course, everything that I have said so far about teaching staff applies equally to non-teaching or support staff, who are likely to have even less knowledge of what may happen. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: On the assumption that I am replying to Amendments Nos. 213B and 215BA, perhaps I may say that so far as concerns the former amendment, Amendment No. 213B, I have some sympathy with that proposition and should like an opportunity to consider the matter further if the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw it.
I am afraid that I cannot offer such comfort in regard to Amendment No. 215BA, but in the light of the assurance that I have given on Amendment No. 213B, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content not to move Amendment No. 215BA.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, in the light of which I am content not to move the other amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 213C not moved.]
Clause 52 [Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 214A:
Page 46, line 31, after ("majority") insert ("of parents eligible to vote").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 215 had been removed from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 46, line 36, leave out from ("school") to ("a") in line 37 and insert ("in accordance with section (Publication of proposals and notice with respect to proposals) of this Act or regulations made under that section and any notice with respect to the proposals for the time being required by that section or by such regulations; and
(b) submit to the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: The government amendments in this group are intended to clarify the arrangements to be made by the governing body of a school in respect of the publication of formal proposals for grant-maintained status following a successful ballot of parents under Clause 51. Perhaps I should say that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 215C, 215E, 215CA and 215CB. In general the arrangements specified follow the model of proposals made under Sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 for the reorganisation or closure of a maintained school with one significant exception.
A proposal for grant-maintained status is required to contain a very great deal of information about the school in question both in its present and prospective status, as Clause 52 of the Bill shows. This is essential if all interested parties are to be able to take a sensible view of the proposals. I believe that our amendments sensibly balance the need to limit the expense to which an individual school is put in publishing such a proposal against the importance of ensuring that the key items of information are brought to the attention of a wider public. Subsection (2) of the new clause accordingly requires the governors to publish a summarised version of their proposals in a newspaper circulating in the area but leaves it to them to decide whether to publish more than the required minimum of detail. I believe that these provisions strike a sensible balance between openness and financial prudence, and I commend them to the Committee.
I now turn to Amendment No. 215CA. The Committee will recognise that the provisions in the Bill relating to statutory proposals in respect of the establishment, change of character or closure of a grant-maintained school are closely modelled on those applying to the closure or reorganisation of existing maintained schools under Section 12 of the 1980 Act. These require that comments or objections to statutory proposals should be made within two months of their publication; yet, in the case of grant-maintained schools only, the proposers of this amendment seek to make it three.
I believe that two months is sufficient time for people to form a judgment on the merits or demerits of a proposal relating to the possible establishment of a grant-maintained school, which, in the vast majority of cases, will be more straightforward than its Section 12 counterpart. Interested parties will after all have had a good deal of advance warning that such a proposal is likely to be published: the intense interest which I expect to surround most parental ballots on grant-maintained status will see to that. To begin extending this period would be further to delay determination of the question one way or the other. This is surely not in the best interests of the school whose future is at issue. I urge the Committee to reject this amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 215CB, I have to say that the Government also consider this unnecessary.

1329
We have already amended the list of statutory objectors to make it clear that any 10 local government electors rather than electors for the particular area alone have a statutory right to object. That category will include the vast majority of staff at the school but in any case my right honourable friend has consistently made clear that in considering proposals for grant-maintained status he will take all the relevant factors into account.
I entirely agree that the views of the staff on the question will be important and useful, but adding them to the list in subsection (1) will, I assure the Committee, do very little to make them more important or useful. My right honourable friend's commitment is, I suggest, more valuable than a gesture of this kind. I invite the proposers of the amendment to withdraw it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 215CA and 215CB, which relate to Clause 52(1). The clause states:
"Before the end of the period of two months … any of the following may submit objections to the proposals to the Secretary of State".
From what the Minister has said, I gather that teachers will be able to make submissions to the Secretary of State. If that is the case, what is the point of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)? One could just say that the Secretary of State would consider any submissions in the period. To a lawyer like the noble Baroness, the natural meaning is surely that the exclusive groups of people who can make submissions to the Secretary of State are, first:
"(a) any ten or more local government electors".
If there are only nine local government electors, they cannot. Then come:
"(b) the trustees (if any) of the school concerned;
(c) the governing body of any school affected by the proposals; and
(d) any local education authority concerned".
It is possible for a lawyer to say that those are the only people who may do this, and it is possible for a Secretary of State to take that view.
The Minister has taken the view that this will be M r. Baker. For his sake, I hope that Mr. Baker will not be in the Department of Education and Science permanently. If the Bill lasts as long as the 1944 Act, he will be there for a very considerable time! That surely cannot be the meaning. I think that some more consideration should be given to the question.
If members of the staff are to be allowed to submit objections, why not mention them? It will add only one more line to the Bill.
I deal now with Amendment 215CA in regard to:
"the period of two months beginning with the date of publication of the proposals".
That depends very much on when the proposals are published. If six weeks of the period is a school holiday, it will sometimes be difficult to get the thing done. Three months seems to be a reasonable period for what will be an irreversible change if the proposal goes through. I suggest therefore that there is more merit in these amendments than the Minister was prepared to concede when, in effect, she answered them before they had been spoken to.
Baroness Seear: I hope that the Minister recognises—I am sure that she does—the importance of teaching staff in making the schemes work. If teaching staff see this list of groups of people who have such a right and they are not included on it, they are bound to feel that they are not being given the same kind of consideration accorded to the groups mentioned on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: To take first the point of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on Amendment No. 215CA, if the time limit has served satisfactorily for the purpose of Section 12 of the 1980 Act, I see no reason why it should not do so in this case.
I think that Amendment No. 215CB is unnecessary. If we put into the Bill every single line suggested by the noble Lord, it would become considerably longer than it now is. Nevertheless, I am prepared to take this back for further consideration in the light of what has been said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am glad that the Minister is prepared to do that. I can imagine a situation where some of the school staff objected and someone challenged the legal right of the Secretary of State to consider the matter as it was not included in subsection (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215B and 215BA not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 215C:
Page 48, line 17, after ("beginning") insert ("on or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215CA to 215DB not moved.]
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 215E:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Publication of proposals and notice with respect to proposals.
.—(1) Where section 52 of this Act applies in the case of any school, the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status for the school shall for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section be published—

(a) by being posted at or near any main entrance to the school;

(b) by being posted in at least one conspicuous place within the area served by the school; and

(c) by being made available for inspection at all reasonable times at the school or at any other place within that area to which members of the public may conveniently have access.

(2) There shall be published in at least one newspaper circulating in that area a notice with respect to the proposals containing such summary of the proposals as the governing body may think appropriate including, in particular, the information required by subsection (3) below.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) above shall—

(a) state that proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status have been published and submitted to the Secretary of State for approval;

(b) specify the proposed date of implementation of the proposals;

(c) state that, if the proposals are so approved, the school will on that date—

(i) cease to be maintained by the local education authority; and

(ii) be conducted by a newly constituted governing body and maintained by grants paid by the Secretary of State;

(d) give the information required to be specified in the proposals by section 52(7)(f)(i) of this Act;

1331

(e) state where the proposals may be inspected; and

(f) explain the effect of section 52(10) of this Act."

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision (whether by way of modification of, or substitution for, the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) above) as he considers appropriate with respect to—

(a) the publication of proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status; and

(b) the publication of such notice (if any) with respect to such proposals as may be prescribed.

(5) References in this section to proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status include references to the statement required by section 52(5) of this Act to be annexed to the proposals.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Constitution of the initial governing body of a grant-maintained school]:
[Amendments Nos. 216, 216ZA and 216A not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 216B:
Page 49, line 46, after ("officio") insert—
("(d) at least one representative of the local education authority").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require that the initial governing body of a grant-maintained school should have at least one representative of the LEA. Once the Secretary of State approves an application for grant-maintained status, the initial governing body comes into being and the previous LEA representatives will no longer be governors. The amendment allows a continuing presence of the local education authority. The sound reasons for having a representative still is the need for continuity and there will, presumably, be some need for the continuing provision of LEA services to the grant-maintained schools, such as transport; school meals, we understand; professional services for children with special education needs and other matters as well, and the ability to use the expertise of the LEA to help the grant-maintained school establish itself.
The need for LEA representation on local school governing bodies would assist on the resolution of issues such as conflicting admissions policies. It is very important clearly that the two bodies should get together to decide that they do not have totally dissimilar policies. I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 216C, which I believe is grouped with this. Members of the initial governing body of a grant-maintained school should be eligible for co-option to the governing body of a maintained school in the same area. This is really to achieve reciprocity.
It obviously would be useful for both sides to have representation, one on the other. Because LEA schools have been planned as a whole over a period for many years, it is essential to have cross-representation between the independent grant-maintained schools to ensure that the interests of local schools are not ignored by a grant-maintained school when considering issues such as schools' admissions policies, that I mentioned, or the character of a school when it is proposed to change it.
Local county and voluntary schools have places for the co-option of governors, and the addition of
1332
this amendment would direct governing bodies to the membership of local grant-maintained schools' governing bodies when they are seeking to find co-optees.
I hope I have made it clear that we want an LEA governor on the grant-maintained school, and we want the possibility to co-opt a governor from the grant-maintained school on the LEA school. This is a very reasonable request and I hope that these two amendments will be agreed to by the Government.
11 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: So far as Amendment No. 216C is concerned, while I do not see any need to include such an amendment in the Bill, the objectives of the amendment are quite laudible and I would be willing to consider whether it might be possible to put in some words which met the point which the noble Baroness has made.
I am afraid that I cannot be as accommodating so far as Amendment No. 216B is concerned because I think that that is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. Co-operation is likely to be most fruitful when willingly sought by both sides. There is nothing to prevent a grant-maintained school governing body from inviting the local chief education officer to attend their meetings, either on a regular basis, if they believe that to be justified, or for particular purposes. I am sure that many schools will use this power. Some may even invite an official from the local education authority to become a first governor. A school which opts out of local authority control should be free to make a completely fresh start if the governors so wish. It would not be right to impose upon them the sort of requirement embodied in the amendment.
I hope that, in the light of the consideration that I am prepared to give to the thoughts behind Amendment No. 216C, the noble Baroness will be content.
Baroness David: I am glad, of course, for small mercies, and accept the fact that the Minister is going to take back Amendment No. 216C. However, it is rather a one-way transaction. The local authority is receiving somebody from a grant-maintained school, but the grant-maintained school is making no gesture in the other direction. It is not the same sort of thing to have an officer going there to sit and listen.
I shall not press this amendment now but I will probably come back with this at Report stage because it is quite an important amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 216C, 217 and 217ZA not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Provisions supplementary to section 57]:
[Amendment No. 2 17ZB not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Elections required for determining initial governors: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 217ZC not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Initial government and conduct: further provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 57, line 38, leave out from ("the") to end of line 41 and insert ("transition to grant-maintained status of a school in respect of which proposals for acquisition of such status have been approved and the initial government and conduct of a grant-maintained school.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 281A, 218ZA and 218ZB.
These amendments make prudent provision to facilitate the transition of a school to grant-maintained status. They enable the prospective initial governing body of a grant-maintained school to make some preparatory arrangements in the period between approval of the school's application for that status and its formal incorporation date some time later. They also empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to provide financial support for this.
A new grant-maintained school will normally be incorporated at the beginning of the school year. But some decisions will need to be taken before September. The new governors will need to put in hand the school's admissions arrangements; they may also need to make staff appointments and sign contracts relating to the period after incorporation. Clearly, these are not matters for the governing body of the school in its old status but for its prospective initial governing body as a grant-maintained school. These amendments therefore provide that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may by order authorise the prospective initial governing body to take the appropriate decisions or actions.
The amendment also provides for the prospective initial governing body to be able to decide questions arising from Clauses 65 and 66 which relate to the disposal of assets and disposition of staff at the school before it is incorporated. In certain circumstances, where it would be only prudent for it to have a say, provision may also he made for the prospective initial governing body to be consulted by the existing governing body of the school or by the LEA.
Subsection 1C of Amendment No. 218ZA will permit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to pay the equivalent of special purpose grants to the prospective initial governing body once its application for grant-maintained status has been approved. For example, education support grant moneys in support of financial delegation could be paid to the school from the April before its September incorporation to enable the governors to establish accounting and information systems in good time. These subventions will be limited but useful.
These provisions will further secure the smooth and successful transition of schools to grant-maintained status, and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I thought that we were also discussing Amendment No. 281A. I had looked forward to the noble Baroness dealing with the proposal at page 170, line 8,
after (" 137") insert ("paragraph 1A of Schedule 3,").
Baroness Hooper: I am afraid I do not follow the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: I thought that the noble Baroness would speak also to Amendment No. 281A in this grouping.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [The initial governing body of a grant-maintained school]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 218ZA:
Page 184, line 7, at end insert—
("Transition to grunt-maintained status
1A.—(1) Where the Secretary of State approves proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status in respect of any school he may by an order or orders made at any time on or after the date on which he approves the proposals and before the incorporation date in relation to the school make such provision as he considers appropriate in connection with the school's transition to grant-maintained status and the impending transfer of responsibility for the conduct of the school to an initial governing body constituted in accordance with the proposals.
(2) References below in this Schedule, in relation to any school in respect of which such proposals have been approved, to the prospective governing body are references to the persons named in the proposals as the proposed initial governors.
1B. The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 1A above includes in particular provision—

(a) for the exercise by the prospective governing body in relation to the school, in such circumstances and in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, of any power so specified corresponding to any of the powers that would by virtue of section 47 of this Act be exercisable by the initial governing body of the school on its incorporation, including in particular power—

(i) to appoint members of staff to take up employment on or after the incorporation date in relation to the school;

(ii) to enter into contracts for the purpose of or in connection with the conduct of the school on or after that date; and

(iii) to determine the arrangements for admission of pupils to the school that are to apply in the first school year beginning on or after that date;

(b) excluding or modifying any powers of the local education authority or of the existing governing body in relation to any matter to which any power exercisable by the prospective governing body in accordance with any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above applies;

(c) enabling the prospective governing body, instead of the existing governing body, to give or withhold any consent or agreement required for the purposes of any provision of section 65 or 66 of this Act;

(d) for—

(i) requiring the prospective governing body to be consulted before the local education authority or the existing governing body exercise in relation to the school any function of a description specified in the order or take in relation to the school any action of a description so specified; or

(ii) requiring or enabling the prospective governing body to participate in the exercise in relation to the school of any such function or in the taking in relation to the school of any such action;

in such circumstances and in such manner as may be so specified; and

1335

(e) with respect to the proceedings of the prospective governing body and the authentication of their actions (including the making or issue of any instrument by them or on their behalf).

1C.—(1) The Secretary of State may make grants to the prospective governing body in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them in pursuance of any provision made by an order under paragraph 1A above.
(2) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make any payment in respect of any such grant subject to such conditions; and

(b) impose on a prospective governing body to whom any such payment is made such requirements;

as he may from time to time determine (whether before or after the payment in question is made).
1D. The duty of a local education authority to maintain a school in respect of which proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status have been approved shall not apply in relation to any expenses incurred by the prospective governing body of the school.
1E. At any time on or after the date on which he approves any such proposals the Secretary of State may consult the prospective governing body with respect to the provisions he proposes to include in the instrument and articles of government for the school.
1F. On and after the incorporation date in relation to a grant-maintained school—

(a) any appointment made, contract entered into or other thing done by the prospective governing body in pursuance of any provision made by an order under paragraph 1A above, so far as subsisting or in force immediately before that date, shall be treated as having been made, entered into or done by the initial governing body; and

(b) any consultations with the prospective governing body which have taken place under paragraph 1E above shall be treated for the purposes of section 49(2) of this Act as consultations with the initial governing body;

and any property acquired by the prospective governing body for the purposes of or in connection with the doing of anything in pursuance of any provision so made shall on that date be transferred to, and by virtue of this Act vest in, the initial governing body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 281ZB:
Page 184, line 37, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Transfer of property, etc., to governing body of grant-maintained school]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 59, line 27, leave out ("; and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 218B and 218BF. The purpose of the amendments is to safeguard the position of voluntary bodies and the youth service in access to premises which they had under the old system. I am sure that representations have been made to Members on all sides of the Committee. It is very important to safeguard the position; otherwise the bodies will find it difficult to continue with their present level of work or, in some cases, with any work at all. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I believe that Amendment No. 218BF, which is in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is in this group. It has a similar aim; namely, to safeguard the community use and the use by voluntary
1336
organisations in a grant-maintained school when it changes status from an LEA school. The clause is similar in content and policy to that moved in respect of schools, subject to financial delegation, by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on Tuesday.
If the principle of encouraging community use in schools is important in respect of schools subject to financial delegation, it is even more important for grant-maintained schools. First, there is the tendency of the school to take what my noble friend Lord Irvine called a strong and inappropriate value for money line in charging for the use of school premises, ignoring the less tangible but real value to the community of access to facilities, which will be that much greater given the greater financial independence of opted out schools. Secondly, one must assume that none of the safeguards derived from previous legislation applies to opted-out schools.
It should also be noted that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to the earlier amendment dealing with the fact that community use does not form part of the budget and therefore cannot be part of the scheme, relies on a misreading of that new clause and is no more true of this one. In both cases the requirement is independent and separate from the scheme and thus stands on its own merit.
Unlike its predecessor, this amendment does not require an opted-out school to allow guidelines prepared by the LEA, which clearly would be inappropriate. However, it requires the school to adopt a public policy, after consultation, on their practice on community use. No one can force a grant-maintained school to allow free or cheap access to the community. However, the new clause would require the decision-making process to be public and open to representations. We are very keen to safeguard the voluntary organisations' use and community use and I hope that the Minister can go some way to accept this, and certainly the spirit of it.
Lord Trefgarne: I am glad of this opportunity to restate the Government's commitment to the view that all schools, including those that become grant-maintained, should be responsible to the needs of their local community, and should play an active part in the community wherever this is practicable. We are well aware that in a fair number of schools education is provided and facilities made available not just for the registered pupils but also for other members of the community, often during the day as well as in the evening. Where such schools apply successfully for grant-maintained status, we intend that there should be no barrier to continued community access to their facilities, provided that the prime educational purpose of their premises is safeguarded and moneys provided for school purposes are not being used to subsidise other provision.
We have therefore specifically provided for such activities to continue at grant-maintained schools on the basis of co-operation between the school and the local education authority. A local authority will be able to contract with the governing body of a grant-maintained school to provide, for example, adult education on its behalf. In such circumstances the Secretary of State would be able to ensure that the

1337
governors' duty to carry out this obligation was incorporated in the school's articles of government. This would place the governors under an obligation to continue to provide that service; they could only be relieved of that responsibility with the Secretary of State's agreement.
The Government also believe that it is right and equitable that the legitimate interests and intentions of the local education authorities and of other users of school premises should be taken into account in the process of transferring assets, rights and liabilities to schools which are to become grant-maintained. And where there are facilities which are not used for the purposes of the school, but which have other educational purposes, the Bill provides that they should continue to be held by the local authority and used for those purposes.
Given this clarification, I hope that it will be recognised that the aims of Amendments Nos. 218A and 218B are already covered.
Amendment No. 218BF would require the governing body of every grant-maintained school to draw up a written statement of its policy on community use. The Government consider that this amendment is unnecessary. As I have already made clear, where a school which provides for the community becomes a grant-maintained school, its obligations to the community will be continued in various ways. Some will be the responsibility of the governors; others may not. It seems best to allow flexibility here: the formal place to provide for such matters, where appropriate, is in the school's articles of government, and the Secretary of State will ensure that this happens.
In the light of those assurances—namely, that the Government have no intention of reducing or restricting the community use of schools which become grant-maintained—I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister having very properly, in my view, laid stress on the value to the community of schools, is he in a position to say how pre-school play groups will benefit? My understanding is that there is no provision under the law for such groups. If I dare say this before the Committee, I used to break the law regularly by providing both facilities and apparatus for such groups and this was widely welcomed in the community. Under this part of the Bill would there be any provision to meet the needs of the pre-school play groups?
Lord Trefgarne: Those are the facilities that the Government wish to see continued, as the noble Lord rightly says, in many school premises. They will continue on exactly the same basis.
Baroness David: It would not be the case of an LEA making a contract because presumably that would be done by the voluntary groups who are organising the play groups.
Baroness Seear: What is not clear from the Minister's reply is whether the voluntary organisations have any rights in the matter. I understand him to say that the Government would expect and encourage the grant-maintained schools to continue the kind of obligation that existed before they became grant-maintained. I will read carefully what the Minister said, but I did not understand him to say in his reply that they would be in any position to demand that they should have access or continue the access which they have already. They are very much suppliants—are they not?—under the new scheme.
Lord Trefgarne: This Bill does not change the position in any way. The position of such organisations under these arrangements will in the future be exactly the same as it is now.
Baroness Seear: In view of the Minister's comments I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I may perhaps bring it forward at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 218B not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status on property disposals]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 218BA:
Page 61, line 47, leave out from ("and - (a)") and insert—("(2A) For those purposes").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 218BB, 218BC, 218BD and 218BE.
Clause 65 is intended to protect schools which are in the process of applying for grant-maintained status by prohibiting the local education authority from disposing of their assets without the governors' consent while such an application is pending. These amendments simply adapt the clause to take account of the amendments already made to Clause 50 which require the governors to confirm at a second meeting any decision to hold a ballot of parents on grant-maintained status.
The assets freeze will now begin from the date on which the governors consult the local education authority immediately following their initial resolution. In the circumstances where a ballot has been called because of a petition by parents, the freeze will run from the date on which the governors informed the local education authority of its receipt.
The amendments also provide for the freeze to terminate if the second governors' meeting does not confirm the initial resolution, since that will mean the end of the application for grant-maintained status. I believe that these are sensible amendments and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 218BB to 218BE:
Page 62, line 2, leave out from ("occasion") to ("that") in line 6 and insert—

("(a) where the governing body of the school have decided to hold a ballot in accordance with section 51 of this Act by a first resolution passed as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of section 50 of this Act, when the local education authority by whom the school is maintained is first consulted under subsection (3A) of that section; or

(b) where such a request as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section has been received by the governing body, on receipt by that authority of notice under subsection (4)(b) of that section that such a ballot is to be held.

(2B) For those purposes").
Page 62, line 6, leave out ("by reference to the receipt of any such notice").
Page 62, line 8, after ("terminated") insert—

("(a) in the case of procedure initiated as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a) above, if the period of forty two days after that on which the first resolution was passed has expired and the decision to hold a ballot has not been confirmed by a second resolution passed in accordance with section 50(1)(a) of this Act; or

(b) in the case of procedure initiated as mentioned in subsection (2A)(a) or (b) above,").

Page 62, line 9, leave out ("notice refers") and insert ("consultation or notice relates.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218BF not moved.]
Clause 67 [Maintenance grants, special purpose grants and capital grants]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 64, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Grant regulations shall provide for the payment of special purpose grants and capital grants to meet the needs of disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs and shall prescribe the circumstances in which such grants are to be payable.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that grant-maintained schools are not deterred from admitting pupils with special educational needs. These schools may well refuse to accept expensive pupils with a disability or learning difficulty if the grants they receive do not take full account of the extra costs incurred. I shall not linger on the details because the arguments are the same as when we discussed the determination of a school's share of the budget.
I say only that on 4th February during Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State suggested that the amendment was unnecessary because "we have built safeguards into the Bill". He did not expand on this point and I cannot see precisely where the safeguards are. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me and point to the safeguards. I presume that if they are built into the Bill they appear somewhere on the face of it. It is essential that explicit reference is made to children with special educational needs to ensure that their requirements are considered no less favourably than those of their able bodied peers. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) on this amendment.
1340
As she has said, some schools may decline to take pupils with special educational needs because of their expensive individual requirements. That is why during the debate at Report stage in another place concerns about financing special education provision in grant-maintained schools were repeated. How will these schools provide services that are presently organised centrally? Will they be allowed to charge for special services such as educational psychology or speech therapy? The Government could allay many fears by accepting the amendment and stating that special purpose grants are applicable to meet the needs of disabled children in grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Hooper: I am glad to have this further opportunity to make it clear that it is the Government's firm intention that the introduction of grant-maintained schools should not prejudice the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. As it stands, the legislation includes a number of safeguards to ensure that children with special educational needs will continue to be admitted to schools which become grant-maintained.
Because the Government have built these various safeguards into the Bill, we consider this amendment to be unnecessary. The regulations to be made under Clause 67 will provide that the annual maintenance grant to a grant-maintained school will equate to the funding which it would have received had it remained within LEA control. If the LEA's formula for resourcing that school would have included an allowance for special needs pupils, then that allowance will continue when it achieves grant-maintained status. Thus additional costs incurred for children with special needs will be taken into account in the same way as they would be for a similar school which continued to be maintained by the same LEA.
The Government wish to ensure that grant-maintained schools do not have a financial advantage over LEA-maintained schools. This is why the system of resourcing them is intended to parallel the LEA system. If special purpose grants were payable in respect of special needs, pupils at grant-maintained schools would be treated more favourably than such pupils at LEA schools.
Under the grant regulations covering expenditure of a capital nature, grant-maintained schools will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for a 100 per cent. grant in respect of capital building work, including work designed to meet the needs of disabled pupils and others with special educational needs. This scheme will operate on a bids and allocations basis. The costs of such grants, where approved, will have to be found from the total resources available for capital expenditure on schools nationally.
I can assure the Committee that it is the Government's intention that pupils with special educational needs at schools which become grant-maintained should be treated no more and no less favourably than they would be under local authority control. The guidance which the Government will issue will make that clear.

1341
In the light of that explanation, I hope the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary, and will reject it accordingly.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure whether what she said covers the safeguards I wish to have included in the Bill. However, I shall read in Hansard tomorrow morning what she has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 220A:
Page 65, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The amount of any maintenance grant or of any special purpose or capital grant payable by virtue of this section or by virtue of any regulations made hereunder shall be limited to those amounts which would have been applied by or for the purposes of the school had it not obtained grant-maintained status. The Secretary of State shall include within regulations made under this section details of arrangements where such amounts may be ascertained from year to year.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will readily agree that it would be invidious for grant-maintained schools to fair better in financial terms than local education authority schools. It would mean that such schools could offer better facilities, and would therefore attract more pupils to the detriment of LEA schools. We would then be well on the way to a two-tier system, and I am sure that the Government would not want that situation to arise.
If the Committee accepts the amendment, it would ensure that grant-maintained schools do not obtain advantages, or privileges, which LEA schools do not have. This would not preclude such schools from receiving the "special purposes grants" provided for in the Bill, nor is it suggested that it should. I wish to make that point absolutely clear. They will almost certainly want to meet the special needs of the area; that is, the special educational needs of some pupils, home and school liaison and other similar matters. Those aspects of service provision are currenly provided by local education authorities, assisted by government grants of' various types. For example, in-service training grants, Section 11 funding for ethnic minorities' special needs and many other activities known to Members of the Committee.
Grant-maintained schools will require similar support, but it should not be at the expense of that provided for local education authority schools, nor should it be of a superior level. The Secretary of State has given assurances that current expenditure for grant-maintained schools will be funded at the same level as for local authority schools. Of course we welcome that assurance; but this issue is so fundamental that it should be included in the legislation. When such assurances are given, whether written or verbal—certainly I do not question the good faith of the Secretary of State—it is usual and proper to point out that we can never be sure whether future governments and future Secretaries of State will maintain the same view. It may be that the Minister will at some time feel that there are good reasons to create what many of us would consider to
1342
be a privileged range of schools across the country. Therefore, as this is not the spirit of the proposals which we are discussing tonight, there should be safeguards against it.
The amendment is another of those seemingly small and less significant amendments but which in fact relates to the heart of the more important issues in the Bill. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: I recognise the purpose of the amendment. It is to place on the face of the Bill a provision enshrining the Government's commitment that schools which become grant-maintained will be in the same financial position as they would have been had they remained under local authority control. This remains the Government's firm intention. I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Lord that provision to achieve that will be incorporated in the grant regulations which will be made under Clause 67. The Government consider that this is preferable to the incorporation of a requirement in the Bill itself for the reason exemplified by the amendment: that it is not practically possible to provide succinctly for all eventualities. I hope in the light of that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: That is a most welcome and, if I may say so, a most unusual assurance, having regard to the debates that we have had today. But I wonder whether I might press the Minister on one small point. Can he say what form that assurance will take in the regulations? I hope I have made myself clear.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not sure that I quite understand what the noble Lord has in mind; but I shall look into the matter further and write to him if I can help him.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am very grateful to the Minister. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Admissions]:
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [General provisions as to religious education]:
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 68, line 35, after ("collective") insert ("Christian").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Somers has asked whether I would move this amendment to which I have put my name. I think the idea was to take Amendments Nos. 222, 223 and Amendment No. 228 in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox together. I think that will be convenient.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper: And also Amendment No. 224.
Lord Thorneycroft: I am just coming to that, if I may. It was originally intended to take Amendment No. 224, and I am happy to do anything I am told to do. However, Amendment No. 224 deals with an entirely separate subject and it would simplify the discussion and be much shorter if I moved it briefly after these amendments and we had the discussion then. It is quite a separate point.
Baroness Hooper: I understood that the grouping in this matter had been agreed. If it is not too difficult for my noble friend, I think we should be happy to have the whole discussion together. Then he can of course move the amendment separately when the time comes.
Lord Thorneycroft: If I may be permitted to say so, it was not agreed with me at any rate, nor with my noble friend Lord Somers. I feel it would be very much easier to debate these quite separate issues separately. It will create utter confusion if we try to discuss everything together.
Baroness Hooper: Certainly if my noble friend feels that then we are content.
Lord Thorneycroft: I shall concentrate therefore on the amendments dealing with religious worship. The first amendment here, Amendment No. 222, which I have moved, is to insert the word "Christian". I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this. It is absolutely critical to clauses on the subject of worship that we have the word "Christian" incorporated in them. The definitive and longer amendment dealing with it is in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox, and I shall refer to that in the course of my remarks. The situation as it stands in the Bill is explained in Clause 71(1), which states:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, all pupils in attendance at a grant-maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship".
Our amendment seeks to add the word "Christian" after the word "collective" to make that an act of collective Christian worship.
Clause 72(2)(a) of the Bill states:
"the collective worship required by subsection (1) of section 71 of this Act shall not in a school to which this section applies he distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
We also seek to take out the words "religious denomination" above and insert the words "Christian sect". When we talk of religious instruction, I think it may be said that there may be left some room for doubt as regards what is taught. But I should not have thought that we should introduce clauses on religious worship and leave the question of what is being worshipped entirely in a vacuum. One does not worship something in a vacuum. One either worships humbly and devoutly or one should not worship at all.
I am fortunate in that every Sunday, or most Sundays, I worship in the little church of Eastry which is just beyond Canterbury. The Minister knows it well. That church is packed with men, women and children of every age. We move up towards the altar to receive the bread and wine or to
1344
receive a blessing. The children also approach the altar. The prayer before communion is:
"we do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies".
That scene is reproduced in church after church in this country, in churches belonging to Catholic, Anglican and many other denominations. The children gain a religious and emotional experience there which they never forget in after life. I do not think that one can take them from that and put them into schools and subject them to acts of worship which are not distinctive of any religion whatever. That cannot be right. I hope therefore that I carry the Government with me in saying that we should quite simply insert the word "Christian" here.
I fully accept that we must make provision for those parents who do not want their children to engage in such an act of worship. My noble friend Lady Cox has put that provision in in detail in her amendment. But I think we should go further. We should make provision for children of other faiths and seek by every means possible to ensure that they have acts of worship. The noble Baroness makes that provision, too.
May I observe that she does not say that there should be an act of collective worship of other faiths. She says that the children concerned should have an act of worship in their own faith. We do not ask the Moslems and the Buddhists and other faiths to join together with the Jews and have an act of collective worship. We are saying that if there are a lot of children of other faiths in the school and the parents want it, each of them should have an act of worship which applies to their own religion.
I hope that these amendments can be accepted. I do not exaggerate what comes from worship by children at that age. For myself, I think it was a moment of quiet. It was a rather peaceful moment, removed from the rush of school life and other things that went on. I do not say that it will alter the flow away from the established Churches which is still in progress, or that it will stop the crime wave. I say that it matters a great deal in later life.
Children grow up and they have the same experiences as other men. It comes to all of us: moments of darkness, moments when we have lost everything we thought we wanted, moments when we lose loved ones or find ourselves abandoned by friends and moments of defeat. In those moments, some men find their way back to their religion. Through the great prayers of the Church and the beauty of the English and Welsh liturgy, they find the ability to worship once again. But they will never again find it if they have never experienced it. The purpose of the amendments is not to deny children that important part of life.
Baroness Cox: I speak in support of the amendment and also of my Amendment No. 228, which carries the names of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who regrets that he cannot be present this evening, and the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield. Perhaps I may say why the amendments are so urgently necessary. As with RE, the letter and the spirit of the 1944 Act are being

1345
widely broken. Fewer than 10 per cent. of schools begin each day with a collective act of worship for all their pupils. Sometimes that is due to such practical reasons as lack of space. But even where space is available, many schools choose not to hold an act of worship or refuse to fulfil the spirit of the law by holding worship in smaller groups.
It is not simply the matter of whether or not such an act of worship is available which causes concern. Even where some designated worship is offered, many parents and teachers are deeply worried by the content of what is provided. Sometimes what is provided is a highly secularised, politicised message, as with the pupils who sang a hymn to the tune of "Pop Goes the Weasel":
"Polaris subs, atomic bombs, germ research and progress,
That's the way the money goes.
What price the homeless?".
There are many more subtle changes which undermine the Christian nature of worship in the form of multifaith initiatives. Those have often developed in good faith, especially in areas where there are large numbers of pupils from families who adhere to other faiths. However, those initiatives result in a reduction of worship to the lowest common denominator of a celebration of shared values. That position was endorsed by the Government earlier this year.
A celebration of shared values may be a worthwhile endeavour. But it is a world away from the worship of Almighty God and from sharing the spiritual experience of prayer and praise. That is the heart of the matter. However much young people may not appreciate worship while they are at school, many testify afterwards to the lasting value of the opportunity to become familiar with the timeless messages of the Bible and the inspiration of the prayers and hymns that are available to them as a spiritual resource later in life.
Anyone who has had the experience of being with people in extremis, as I have as a nurse, knows how often they turn to prayers, songs and hymns learnt in childhood for inestimable comfort. If we deny our young people the opportunity to become familiar with those aspects of our Christian birthright in favour of some celebration of shared values, we are indeed betraying our young people and also our own spiritual heritage.
One reason for such multifaith initiatives is sometimes said to be the presence of pupils of other faiths. But as the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi said last week, and as has been endorsed by representatives of other faith communities, many of those of other faiths prefer to send their children to a school where Christianity is respected and enshrined rather than where all faiths are trivialised.
The wording of Amendment No. 228, as my noble friend has already said, respects the position of those who do not wish their children to participate in Christian worship. It both enshrines the right for them to withdraw their children from worship and also makes explicit provision for alternative acts of worship to be provided for pupils of other faiths if sufficient parents request it. In that respect the amendment extends the provisions of the 1944 Act to
1346
take greater account of the interests of families who adhere to other faiths and reflects the changing pattern of our population since 1944.
The amendments both extend the spirit of the 1944 Act and help to remedy the problems which have arisen since then. They are designed to ensure that our young people have access to the spiritual birthright which we have inherited. They are necessary and are desired by Christians and many who have spoken on behalf of other faiths. They allow for those who have conscientious objections. They are supported by people of all political persuasions and I hope very much that they will find favour with your Lordships.
11.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I very much appreciate the concern for worship in our schools which the amendments demonstrate. The Bill covers religious education and one cannot give religious education by instruction only; worship is an integral part of it. To try to give religious education merely by instruction would be rather like trying to teach science without allowing anyone to go to the laboratory and handle materials. It is an integral part.
We are concerned here with worship in our schools. I was much moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said. It was I thought a marvellous description of what worship should be and I very much appreciated what he said. I do not for a moment deny that much of what passes for worship in our schools is not worship at all. I would go further and say that much of what passes for worship is sometimes thinly disguised propaganda for this or that particular stance in matters which are not properly the substance of worship.
I should like to know from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on what evidence her figure of 10 per cent. is based. Is it 10 per cent. in all schools? I do not know of evidence of precisely that accuracy. Certainly I can assure the Committee that in our Church schools in London—of which there are many, both primary and secondary, and I have visited many—the worship (which was not of that particular nature because I was there) was certainly Christian. If those schools represent part of the 10 per cent., the situation must be very had in some places.
Baroness Cox: The figure came from a survey which was reported two or three years ago in The Times Educational Supplement.
The Lord Bishop of London: I do not take everything in The Times Educational Supplement as the equivalent of factual evidence. I still wonder how one arrives at a figure of 10 per cent. for all the schools in the country. What was the method for assessing that figure?
I do not deny for a moment that there is bad worship. There is that which is not worship at all, and what should be worship is often nothing more than assembly. We have tried to do a good deal about that. So I am not for a moment denying that there is a problem. However, earlier in Committee I said that the undertaking which I gave regarding religious education and instruction would extend to this

1347
concern for worship. I can assure the Committee that that is already happening and happening very quickly indeed. I am encouraged by the response that we are receiving.
I very much hope that in this matter the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will do as they did on the question of religious instruction. Amendment No. 228 is in fact the same as the earlier amendment which the noble Baroness kindly asked leave to withdraw in order that we could pursue the discussions in which we are currently involved.
Having said something about the general position, perhaps I may say something about the particular amendments. I am puzzled by Amendments Nos. 223 and 224. Unless I am very stupid, it seems that those amendments, both with regard to worship and other religious instruction, would permit the giving of instruction in the Moslem, Sikh and Hindu faiths but not in the Christian faith. I cannot make any more sense of them. I have asked people I assume to be wiser than myself and more knowledgeable in interpreting statutes and they give me the same answer. If the amendments are passed, so far as I can see, collective worship can be distinctive of anything except that which is Christian. The same applies to religious instruction. I do not understand these amendments.
Nor do I understand the words "Christian sect" which in many quarters have a very peculiar connotation. The amendments do not just say "Christian". The clause follows the wording used ever since the Cooper-Temple clause; namely, that it is not,
"distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
As will be seen when the amendment comes on Report, I shall be perfectly happy for the word "Christian" to appear. However, I am not at all happy about the words "Christian sect" which conjure up some very strange ideas and are open to strange interpretation by some people. I feel that I must make those points while in no way wishing to underestimate the need for this matter to be dealt with or the aim that these amendments attempt to secure. I say that from the bottom of my heart.
With the assurances that I have given, I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn. We have discussed this matter with the Government, as the Minister will possibly say, and with other faiths and teachers. We have discussed it with all those concerned with worship in the schools. We are not concerned simply with worship in churches but also with worship in schools. That involves other people, and we cannot simply ignore it.
I am greatly encouraged by the way things are going. When we have something specific to say I believe that it will very much encourage those who have proposed these amendments. I hope, however, that the amendments will be withdrawn. I do not wish to appear critical of the methods proposed for securing the aim of the amendments. The last thing I want is to have to vote against an amendment which intentionally desires that things should be Christian. I hope that I shall not be put in that position. It would be most uncomfortable, because I think of the way in
1348
which the newspapers would interpret it. Frankly, I do not know what I should do were I asked to vote on these amendments as they are. My heart would be with them but my head would know that this was not the way to go about the matter at the moment.
With that expression of good will and support for what is intended, I hope very much that these amendments will be withdrawn and that we shall be able to continue in a constructive way, trying to secure the end which I am sure the whole Committee desires.
Lord Thurlow: I should like very strongly to support the position set out by the right reverend Prelate. With great respect to the proposers of the amendments—and it is very difficult not to be carried away by the eloquence of the noble Lord and the ardour of the noble Baroness—I submit that these amendments would be counterproductive. I think that all kinds of practical difficulties would arise in relation to attempts to define the term "Christian". That would lead us into a legal and practical quagmire, but much more important than any legalistic considerations is the fundamental point to which the right reverend Prelate referred, that the object of the provisions for the act of worship and for religious instruction is surely to transmit to our children, or to give an opportunity to transmit to our children, proper values and proper morals.
This has to be done with the governors and the teachers that we have and that we are going to have. It will not help if we try to impose on the governors and the teachers a denominational framework, or even, if the term is not too difficult, a Christian framework. I share most of the objectives of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I suggest that these amendments would be counterproductive, and I hope that the movers will be able to withdraw them.
Baroness Hooper: I of course appreciate the significance of these amendments, and the Government have recognised the concerns many noble Lords have expressed during the debates we have already had concerning religious education in schools. I have therefore noted very carefully the views that have been put forward about religious education in grant-maintained schools and collective worship generally. I have to say, however, that I do not think it would be appropriate to take decisions on these matters now.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has made clear that he will be bringing forward at Report stage a package of proposals relating to the Christian content of religious education and collective worship. The Government support his endeavours to find ways of amending the Bill which will meet the various concerns that have been expressed both today and in our earlier debates in Committee, but which also take account of the views of those directly concerned outside this House.
These are of course difficult and controversial issues on which individuals hold strong and sincere views, and we believe that it would be wrong to pass into law changes which have not been the subject of wide discussion or consultation with the representative interests concerned, and especially as we have the clearly stated intention of the right reverend Prelate

1349
to return to noble Lords on Report with proposals which reflect the results of such consultations. I therefore hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we may take a more fully informed view at a later stage.
Lord Swinfen: I feel that we must have the word "Christian" in the Bill somewhere. As Clause 71 is currently drafted, as I understand it—I am not a lawyer—if a school were to set up a model of Paddington Bear and have regular worship of Paddington Bear, a clever lawyer could make a good case for saying that, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, that is legal.
The Lord Bishop of London: I entirely accept what the noble Lord said about the word "Christian" having to appear in the Bill. That has not been a matter of dispute so far in any of the discussions we have had. The question of how it should be included is the crux of the problem.
Baroness Faithfull: May I ask the right reverend Prelate why it cannot appear in its present form as recommended by the proposers of the amendment?
The Lord Bishop of London: Is the noble Baroness referring to Amendments Nos. 223 and 224?
Baroness Faithfull: Collective Christian worship.
The Lord Bishop of London: The first one, Amendment No. 222. First, there is the question of the unity of the school. This has to be gone into. I am not giving anything away; I am simply saying that the problem is how we relate the responsibility for the school worshipping as such to the needs which are met in Amendment No. 228 for individual worship. Does one want the school fragmented? Is that the way to go about it? How is it to be organsied? These are practical problems. If one says only that the worship can be "Christian", one takes no account of a situation that must be taken into account if one is to be able to relate the Christian worship to the school in which it takes place. Let me take that as one example of the kind of problem that has to be faced. If we are to include the word "Christian", it must be in a workable way that takes account of those who will be involved. That is what we seek to do. To insert the word "Christian" by itself not only would not have the result that we expect, but would create difficulties in the future and in the long run, if it is done without the kind of consideration that I have outlined, would not improve the quality of worship in the schools.
12 midnight
Lord Thorneycroft: I am bound to say that I found the Minister's reply disappointing.
I do not draw such a sharp distinction between worship in my church, worship in my school, worship in my home and even worship in this place, where we worship daily. We do not draw distinctions in that way. We cannot have worship of Almighty God in one place and a worship that dare not speak its name in others. Worship is universal. Unless the Minister
1350
can give me a reasonable assurance that the words "collective Christian worship" will be included in the Bill, I feel bound to say that my inclination is to press the matter to a Division.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question that arises from my being genuinely puzzled about the thrust of his argument. As the noble Lord has said, the Christian religion offers the kind of joy, comfort and pleasure that he so movingly described when proposing the amendment. I understood—and I confess that I am not a Christian—that any kind of religious faith provided exactly that kind of response. Does the noble Lord accept that all faiths provide that kind of solace, joy and comfort? In the circumstances, therefore, why should we now relate a major measure simply and solely to the Christian religion?
Lord Thorneycroft: The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I happen to be a Christian, and I am not ashamed to say so. I believe in the Christian religion. I have found great joy and comfort myself, and I want to see it extended to others. Other men hold other views. That is why in the amendments under discussion—particularly that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—we make provision for the others. We do not offer to Moslems the opportunity to share in some mishmash act of worship; we offer them the opportunity to engage in Moslem worship.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. If we are Christians, give us Christian worship. We are a Christian country. Here are these Christian children; give them at least that, an act of collective Christian worship, with rights to the others to have their religions, but not all put together in some meaningless contrivance.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that if the noble Lord divides the Committee at this moment that would be quite the wrong thing to do.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is a very serious subject. We have only a few noble Lords here. I am giving a view. It seems to me that the right reverend Prelate is the third head of our Church. He has said that he is looking into the matter and has asked that we give it further consideration. I think the noble Lord ought to do so.
The Lord Bishop of London: I really feel rather desperate at the moment. What I am being told frankly is that I am barely a Christian because I will not support one particular way of going about this. Frankly, I find that really appalling. Life would have been a lot easier for me if I had followed some mishmash, if I had not stood out over the years for this, that and the other. I am still doing so and am very unpopular at times for it. Life would have been much easier for me. I should have avoided much criticism and acquired popularity. But I have not done that. Therefore I think I can take it, because I am not somebody who seeks to dilute the Christian faith. But I am not prepared. When I look at our schools I say,

1351
"Christian worship here. Yes, that is what I want". At the same time I have to ask: are all the teachers Christian? Can Christian worship be given effectively by those who do not believe?
These are some of the questions we have to face. How is our worship to become Christian? I do not want to dilute it in any way. I do not believe that you can do it simply by putting one word in a Bill. I do not believe that you can make people have Christian worship simply by telling them to. If we are to treat people as people—everybody, believers, non-believers, Christians, non-Christians, teachers and everybody involved in this—I believe it demands much more care and responsibility than the simple answer which some people here seem to want to advocate, as if we could solve this great problem as a condition of our worship just by passing a few words in a Bill. That I believe is not a responsible thing for us to do.
I am sorry that I have spoken rather fervently. I give not an inch to anybody in my concern for Christian worship, not an inch in my concern that our children should be given a truly Christian upbringing in every way; but I do not believe that I must be forced into a position where I have to say: "This is the only way, and if we do not go down this way then we are letting the side down". It seems to me that this is what is being said.
Lord Kilmarnock: Has the right reverend Prelate—
Lord Sandford: Over the last 30 years I have frequently asked the Government questions about the unsatisfactory situation we find in our schools, where this act of worship prescribed in the 1944 Act is not being properly carried out. The answer which is almost invariably supplied to the Ministers who have to reply is that the 1944 Act does not prescribe that the act should be an act of Christian worship, and therefore it is almost impossible to keep tabs on what is going on. They do not know what is happening and they will not provide answers, inspect or monitor what is happening.
I understood the right reverend Prelate to give us an assurance that the formula which he is trying to produce for Report stage will ensure that the word "Christian" is on the face of the Bill. That seems to me what my noble friends Lord Thorneycroft and Lady Cox are chiefly seeking. I did not hear that same assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I should be satisfied to leave things as they are if she will give the same assurance that we have had from the right reverend Prelate. Will she do that?
Lord Thorneycroft: In answer to what the right reverend Prelate said, I have uttered no word of criticism whatever of him in my remarks. I have never suggested that there is anything un-Christian in what he does. I have the highest admiration for him and I am a very humble member of his Church. He has his responsibilities and he has many great problems, which I accept. I, too, have my responsibilities. All who are Christians have our responsibilities.
Unless we have "Christian" collective worship in the Bill, the thousands of Christian parents, Christian
1352
governors and Christian head teachers are powerless in these matters. They have no leg to stand on, however much they want acts of Christian worship. If they look at the Bill, there is no provision. It could be anything. It is all very well saying that the word "Christian" can be worked into the Bill somewhere. Almost anybody could do that somewhere. We want it in terms which ensure that an act of Christian collective worship is there, so that the parents can ask for it, headmasters can work for it and governors can look for it. Do not deny them that!
Lord Swinfen: The insertion of the word "Christian" would only act as a marker. It does not prevent the right reverend Prelate coming back at a later stage with a better form of words, if he so wishes.
Baroness Seear: I very much hope we shall support what the right reverend Prelate has said. He has been working on this problem for a long time; he knows far better than any of us what the complexities of this issue are.
If I had children, I would send them to a Church school because I would want them to be brought up in the Christian faith. However, that does not seem to me to mean we can say that all schools governed by this legislation should have the same kind of approach to the teaching of religion that we expect to find in our Church schools.
It may be that the right reverend Prelate will come up with something that satisfies those who want to see "Christian" inserted in the way that they have described. Because the right reverend Prelate has been studying this matter and because he is in a far better position to know that the consequences of what is proposed are likely to be very different to what the movers would wish, I hope very much that at this late hour, when the Chamber is very empty, we shall not pass an amendment which would tie the hands of, and make life very much more difficult for, the right reverend Prelate who is trying to sort out an extremely difficult matter. I hope that the movers will be prepared at this stage to withdraw.
Baroness Blatch: I hope we shall be forgiven for being suspicious and for pressing this point. The reason is that there has been the most incredible reluctance to accept "predominantly Christian" when it comes to religious education in school, even given all the accommodation for other religion in our schools that has been built into the amendment.
Secondly, there appears to be a vigorous reluctance to accept collective Christian worship. We fear that at a late hour discussing this Bill we may get the position, for example, that religious education shall be studied, Christianity di-da-di-da-di-da. We are worried that we will have a long string of denominations. This is an unequivocal statement. Unless it comes back in that form, I fear it is going to keep the Committee for many more hours.
Baroness Cox: As one of the movers of these amendments, may I say that I listened very carefully and appreciatively to what the right reverend Prelate said. I respect the complexity of the issues involved. Therefore, I give the assurance that I would be

1353
perfectly prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 228 particularly, which has the mark of my own work and similarity with the other amendments upon it. I would be perfectly prepared to concur in the withdrawal of Amendment No. 223 and Amendment No. 224. I do not see that Amendment No. 222 preempts any of the work that the right reverend Prelate may be doing in trying to develop a much more sophisticated and fine-tuned amendment. It is a kind of paving amendment to set the scene for whatever more complex and sophisticated amendments may be necessary later to allow representation for worship for other faiths and so on. I cannot see that there is anything that anyone could take exception to in Amendment No. 222. However, I shall give the assurance that I shall eagerly withdraw the other amendments, and wait for the alternative amendments which the right reverend Prelate has offered to bring back at a later stage.
Baroness Hooper: In view of the many declarations which have been made this evening I should like to start by saying that I too am a practising Christian and feel most strongly about my faith. I should be disappointed if my noble friends felt that they had to press the issue to a vote now. I was glad to hear from my noble friend Lady Cox that that may not be the case. I can only repeat the Government's advice that they should support the line advocated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. As my noble friend Lord Sandford has reminded us, the right reverend Prelate has agreed that the word "Christian" could and should appear on the face of the Bill. The difficulty is how that should be done. He has given the Committee an assurance that he will come back with a solution.
I believe that all these amendments form a package and will be part of a larger package that the right reverend Prelate has taken under his wing in relation to the previous amendments we have also discussed. We ask Members of the Committee to exercise a little patience on the matter.
Lord Morris: As luck will have it, invariably when this issue arises again at a later stage it will do so at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. I ask my noble friends Lord Thorneycroft and Lady Cox to have courage. We must vote on this issue now. It is critically important to set the scene for the later stages of the Bill. I am absolutely convinced that the same excuses will be used at the Report stage. Have courage; I plead, take this matter to a Division.
The Lord Bishop of London: I must ask the Committee not to take heed of that remark. At the moment I am much encouraged. I have always said that if one takes one action such as this in isolation, without looking at all the other aspects together, one would feel almost bound to withdraw all the undertakings I have given. I feel almost as strongly as that.
A noble Lord: Good, good!
The Lord Bishop of London: That is why I am made to feel that I am not really a Christian. I am not standing—
Noble Lords: No. Nonsense.
The Lord Bishop of London: This is not nonsense, it is precisely the issue. We are being told that only those who wish to adopt a particular view in this matter can justify the title of standing with the Christian faith. I believe that that is intolerable.
I am saying that to take one single action such as this by itself, far from encouraging people and being a stand, could do irreparable harm in trying to do precisely what is intended by the movers of the amendment.
Lord Thorneycroft: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
12.19 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 222) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 2.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Braye, B.

Pender, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Southborough, L.

Butterworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Carnock, L.

Swinton, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Thorneycroft, L. [Teller.]

Cowley, E.

Trafford, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beaverbrook, L. [Teller.]

Long, V. [Teller.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55, I declare the Question not decided; and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.