Lords Sitting of 16 May 1988

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

The British Library
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their proposals for the future of the British Library.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government will continue to support the British Library as a national and international centre of excellence. Like other arts bodies, it can now plan on the basis of firm three-year funding. The Government are also providing a splendid new building at St. Pancras.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partially encouraging Answer. Is she aware of the great anxiety that has been caused by press reports stating that the new building is not to be completed but is to be scrapped at some stage? Can she reiterate that it remains government policy that all parts of the British Library will be accommodated in one building and under one roof? Can she also bring us up to date as to the future of the reading room at the British Museum, because to lose that room and not gain a unified building will be to have the worst of all worlds?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the British Library currently occupies 19 buildings around London, including the British Museum. Transport from the out-stations to Bloomsbury causes damage to books and delays to readers. In addition, the
2
library needs four miles of extra shelf space each year. The stages approved by the Government will provide air-conditioned storage for the collections, reading rooms for rare books and manuscripts and open-access reading rooms for the Science, Reference and Information Service.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that this great project, the concept of which we owe to two Conservative arts Ministers—the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley—will not suffer damaging cuts through financial parsimony by the present Government?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, despite the very cross face of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I should like to thank him for the compliments he paid to my noble friends on this side of the House. It was always planned to look at the project in stages: the first is now well under construction. In December, in the light of the review of the library's current requirement, my right honourable friend in another place commissioned a feasibility study for completing the building so that the key requirements of the library are met at the minimum additional cost. We want the best value for the library user and the taxpayer.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the trouble lying behind the Question of my noble friend Lord St. John is generated by peculiarities in the nomenclature with regard to the design? It is a little like the situation in 1905 when the Russian fleet sailed to Japan under the title of the "Second Pacific Squadron" when it was all a workable part of the Russian fleet. I hope that it is not a precedent for future developments of the library. The point is that there are three main stages in the original plan—
Noble Lords: Speech.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I am asking the noble Baroness a question. Does she realise that the stages are named in such a way that it appears much has been extinguished when in fact little has?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the requirements of phase one had to be modified in the light of technological and demographic changes; hence the need to look again at the design of the last part of phase one. The objective of phase one is to satisfy the library's key requirements and will conclude the construction for the foreseeable future. However, I agree with my noble friend that the words "phase one" cover a multitude of aspects of the building.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it all sounds very good, listening to the Minister. Can she tell the House how quickly a decision will be reached on the completion stage once the feasibility study is completed? I understand that if the work were speeded up, the building could be completed by 1995 with great economy of cost and improvement in services. Secondly, can she assure the House that the Government will not dispose of the land behind the new building at St. Pancras after completion of the first stage in 1993? Although that may be tempting, it would be improvident and short sighted.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I cannot answer about the land, and I shall write to her. The first stage, which was started in 1982, should be completed in 1993. The British Library will begin to occupy parts of the building in 1991. Completion stage (the subject of the feasibility study) may be finished as early as 1996.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I apologise for troubling my noble friend further, but she let slip a word about new designs. If there are to be new designs for this building, perhaps I may humbly request that the Royal Fine Art Commission has the opportunity to look at them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware that the Royal Fine Art Commission was consulted in the original instance. However, the plans are still at the feasibility study stage. When findings and proposals have been put to Ministers, consideration can be given to obtaining approval for any revision of design.
I did not answer my noble friend's question concerning the reading room at the British Museum. My right honourable friend in another place has commissioned a study to consider and report in conjunction with the trustees of the British Museum whether suitable economic arrangements can be established once the British Library has vacated the museum.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the new science, reference and information service reading rooms will be open on schedule in December 1992; and, in order to do that, that the moving of books to fill the 300 kilometres of shelf space will begin in 1991?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the stock will begin to be moved in 1992. The reading rooms are likely to open in mid-1993. That will enable the SRIS
4
to vacate its present sites, with the exception of some closed access storage at Micawber Street, N.1.

Housing: Fire Safety Standards
2.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to bring out a national advisory standard on means of escape and related fire safety measures in houses in multiple occupation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Home Office plans to publish the final version of the national advisory standard for England and Wales later this year. A similar standard for Scotland was published in February.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I welcome the reply of the noble Earl. However, will he acknowledge that it is now eight years since the Government first promised to produce this national advisory standard on means of escape and fire-related safety measures in houses in multiple occupation, bearing in mind that two and a half million people live in houses in multiple occupation, whether they be bed-sits, lodgings or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that 81 per cent. of those have unsatisfactory means of fire escape? The Government's own report, a recent report, said that that was an indictment of national and local housing policy over many years. Can we accept that the reply of the Minister is a firm booking for this year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should not have given it if it was not.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, when fixing the rate support grant, how high in the list of priorities do the Government see the importance of local authorities ensuring that they have sufficient inspectors in order to comply with such standards? Can the Minister tell the House this? At the present time when local authorities which are under severe housing stress are forced to send their constituents to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, what guidance is given to the authorities to ensure that the properties to which they send their constituents are adequate and safe in respect of fire hazards?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those are two questions fairly wide of the mark. The local authorities have discretionary powers to inspect and register houses in multiple occupation. If the noble Lord wishes to know about inspectors, he must table another Question because the present Question concerns guidance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that this matter has taken longer than we had expected; but I assure him that the guidance will be published this year.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, why has it not taken as long in Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is basically because the legislation is different, consultation has proceeded more rapidly and there are fewer people with whom to argue.

Low-Alcohol Drinks: Duty
2.47 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much duty on low-alcohol mixed drinks will decrease as a result of the changes announced in the Budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is desirable to encourage consumers—especially the young—to switch from higher strength wines and spirits to lower strength alcoholic drinks. The present tax structure inhibits the development of the market for lower alcohol drinks. The change is intended to encourage the trade to make a wider range of such drinks more readily available. For certain products the duty could be reduced by as much as 75 per cent.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he any information as to the effect of the encouragement to drink low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers and lagers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if a beer or lager is alcohol-free, it will not be affected by these proposals because there is no duty on them. However, beers with an original gravity below 1,030 degrees at present pay the duty at the 1,030 degree rate; but from 1st October beers with an original gravity below that level will pay proportionately less duty.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic beers and lagers are more expensive than alcoholic drinks, and that that is working against the Government's policy of discouraging drinking and driving? Therefore, what representations have the Government made to the Brewers Society in order to reduce immediately the cost of these non-alcoholic drinks?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the price at which such drinks are sold is a commercial decision for the brewer or the publican. It is not a matter in which the Government can intervene. I understand that some of the drinks cost more to manufacture than beers containing alcohol.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate that it may be difficult to intervene, but is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend Lord Mason is absolutely right? Is he aware that sometimes half a pint of lemonade in a pub can cost as much as half a pint of bitter? In a supermarket one can buy lemonade at 50 pence for two litres; landlords are charging 50 pence for half a pint. Surely, we must be able to do something about that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure what we can do. If people are prepared to pay 50 pence for half a pint of lemonade in a pub, presumably that is the market rate.

Broadcasting Standards Council
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to announce the terms of reference and composition of the Broadcasting Standards Council.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this afternoon.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I can hardly thank the Minister for the Answer but I thank him for warning me in advance—not his words, but mine—that my ace is to be trumped this afternoon. Does the Minister appreciate that the much-heralded Statement is likely to fill many of us with the gravest concern? The proposal for a Broadcasting Standards Council undermines the credibility and the constitutional independence of the BBC and the IBA. If it is true that Sir William Rees-Mogg is to be chairman, then is it not the case —
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with respect, I do not believe that I am offending against any order of procedure at all.
Noble Lords: Reading!
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords. One can read from the Front Bench. I had to change several times what I was going to say in view of the unpleasant and unexpected news that hit me just before I came into the Chamber. My concern is this. Is it not the case that Sir William Rees-Mogg, with his past record in broadcasting, will, if appointed chairman, probably bring in a very strong whiff of censorship as he seeks to shape British television into line with his wishes and those of the Government? Will there not be a great increase in control?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness feels the gravest concern over something that has not yet been published. I can only suggest that she is patient and awaits the terms of my right honourable friend's Statement. I am sure she will then find that she has no grave concern; rather that she will be delighted.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us greatly welcome the creation of a broadcasting council and even more the appointment of Sir William Rees-Mogg as chairman? We feel that in his hands this body can perform an admirable and much needed job to check the excesses which sometimes we suffer through television.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the support which he has been kind enough

7
to give for something which has not yet been announced. I merely say to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, thank you in anticipation.

Business
2.54 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 Third Reading of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill will be taken.

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

British Waterways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved an amendment:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Lords' Expenses
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In 1986 the Top Salaries Review Body was invited to consider the level of the allowance payable to Peers for their secretarial costs. In its report published in April 1987 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended that the level of the allowance payable should be increased from £20 to £22 for each day of attendance and that the allowance should continue to be uprated annually by the percentage increase in the maximum of the scale for a senior personal secretary in the Civil Service in receipt of inner London weighting. Your Lordships agreed this change on 23rd July last.
However, the Top Salaries Review Body had also received some evidence to suggest that Back Bench Peers who are particularly active in the work of the House should be able to claim against a higher maximum allowance; but it found that the problem of defining the activity of Members of the House and the possible injustice that would be caused by
8
attempting this outweighed any case for a higher allowance. Instead, the Top Salaries Review Body proposed that the Leader of the House should invite the House to consider the question further.
The Top Salaries Review Body recommendations were debated on 23rd July 1987. On that occasion, my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, declared himself willing to consider any workable scheme which might be proposed to him, and I am now acting in fulfilment of that undertaking.
In the course of that debate and in subsequent correspondence five different schemes were proposed. One scheme suggested that Peers should be enabled to claim any excess costs over and above the provision of the present allowance without a maximum entitlement. Two schemes provided for an annual payment of £5,000 a year. One scheme provided for allowances to be paid in recesses at a level based on attendance records in the previous Session or part Session and one scheme replaced the present allowance with a differential allowance based on attendance, Division records and the level of correspondence that could be used to support a shared typing pool or private secretarial services.
I am grateful for these proposals and I have given them very serious consideration. Unfortunately, they give rise to problems of accountability or they are administratively complicated. Some also fail to accommodate the needs of Cross-Benchers or fail to avoid the invidious comparisons of levels of activity which the Top Salaries Review Body found to be such an overwhelming obstacle.
I have been very much helped by these proposals in reaching this conclusion. I have taken the view that a good case has been made for the provision of some additional allowance towards secretarial work in recesses, in particular at the beginning and at the end of the period of adjournment of the House when some Members can expect to be very much involved in parliamentary business. I consider that some extension of our present arrangement should be made so that henceforward Peers will be able to claim the existing daily secretarial allowance for up to a further 18 days in any year. I have calculated these 18 days on the basis of a notional three days for any adjournment of one week, and six days—three days at either end—for any adjournment of two weeks or more. This additional allowance might be claimed by any noble Lord who was able to certify that his expenditure on secretarial costs during recesses could not be met from the amounts for secretarial allowance already available for attending sittings of the House. The Resolution before your Lordships today gives effect to this proposal. I beg to move.
Moved, That in calculating in accordance with the Resolution of 23rd July 1987 the limit for any year on the expenses which a Member of this House may recover under paragraph (1)(d) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office, secretarial and research allowance), there shall, if that Member so requires, be added to the number of days of attendance by him in that year such number of days in that year on which the House does not sit as are specified by him, but subject to a maximum of—(a) three days, in the case of the year ending with 31st July 1988, and (b)

9
eighteen days, in the case of any subsequent year. In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st August.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Leader of the House for his remarks about the increased office, secretarial and research allowance. Those noble Lords whose work does not come to an immediate halt when the House rises for a recess and who have a good deal of preparation to do well in advance of the House's return will appreciate this modest new arrangement.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we are glad to hear this announcement from the Leader of the House and we thank him for repeating it. There is no doubt that for those who are actively engaged in the House the work continues outside the normal days of sitting. It is therefore very desirable that there should be this extra payment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In fact, I have not repeated the announcement. I have made it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the ingenuity of the Lord Privy Seal is something for which we should be grateful, provided we notice that the amount of money which a noble Lord "so requires" comes to about the equivalent of a week's salary for one secretary. This summer I shall be entitled to an extra £60, for which I thank him very much. Next year I shall be entitled to an extra £400. Your Lordships must recognise that this is a working House and that it ought to be possible to provide noble Lords on all sides with a little more help for secretarial services. Secretarial services cannot be turned off and on. Nonetheless the noble Lord has tried hard. It is a quite ingenious solution, if only it amounted to some worthwhile sum.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, as one who raised earlier the desirability of distinguishing between active and not so active Members of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may express my gratitude for the small mercy that the Leader of the House has been able to bring. I realise that this may not be a propitious time to seek the favours of the Prime Minister. Your Lordships' House is probably not in a very strong position to ask for more rewards for the active Peers. In the light of the peril in which apparently we now stand, we may have to be modest in our expectations. Nevertheless, this is chicken feed.
We do not employ our secretaries by the day. We cannot sack them when a bank holiday comes along. We have continuing responsibilities towards them. That is in the normal course of relations between employer and employee. The truth of the matter is that your Lordships' House was never constructed for active Peers. It has never taken very much notice of them. The facilities given to us are quite ridiculous in any House of Parliament in modern times. However, with those strictures, I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Lord for what little he has been able to achieve.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who gave my noble friend the Leader of the House a good deal of trouble on this issue, may I express my gratitude to him for the enomous amount of work that he and his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, have done on this matter? Although in financial terms the change is not of very great magnitude—in conversation my noble friend referred to it as a minnow—it is still an improvement and has this merit. It breaks the absurd idea which used to rule that noble Lords incurred no secretarial expenses once the House went into recess. The doctrine that at the beginning of the recess one sacked one's secretary, despite the risk of being taken to an industrial tribunal, has at least been dented.
It is a modest improvement that some limited payment is to be made in respect of secretarial expenses actually incurred. I remind your Lordships that expenses that can be properly claimed can now be claimed for a limited number of days during the recess. My noble friend will not be surprised if I suggest to him that many of us think that this is not the end of the road; but it is quite a good beginning.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken, the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made suggestions which have led to at least something being done. Although I realise that all three noble Lords feel that this is only a modest step forward, I am grateful to them for what they have said about what my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, and I have done in trying to do something in this respect.
I would make only three points. First, there is some value in that the change does not breach the present status of the allowance. Secondly, it is quite a valuable step forward—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for saying this—that our work can be looked at as extending into the recess and having to be geared up again just before a new sitting starts. This is the reality of the case for Peers. Finally, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This, I have no doubt, is unfinished business.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister prepare a simply worded memorandum so that Members of the House can fully understand the changes that are being made?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and also put a copy of the letter in the Library. For my own benefit, the simplest way I can describe the change is that the allowance is specifically aimed at helping Peers who have to work during recesses and is intended to meet costs over and above those which can be met from the allowance claimed in respect of attendance on sitting days. Claimants will be required to certify a separate claim form that these criteria have been met. I shall send the noble Lord a letter and place a copy in the Library.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Leader of the House for not having been here to hear his announcement. I rise at this

11
stage only to say how delighted I am that he has been able to carry forward something which I started. I was completely convinced that I would fail. Therefore it surprises me very much that his great skill has achieved what I did not expect to do. I am so delighted he has.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on that note, perhaps I may say thank you to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 71 [General provisions as to religious education]:
The Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that a Division took place on Amendment No. 222, which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. The Division took place in the early hours of last Friday morning and there was no quorum. Debate was therefore adjourned in accordance with Standing Order No. 55. Unless any noble Lord now wishes to re-open the debate, I shall put the Question again.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 68, line 35, after ("collective") insert ("Christian").
The noble Baroness said: It may help the Committee if I briefly summarise that debate. It took place in the early hours of Friday morning when few Members of the Committee were able to be present. Some have indicated a wish that there should be a brief recapitulation of what took place.
In moving Amendment No. 222 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who could not be here at that very late hour, it may be helpful if I speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 223 and 228 on which voting did not take place. In summarising the position briefly, as there are great pressures on Committee time, I shall not rehearse the evidence of the widespread violation of the letter and spirit of the 1944 Act. That is available in Hansard. Instead I shall seek to take the debate forward and clear up two misconceptions which I believe are outstanding.
In many schools there is excellent provision for Christian worship but in many other schools there is no active worship at all. As the right reverend Prelate said:
"Much of what passes for worship … is thinly disguised propaganda for … (a) stance … not properly the substance of worship".—[Official Report, 12/5/88; col. 1346.]
12
In many other schools that act of worship has been transmuted into a multi-faith celebration of shared values. That is a development, I regret to say, commended by the Government earlier this year. There is certainly a place for a celebration of shared values especially in a pluralist society but that is a far cry from the worship of Almighty God and no substitute for it.
All that Amendment No. 223 seeks to do is to recognise explicitly on the face of the Bill the intention behind the 1944 Act by inserting the word "Christian" before collective worship. Amendment No. 228 provides also for the most important freedom for parents to withdraw their children if they do not wish them to participate in Christian worship. Therefore, appreciating that our society has changed since 1944 (with many citizens living in this country who adhere to other faiths), it would enable such people to have acts of worship according to their own faith if they so wish. That is a most important extention of the 1944 Act.
We recognise that the wording of these amendments may well be imperfect. I am especially not happy with the use of the word "sect", which featured in the amendment originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and I both made it clear on Thursday night that we would be happy to withdraw the later amendments in the light of the assurance given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that on Report he would bring back further amendments that would meet our concerns more accurately. We are most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, and hope that we shall be able to support such amendments at that stage.
However, we could see no reason in the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate why the principle of Amendment No. 222 should be unacceptable, except that we agree it does not perhaps go far enough relating as it does to grant-maintained schools only. Nevertheless, the right reverend Prelate seemed unwilling to accept an amendment which places the word "Christian" before the words "collective worship". He was unwilling on two grounds. The first was because of the need to negotiate with other groups; and the second was because of practicalities, especially the shortage of Christian teachers. On that first point, I shall say briefly that numerous representatives of other faiths, to whose concerns we must rightly be deeply sensitive, have repeatedly argued that they prefer their children to attend schools where Christianity is enshrined as the main religion of this land. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, spoke most movingly in this respect, and quoted from the Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who found his Jewish faith enhanced from attending a school where Christian worship was enshrined, because respect for one faith enhances respect for other faiths. Leaders of the Moslem community have urged us to restore Christianity to our schools. As a head teacher wrote in a letter to me,
"Hindu and Muslim parents entrust their children to Church schools because they want them to learn how to pray."
Therefore many people are most puzzled by the apparent reluctance of the Church hierarchy to insert

13
the word "Christian" before the words "collective worship". If that reluctance is finally derived from practical considerations of shortage of teachers—which was another point raised by the right reverend Prelate on Thursday night—it can be argued that we need the framework of the law even more urgently, for we see what a sorry situation has developed as a result of not identifying Christianity on the face of the Bill in 1944.
Many Christian teachers now feel unable to lead worship in schools because of pressure from secularised hierarchies to offer a secularised, and sometimes politicised, celebration of shared values which they see—
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she said she would give a brief resume of what happened last Thursday night. I was here at that time. I feel that she has gone beyond that point and is in the process of raising others. Thus far she has had just under five minutes. I wonder whether this is a proper way for the Committee to proceed. The debate on Thursday night has all been reported in Hansard, and has no doubt been read by many Members of the Committee.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his advice. I said that I was trying to clarify two outstanding misconceptions, and in fact I have almost finished. However, I am most grateful to him and I shall now move very fast.
I return to the issue of teachers. I must point out that many teachers are prevented from presenting Christian worship because they see what they are required to do as a betrayal of their faith. Indeed, that was a point raised by the right reverend Prelate on Thursday night. The remedy is to specify Christian worship which would strengthen the position of those teachers, and then to take practical steps to meet remaining shortages; for example, to draw on local clergy and Christian laity. Over the passage of time it is probable that the opportunity to reinstate Christian teaching and worship will attract more Christian students into such teaching and reverse the downward spiral of recent years. However, present problems are no reason not to improve the legislative framework. The reverse is the case: they lend greater urgency to such initiatives.
I conclude by saying that all we are trying to do is to ensure that our children have the opportunity to become familiar with the Christian heritage of our country. That provision requires the opportunity for both Christian education and worship. As the right reverend Prelate said:
"One cannot have one without the other".
Far too many schools are now failing to give children the opportunity to become familiar with the scriptures, with the hymns, and with the prayers which can be a source of infinite value later in life. Anyone who has worked with people in times of crisis knows how often such people turn to these spiritual resources when they are most in need.
Therefore, if we deny our young people the opportunity to have Christian worship, we deny them the most fundamental experience of our spiritual inheritance, which it is our responsibility to pass on
14
to them. T. S. Eliot rightly said that a nation does not cease to be a Christian nation until it declares otherwise. We have not so declared. As a Christian nation we have a gospel to proclaim and a duty to proclaim it to our children; we have been guilty of failing so to do, and now we have an opportunity to correct that failure. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I had not intended to speak this afternoon—or at least not to speak until later in the debate. However, I think it might be helpful to the Committee if I briefly state one or two points. On more than one occasion I have given an undertaking to the Committee that at Report stage I shall bring back proposals which will deal both with religious instruction and with worship. In fact, I have gone even further: I have said that I shall do my best to ensure that such proposals provide for the word "Christian" to be on the face of the Bill—both in respect of the teaching and the worship. I hold myself wholeheartedly to those undertakings.
I am much encouraged by the way in which my discussions with a wide range of people are progressing. However, I must ask the Committee to realise that if one is involved in any type of discussions, or negotiations with people, it is impossible to retain their confidence and trust if, in the middle of such discussions, one suddenly decides to pre-empt one way of securing the aim which everyone is seeking to achieve.
The Committee will appreciate that it is extremely difficult for a bishop to find himself in the position of possibly having to vote against the inclusion in the Bill of the word "Christian". Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I have the same objective in mind, although, if I may put it delicately, I think perhaps I am more realistic and more informed about the actual situation in schools and in the classrooms. After all, I work as chairman of our board of education with all the people who are involved; namely, the authorities, the teachers and many others. We have the same objective.
In my heart I hope that this amendment will not be put to the vote. However, if it is, I am afraid—although it may be misunderstood and misrepresented—that I shall have to vote against it, because I believe that it will destroy my credibility in trying to pursue those discussions which, as I have already said, are proceeding at an encouraging rate. I believe that when we have the outcome it will secure what I think I can say is in the minds of all Members of the Committee: that the Christian faith, as it has been practised and lived in this country over the years, shall be maintained, and securely maintained, for the future; and that it will be taught to our children, not only through teaching but by their being able to experience it in worship.
I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I have given my undertakings. If the amendment is pressed, I shall have to vote against it. If it passed I shall be in a difficult position with those people to whom we are saying, "Look, we are now trying to work out something that is to come back on Report. What is your line?" We are now going to pre-empt

15
those discussions and say that something must be done in one particular way in Christian collective worship. We have already had amendments on worship which have been accepted, and on which we can build and take advantage. It does not matter what the subject is, but if one tries to pre-empt a course of action during discussions one is in danger of seriously jeopardising those discussions.
I see this also as a matter of charity. If I go to talk to someone, I have to do so with a willingness to listen and not at the same time to say, "I have already decided on one point". I hope that those who propose the amendment accept what I say examino, and accept that I seek to achieve the same ends. We are moving well. It would be a great help towards securing truly Christian education and Christian worship if the amendment were withdrawn.
If the Committee made its mind clear that would help in our discussions. If the amendment is pressed, I shall have to vote against it because I believe that it will seriously prejudice those discussions.
Viscount Tonypandy: I can hardly believe my ears. It is sad for me to listen to those who are entrusted with the protection of the faith and to realise that we have been told this afternoon that it may be necessary to come back on Report and not to have the word "Christian" in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of London: Will the noble Viscount kindly give way? I have made it abundantly clear that the intention behind the proposal that I will bring back on Report is that the word "Christian" should be on the face of the Bill and should apply to instruction and to worship. I have said that repeatedly in this place. I do not wish there to be any doubt about that.
Viscount Tonypandy: I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. I had the feeling—clearly I was wrong—that he wanted a free hand to negotiate on this question. I believe in every fibre of my being that there are some things on which we cannot afford to compromise. The heritage of our faith must be passed to our children. If we turn our backs on that, we shall have betrayed our generation. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for having misunderstood something that he said.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should just like to make one point. It will not take a moment. If it were possible, which it is not, for the Committee to lay down a principle which would guide our discussions, that would be what we would want. That is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment is much more precise and much more committed than merely stating a principle which I think we all accept is our guide in our negotiations.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I have my name down to two amendments on this subject. I urge that this amendment be not pressed. I accept what the right reverend Prelate has said. When negotiations are taking place, as they are at the moment, it would be stupid for the Committee to try to aggravate them
16
and to place the negotiators in an invidious position. It would be wrong for us, no matter how strongly we feel, to embarrass this place, as it could be embarrassed, if we pressed the amendment to a vote. I urge, first, that the amendment be not pressed; and, secondly, that if it is pressed it is not voted on.
Lord Thorneycroft: If I may perhaps say a word of thanks to the right reverend Prelate for what he has been saying, nothing I have ever said or thought is meant to be used in criticism against him. I yield to no man in my respect for him, both for his humanity and for his Christianity. I understand fully the difficulties that he is in.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that at first sight it is almost impossible to believe that we should be hesitant about including the word "Christian" in a Bill dealing with religious worship. I want to make one matter absolutely plain because at one moment it was not. Our hesitations have nothing whatever to do with the immigrants in this country. At one time it was being said—once the Front Bench was briefed to say it—that somehow we were no longer a Christian country. That is not true.
The immigrants in this country, if anything, have lent an immense impetus to the weight of Christian worship here.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: May I interrupt the noble Lord on a small point which may carry implications? Can we use the words "ethnic minorities" rather than immigrants?
Lord Thorneycroft: I will use practically any word the right reverend Prelate asks me to use. It is not other faiths that are stopping us. The fault lies not in our stars but in our souls if we are underlings in this matter.
The West Indians are pressing for more religious worship in the schools. They were accustomed to it in the Caribbean. They are amazed to see it lacking here. Some of them have gone off and started their own schools in order to have it. It is not the Mohammedans who are stopping us. The Moslems are praying that we should return to Christian worship. It is not the Jews. The noble Lord the Chief Rabbi in a brilliant speech here begged us to stop what he called the religious cocktail approach to religion in this country and to try to have the courage to stand up for our own faith.
The problem is more difficult. It is a real one. In the negotiations in which the right reverend Prelate is taking part he is not having problems with the Moslem religion, the Methodists or the Catholics; he is having to negotiate with the teachers and the local authorities. It is much better to face that fact head on. Thousands of teachers are far better Christians than I am. Thousands of local authorities are as keen as any of us to have religious education in the schools; but there are some who are agnostic. There are some schools, I am told, where the Lord's Prayer is not permitted to be said; there is one school in which the name of Jesus Christ must not be mentioned. There are such places. The right reverend Prelate has to negotiate with all those people.

17
It is very difficult to deal with cases of that kind. I am bound to say that if there is a school like that I believe it would be better not to have worship than to have that kind of worship. When prayers are replaced by political ditties, it is time to consider seriously whether worship is really being thought about.
However, I say this to the right reverend Prelate. Whatever else we do, let us not try to solve this problem by a negotiation so open-minded, so uninhibited, so uninhibited by the mention of our Saviour, that we can get agreement with everybody and yet at the end lose the great Christian tradition and the Christian faith that we possess.
I shall not delay the House, I know it is late and there are many other things to do. I am not going to press this because I think it is wrong to press people to vote on an issue which touches us so deeply on the basis of a Whip. But I give the warning that somehow or other this House must have an opportunity to express its opinion clearly on this. I thought that the right reverend Prelate, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, went a long way, I understand from him that he is not asking for an open negotiation now and I think that is right. He is asking for a negotiation which is circumscribed at least to the extent that the names of Christianity and Christ are not ruled out of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I am entirely in sympathy with what is in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I feel great sympathy also of course for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has laboured on behalf of his Church and other Churches for a general settlement which I think is better than most of us expected some time ago. I am glad to think that he may have been relieved from his personal dilemma by what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I support entirely Amendment No. 222, but as we seem to be dealing with a number of amendments, at any rate notionally, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to look at Amendment No. 228 again. It says:
"The governors of non-denominational maintained schools, whilst ensuring that the act of collective worship in that school is Christian".
I can imagine schools where that would be an absurdity—not many schools but a few. I hope the particular phrasing can be looked at again. If I were forced to vote I could not cast a vote except in support of the noble Baroness, but I gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, has said that we may not be faced with that appalling and agonising dilemma this afternoon.
Lord Somers: As the person in whose name this amendment was put down and who was not here on Thursday evening to move it, I record my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I agree with every single word that they have said. To the right reverend Prelate I can only say that if one worries too much over ethnic minorities one will end up by achieving nothing at all.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: Perhaps I may add a footnote to what has been said. I am in the happy position of agreeing entirely with what everybody has said in this short debate. All Members of the Committee who have spoken seem basically to be on the same side but have a slightly different means of approaching the matter. I should like to say how grateful I am, and I am sure many other Members of your Lordships' House are, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others for their sheer persistence in this matter. They are, as it were, the grit in the oyster which we trust will in the end produce the right reverend Prelate's pearl.
However, it is right that this House should not leave matters of such importance and consequence for the future education of our children to be settled alone by arcane negotiations between people, however worthy and however well qualified, but should from time to time make its views known.
I ask those who are in the process of negotiating to remember that behind the desire of people who want to see a specifically Christian commitment written on the face of the Bill is the experience of what has happened in a great number of schools. We have heard an example of one school from my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. The aim is precisely to avoid that total exclusion of Christianity—that is one of the powerful motive forces behind those who want to see that word written in—be it in connection with education or in accordance with worship.
I merely wish to make the point that what is at issue here is not a theological point; it is rather a historical and cultural point. Religious experience could have come to this country through any manner of means. The fact is that our religious experience has come to us through the Christian religion, that our institutions have been formed by and large by Christianity. What those who support this amendment and other such amendments wish to see is that due recognition is given to the historical facts.
I am not sure that the wording of the amendment is right. Nevertheless, unlike the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I am afraid that if it were put to the vote I would support it because I could not bring myself as a member of the Christian Church to vote against such a proposal. But we must all make up our minds in accordance with our consciences and responsibilities.
I am not sure either in the parallel amendment that the word "predominant" is right, because after all when one thinks of religion what is being thought of? It is something that exists to serve, not to dominate. Religious education and the act of worship are not to force a form of religion on young people; rather they are to open their eyes to the possibility of making spiritual commitments. But if that opening of eyes is to be effective, it should be done in this country within a broadly Christian context. That is the point. It may be difficult to find the words for this, but they must be found because it is essential to preserve the concept. We want something like a primacy of service for the Christian religion in this context. It is that kind of phraseolgy that I think would be widely acceptable, arouse the least hostility and would in the circumstances be the most appropriate.

19
Therefore, I for one wish the right reverend Prelate and others with whom he is negotiating good luck. I claim for myself and other Members of your Lordships' House only the right to make an occasional contribution to the discussion to assure the negotiators that they are being fully supported. Furthermore, they are being watched very closely by those who consider that this is perhaps the most important part of the whole Education Reform Bill.
Lord Beloff: I think that if a member of the ethnic minorities were to have a voice and not just be spoken about it would be a good thing. I have a great deal of sympathy with everything which has just been said by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. He pointed to a possible way in which this matter could be resolved. I am not privy to the current views on this amendment, but the speech of my own spiritual leader the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, has been referred to. But I do not believe that his important speech was intended as a backing for this specific amendment. As I understood it, it was rather giving a backing to the right reverend Prelate in his search for a formula which could appeal to those of all religions in this country. To press it beyond that, beyond the statement that clearly all religions benefit if religion is taught and understood, is unquestionable.
I must confess that I am a little worried by some of the things which have been said in support of the amendment not, I hasten to add again, by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who I think got it about right. But there were some indications in the use of the words "a Christian nation" or "a Christian country" that persons like me who believe ourselves to be part of this nation (although practising a different religious faith) are somehow second-class citizens.
It is that which I think will create some anxiety among members of other faiths. That is why I very much hope that now that this issue has been quite properly ventilated, we shall all give our support to the right reverend Prelate in seeking an agreement which he can come and commend to us as acceptable to the leaders of all religions in this country as well as to all sections of the Christian faith.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that no one will accuse me of not being a Christian or not believing in my faith or not trying to bring my children up in that faith. However, I also hope that I am a parliamentarian.
We must surely remember that we are in Committee, we shall have the Report stage on which to vote, and we can amend and vote on Third Reading if need be. I read the debates in Hansard, which I thought had been satisfactorily concluded for the time being by what was said by the right reverend Prelate. I think it would be the greatest possible pity for anyone of any political or religious conviction whatever to press this amendment to a vote at this stage. We can vote on it later. In the meantime, we should follow the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Soper: I attach no emphasis whatever to my own personal conviction in this particular regard, which is that the advocacy of the Christian faith is for me dominant and imperative. But I want to support what has been said by my ecclesiastical and noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London because I believe the preempting of the issue at this moment would be disastrous.
What has been omitted from the debate hitherto is the fact that the word "Christian" is not a precise word. It covers a multitude of attitudes, some of them preferable to others. I believe it would be an anticipation of what properly comes later if we do not observe the very wise words of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that it would be wrong for us at this moment to accept this amendment. It would be right for us at this moment to take on board the conviction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that there is need for consultation and in that consultation there will be taken into account what has been said in this Chamber this afternoon. I do ask that this particular amendment be rejected at this stage for the benefit I believe of the worship and inculcation of religion in the schools in the future.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I shall only speak for a moment. If this amendment is taken to a vote, I should have to vote for it because the issue cannot be shirked. But I am bound to confess that I would far rather that we gave the right reverend Prelate a little more time until Report in order to achieve what will be, I hope, a double of the use of the word "Christian" both in relation to Christian teaching in the schools and in relation to Christian collective worship. That is my position. But let us not put off the matter. It must be settled and settled soon.
Baroness Hooper: This is an important topic on which many of us hold strong views. We have now discussed the substance on three different occasions, and there is not a great deal that I can add to what I have said previously on all these amendments. I believe that the right time to return to a substantive debate will be on Report.
My advice to the Committee must be consistent. Last Thursday night I invited the Committee to support, as do the Government, the line advocated by the right reverend Prelate. We should return to these issues on Report when we can take into account the whole range of proposals as they affect all schools and not just grant maintained schools and when we shall have the benefit of the results of the consultations of the right reverend Prelate. This is not an unreasonable request. We want the best possible solution to what is a highly sensitive and most important issue.
A vote against this amendment would not in any event be a vote against Christianity appearing on the face of the Bill. It is simply a recognition that we are giving the right reverend Prelate the time that he has asked for. Nevertheless, I am greatly heartened to hear from my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that they do not intend to press their amendments at this stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. I think that he has struck exactly the right note in this matter. We have expressed our views strongly and we have great sympathy for the right reverend Prelate. I think that he understands the depth of feeling behind him in any negotiations that he enters. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Religious education in former county schools]:
Lord Somers Lord Somers had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 223:
Page 70, line 7, leave out ("religious denomination") and insert ("Christian sect").
The noble Lord said: I have been told that the wording of the two amendments standing in my name is rather unsatisfactory, and that it implies that the way is left open for something other than the Christian concept. That was not my purpose. I meant to avoid confining the provision to any one particular sect of Christianity. But as this wording is unsatisfactory, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 70, line 12, leave out ("religious denomination") and insert ("Christian sect").
The noble Lord said: I ask just to say one thing about the amendment which is on an entirely different subject. It has nothing to do with worship, but it is concerned with Christian instruction. I ask the Government to look at this clause carefully. It abolishes the teaching of the catechism, which I suppose I am prepared to accept; but it also deals with the question of not allowing the teaching of the Creed. The clause should be looked at rather carefully in common with many other of the educational issues. If the Minister will undertake to include this issue in the examination of the Bill, I should be very grateful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I can assure my noble friend that we shall be looking at this provision in the light of the whole package.
Lord Thorneycroft: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Change of character or enlargement of grant-maintained school]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 224A and 224B:
Page 73, line 46, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,").
22
Page 74, line 3, at end insert—
("(1A) No proposals shall be published under this section for the purpose of making a significant change in the religious character of such a school unless the trustees of the school (if any) have given their consent in writing to the change in question.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 224A and 224B with Amendment No. 207A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 224C and 224D not moved.]
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Approval of school premises on change of character or enlargement]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 75, line 9, at end insert (", and such particulars shall include a reference to the extent to which the proposed premises of the school will meet the requirements of Design Note 18 "Access for the Physically Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment follows logically on the most welcome amendment introduced in another place to Clause 77. That amendment ensured that proposals for a change of character or enlargement of a grant-maintained school shall describe any effect that the implementation of such proposals would have on provisions for pupils with special educational needs.
My amendment will ensure that the particulars which the governing body must submit for approval by the Secretary of State include reference to the extent to which the proposed premises meet the requirements of Design Note 18. That document sets out the architectural requirements for access by disabled people to educational buildings. The amendment provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that access needs are not overlooked by mistake.
At Committee stage in the other place the Under-Secretary of State said that he recognised the anxieties that prompted the amendment but added that its provisions were unnecessary. He said that the particulars which the Secretary of State will require are sufficient to enable him to ensure that buildings meet the standards set, including aspects of Design Note 18.
That may be so. However, it is only a power; it is not a duty. Why should the Secretary of State have to ask about such details? Why not make it a routine matter to spell them out? If specific reference is made to Design Note 18, the governing body will have to think about access for disabled pupils when it first considers changes to a school. That could save time and also money that would be spent if it forgot those details until asked by the Secretary of State for them. If, by chance, the Secretary of State did not ask for those details, that could result in a partially inaccessible school.
I feel strongly that we need the amendment in the Bill to ensure that the needs of pupils with disabilities are safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support my noble friend. The matter was not debated at Report stage in another place. Does that mean that the Government see the issue as being more appropriate for regulation and guidance? The issue is as central to the integration of young people into mainstream education as is an entitlement to a balanced curriculum or right of admission to a school of their choice. It is essential that architectural requirements are kept in mind so as to avoid costly alterations. We need to ensure that disabled children are not restricted only to the accessible areas of schools.
Baroness Hooper: The Government had believed that the matter was adequately covered. Clause 78(1) permits the Secretary of State to request whatever information he considers necessary in relation to any building work which would be required to implement proposals for a significant change of character or enlargement of a grant-maintained school if those proposals are approved. The particulars which the Secretary of State will require should be sufficient to enable him to ensure that the buildings will meet the necessary constructional standards, including, where appropriate, those in Design Note 18.
The Government have also amended Clause 77(4). As a result, any proposals by the governors of a grant-maintained school for significant changes would have to be accompanied by a statement describing any effect which the implementation of the proposals would have on the provisions of the school for pupils with special educational needs. Such information will
be taken fully into account by my right honourable friend in considering such proposals. I would expect, where appropriate, that it will include the kind of information to which Design Note 18 refers.
Nevertheless, I recognise the additional points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I shall therefore take the matter back to reconsider whether we can go any further in this clause of the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for that reply. I was a little worried when she first began to speak. There was a lot of, "the particulars should be sufficient" and "she would expect". I believe that my amendment would ensure that particulars are sufficient and that such matters were taken into account. Access can easily be overlooked. My noble friend Lady Kinloss is right in saying that the matter is central to the issue of integration.
When Clause 78 was introduced into the Bill, Clause 77 did not have any reference to special educational needs. It now does. I think that the logical progression would be to include such a provision in this clause as well. I am delighted with what the noble Baroness has said and I hope that she will come forward with a positive amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Withdrawal of grant by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 225ZA not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Winding up]:
On Question, Whether Clause 82 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: This clause deals with the winding up and disposal of property. I should like to ask the Minister why that process is not placed under the control of the Education Assets Board, the expert body which was appointed for the purpose of receiving and passing property on to new institutions. It seems to us that the role of the Secretary of State should be limited to assessing the education issues involved in the continuance or otherwise of such a school, leaving the financial and fiduciary issues to an independent organisation.
Baroness Hooper: I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness a clear answer on that matter at this moment. Perhaps I may write to her.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Provision of benefits and services for pupils by local education authorities]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 87, line 35, leave out from ("Where") to ("to") in line 37 and insert—
("(a) a local education authority are under a duty, or have power (whether by virtue of this section or otherwise),").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 225B, 225C and 225D. The amendments clarify the way in which a local education authority must approach its continuing duties and responsibilities towards pupils who attend grant-maintained schools in its area. At present, Clause 88 provides that where a local education authority has any continuing power to provide goods and services to a grant-maintained school or its pupils, it must exercise that power in such a way as to ensure that pupils at the grant-maintained school are no less favourably treated than those at schools which it maintains itself.
The amendments secure that that requirement for parity of treatment applies equally to any continuing duties which the local education authority has towards grant-maintained schools and their pupils. I hope that the Committee will agree that the provisions are fair and just. I commend them to the House, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 225B to 225D:
Page 87, line 38, leave out ("may exercise the power") and insert ("the duty is to be performed, or the power may be exercised,").
Page 87, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("treat") and insert ("the authority shall in performing the duty, or exercising the power,").
Page 88, line 8, at end insert—
("This subsection is without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to the amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Variation of trust deeds relating to grant-maintained schools, etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 225E:
Page 89, line 38, leave out ("or other proprietor of the school") and insert ("of the school and the trustees (if any)").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 225E with a previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 and 92 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 226:
Before Clause 93, insert the following new Clause:
("Abolition of corporal punishment extended to independent schools.
.—(1) Section 47 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (abolition of corporal punishment) shall be amended as follows.
(2 For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

(a) for whom education is provided—

(i) at a school maintained by a local education authority;

(ii) at a special school not so maintained:

(iii) at a grant-maintained school; or

(iv) at an independent school; or

(b) for whom primary or secondary education, or education which would be primary or secondary education if it were provided full-time, is provided by a local education authority otherwise than at school;

but does not include any person who is aged eighteen or over."
(3) Subsections, 6, 7 and 9 shall be omitted.
(4) Section 48A of the Education Act (Scotland) 1980 (Abolition of corporal punishment of pupils) shall be amended as follows.
For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) In this section "pupil" means a person—

(a) for whom education is provided—

(i) at a public school;

(ii) at a grant-aided school; or

(iii) at an independent school; or

(b) for whom school education is provided by an education authority otherwise that at a school."

Subsection 6, 8 and 10 shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, in whose name the amendment also stands, is not well and he has asked me to move the amendment. The effect of the amendment is to extend the ban on corporal punishment in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 so that it covers all pupils at independent schools as well as all state school pupils. This would make any act of corporal punishment by a teacher on a pupil a civil wrong at whatever school it took place. It would still be a criminal offence only if it was immoderate and unreasonable. It does not prevent teachers from using necessary physical force to prevent personal injury or damage to property.
Corporal punishment promotes the wrong kind of relationship between teachers and pupils. It helps to foster in children a negative attitude towards school which impedes the process of teaching and learning. It is anti-educational.
When corporal punishment was banned in the Inner London Education Authority in 1981 there was a dramatic fall in the level of assaults by pupils on teachers. That demonstrates yet again that violence breeds violence. In the words of the Association of Educational Psychologists, children who are beaten tend in their turn to beat and to bully. It has never been a deterrent; it has always been the same pupils who are given corporal punishment again and again.
Most private schools find corporal punishment unnecessary and do not use it. Many would welcome the extension of the ban to private schools. At the time of the legislation two years ago Mr. Christoper Everett, Head of Tonbridge School and Chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, said that it would have been better if corporal punishment had also been outlawed in independent schools. On the whole it is the smaller and less prestigious schools which retain it and it is in some of those, often prep schools, that the worst abuses have occurred.
The European Commission of Human Rights is still considering several complaints about corporal punishment in British private schools. Given the stance it has taken against corporal punishment in state schools on the grounds that it is degrading punishment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it will doubtless take the same attitude against corporal punishment in private schools. The UK will then be forced to eliminate it completely from our education system. It would be very much better to do so now.
Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 corporal punishment is already illegal for some independent school pupils: those whose education is financed either in whole or in part by central or local government. That includes the 25,000 or so pupils with assisted places and approximately another 20,000 pupils placed in an independent school by a local education authority because of need. It also covers the 500 children at five specialist music and ballet schools whose fees are paid by the Government and those pupils who attend the few remaining direct grant schools. The Government have made it clear that they will use their powers under regulations to outlaw corporal punishment in the new city technology colleges. Approaching 10 per cent. of independent school pupils are therefore already protected from corporal punishment.
As a result in many independent schools there are currently two classes of pupil, those who can and those who cannot be given corporal punishment—the beatable and the unbeatable. In the approximately 250 schools which have assisted places the category in which a child is placed will often depend on the size of the parents' pocket. If its parents are too wealthy for an assisted place the child will be liable to corporal punishment. That is clearly an absolutely absurd situation, one of discrimination against the wealthy.
I understand that there is usually a free vote on these occasions. There was a free vote in another place when corporal punishment was discussed. I hope that it will be the same in this instance. I beg to move, and hope that the Minister can agree the amendment.
Lord Beloff: It seems only yesterday that the noble Baroness and I were debating this subject and that I pointed out the folly we had entered into in allowing Continental jurists with no knowledge of our own institutions to decide on the method of discipline in our schools. I maintain that position. I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness has not shifted a little in that direction.
She and her colleagues are always asking us to pay more attention to the views of the teachers' unions. In the last round of teachers' conferences there were many references to the fact that they believed that they had lost one method of discipline and that the increase in assaults on teachers—which we must all deplore—was the result. I admit that they did not suggest that we go back on the convention or the law. However, there is no confirmation from teachers that educational psychologists—a very odd brood—are right when they affirm the ill effects of corporal punishment.
There is another question. That is the question of the independent schools, which are not primarily the subject of the Bill. I can only assume that it is part of the wishes of the movers of the amendment to diminish the attraction that independent schools have for parents, because one main reason why parents choose independent schools is that they believe that their children will receive more discipline. It seems to me that it is a matter for the schools and for the parents. If one believes in independent education at all then surely the schools and the parents rather than the law should decide the method and manner of discipline. I hope that the Committee—free vote or no free vote—will reject the amendment.
Lord Aldington: I must declare my interest again. I believe that I have done so twice already in the discussions on the Bill. I happen to be chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council.
This proposal is an invasion of the independence of the independent schools in deciding on discipline in education. That is surely a misuse of the Education Reform Bill. If it is the case that the civil law should be altered, then it should be altered in general. It should not be altered in this Bill to invade the independence of independent schools.
As the noble Baroness rightly stated, there are different views among headmasters and governing bodies of independent schools. There are a number of schools which have abandoned corporal punishment altogether. There are a number of schools which have retained corporal punishment in theory but do not use it or use it very seldom. There are some schools which use corporal punishment. But whatever they do they do with the consent of parents. In selecting a school the parents choose to send their child to a
28
school which uses or does not use corporal punishment. So the amendment is not only an invasion of independence; it is an invasion of the parents' choice.
I know that there are many noble Lords and distinguished people outside the Chamber who hold strong views one way or the other on the use of corporal punishment. When I refer to corporal punishment I mean corporal punishment within the law of the country, I know that to be so. What right have we to overrule the independence of governing bodies and headmasters of independent schools and to overrule the choice of parents? That seems to me to be the fundamental objection to this amendment.
In the course of her speech introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness referred to the European Court. She appeared to me to be saying that it had already expressed strong opinions against the use of corporal punishment in Britain under Article 3 of the convention. My information is that that is not so. The famous case which led to the alteration of the law in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 followed the decision by the European Court that it was against the convention to administer corporal punishment—or even, in that particular case, to threaten to administer corporal punishment—without the consent of parents. The question was also put to the Court whether corporal punishment was or was not contrary to Article 2. It gave no judgment on that point because it had no evidence. I am not aware of any case which has come before the Court on which it has decided that corporal punishment within the criminal law of Britain is contrary to the convention. The noble Baroness may have other information, but I have done my best to be well briefed.
My recommendation to the Committee is that it rejects the amendment. I should like to add that not only is it against independence, not only is it against parents' choice, but it is against a principle which has constantly been put to us from the other side of the Chamber, namely that before any reforms or changes in the law take place there should be full consultation. To my knowledge there has been absolutely no consultation by the movers of the amendment with any of the properly constituted authorities of the independent schools.
I must ask the noble Baroness whether she has her tongue in her cheek when she continually accuses my noble friends on this side of the Chamber of making proposals without consultation. This is an absolutely clear case of a major reform as regards the discipline in independent schools which has occurred without any consultation whatsoever. I think it is wrong and I recommend the Committee to reject the amendment.
The Earl of Longford: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down. Does one of the greatest schools in the world, over which I believe he still presides, maintain corporal punishment?
Lord Aldington: I do not know the latest position because, as the noble Earl is aware I am no longer warden of the school. I believe that at one time the school still kept the right to administer corporal

29
punishment but in recent years has not used it. I am not sure whether that is so.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: As the Committee will know, I have been away for a very long time. I did not know that this issue was to be discussed, although the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, telephoned me at home to ask me whether I would put my name to this amendment. I feel very strongly indeed about this matter but to exactly the opposite effect from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
I do not care for corporal punishment. I do not think that it is the right way to treat young children. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, it leads to violence and bad feeling between the teacher and the child, and it is not necessary. There are enormous numbers of schools today that would not dream of instigating corporal punishment. I believe that this is the moment at which its abolition should be encouraged. I do not think, as does the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that it will interfere with independent schools. I know many independent schools that have done away with corporal punishment and there is no reason at all to continue it.
I have not had the time to prepare this point in detail because I have only just returned from absence but I should like to add some comment. I feel very strongly that this is the moment at which we should try to make things even for all children who go to school and that corporal punishment should not be included among the possible punishments. There are many ways to punish children. Indeed, we can often talk them out of doing something wrong. I do not think we can achieve that aim by beating them. I hope very much that the Committee will approve this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): As the noble Baroness, Lady David, made clear, these amendments attempt to extend the abolition of corporal punishment in England, Wales and Scotland, which was provided for in the maintained sector in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to all pupils in independent schools. At present only those pupils who attend independent schools at public expense are exempt from corporal punishment.
During the course of her remarks, the noble Baroness said that it was only the baddies who were beaten and that it happened to the same young men time and time again. Oh dear! From my experience I recall that I was beaten more times than I care to remember, so I must therefore fall into the category of baddie advanced by the noble Baroness. I dare say that other Members of the Committee do likewise.
The Committee will recall the case of Campbell v. Cosans heard in the European Court of Human Rights. The court decided that parents who hold a philosophical conviction against the use of corporal punishment in schools were entitled to have that conviction respected. In fact that decision was made under Article 2 of the European Convention and not under Article 3, which speaks of inhuman and
30
degrading treatment, although it is true to say that currently there is a case before the European Court which relies upon Article 3. That case, however, has not yet been decided.
Following that earlier judgment under Article 2, the Government sought to introduce arrangements for exemption from corporal punishment in order to comply with the court's judgment. During the passage of the Bill that was to become the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, an amendment abolishing corporal punishment in all schools was carried in this Chamber. Subsequently in another place it was decided by a majority of just one to accept abolition of corporal punishment in maintained schools only.
Thus the United Kingdom has in the public sector more than discharged its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The situation in the independent sector is quite different. Parents who elect to send their children to independent schools do so of their own free will and they are at liberty to choose a school with an approach to discipline with which they are content. The state is not directly responsible for the education of those children. Its responsibility to independent schools generally is to ensure that minimum standards are met, these being standards of premises and accommodation, of instruction and of the suitability of teachers and proprietors. The Government's obligations under the convention are fully met in the public sector. It is not necessary for the state to intervene in the independent sector where parents exercise their freedom of choice.
An exception must be made, however, where the state itself provides education in the independent sector. In these circumstances there is a duty to ensure that parents and their children have the same rights as those in the maintained sector, and this has been provided for in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Those principally affected are pupils on the assisted places, music and ballet schemes.
The new clause also refers to pupils at grant-maintained schools. However, this reference is unnecessary, since paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Bill already extends the abolition of corporal punishment to such schools.
It is argued sometimes that by allowing corporal punishment to continue in independent schools the Government are nonetheless in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention—the one to which I have already referred concerning inhuman or degrading treatment. The Government do not accept that corporal punishment reasonably and moderately adminstered with a proper instrument and in a decent manner amounts to degrading or inhuman treatment. We shall certainly defend our position if called upon to do so.
In short, the Government have met their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Pupils in state schools and pupils in attendance at independent schools which are assisted from public funds are both exempt under the new law. Parents who choose to have their children educated at an independent school at which corporal punishment is still practised have an unfettered right to make that choice. It is not this Government's

31
intention to interfere with that personal freedom. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he would clear up one point for me. The noble Baroness who opened this debate said that there had been a notable reduction in assaults since corporal punishment was stopped in maintained schools. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said the opposite. I wonder which statement is correct.
Lord Trefgarne: My information is that there has not been a reduction in classroom violence following the abolition of corporal punishment. On the contrary, I believe that there has been an increase.
Baroness David: The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred to the European Court. I said that the European Commission on Human Rights under Article 3 ruled that corporal punishment was degrading. I think that is correct. So far as consultation is concerned I said that Mr. Christopher Everett, head of Tonbridge School and chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, said two years ago that it would have been better if corporal punishment had been outlawed in independent schools. I think that one can count that to be as good as consultation.
Noble Lords: Oh, oh!
Baroness David: Well, we have heard what the Headmasters' Conference says and I respect that advice.
Lord Beloff: I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the chairmanship of the Headmasters' Conference is an office that rotates annually, and unless there is a resolution of the conference the chairman for the current year speaks only for himself.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Lord. I suspect that people have made their minds up about this one way or the other. I am very disappointed in the Government's response. I thought that they might clear this matter up once and for all. We are left with the ridiculous position that those pupils who are paid for by the state cannot be beaten and the others can be. That is a ridiculous situation. I shall therefore press this matter to a vote.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 226) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Basnett, L.

Amherst, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Annan, L.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Aylestone, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Banks, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

32

>Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Caradon, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milverton, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Falkender, B.

Oram, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsony of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Flowers, L.

Quinton, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Goodman, L.

Sai nsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Swann, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Willis, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Leatherland, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Croft, L.

Aldington, L.

Croham, L.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Derwent, L.

Bauer, L.

Digby, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blyth, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Geddes, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bramall, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Butterworth, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Caithness, E.

Gridley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L.

Carnock, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Cawley, L.

Hanson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Harvington, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Havers, L.

Cottlesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Hives, L.

33

Holderness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hood, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hooper, B.

Porritt, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Pym, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ingleby, V.

Reay, L.

Ironside, L.

Renton, L.

Jessel, L.

Rochdale, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rodney, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Killearn, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Long, V.

Salisbury, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McFadzean, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selborne, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Manton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Somers, L.

Marley, L.

Stockton, E.

Marsh, L.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Suffield, L.

Middleton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Teviot, L.

Morris, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Munster, E.

Thurlow, L.

Nelson, E.

Trafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trefgarne, L.

Northbourne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Pennock, L.

Wolfson, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Perth, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Collective worship at schools]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Pennock Lord Pennock moved Amendment No. 228A:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Governing bodies—County etc. special schools.
. In section 3 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, for subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(2) The instrument of government for such a school which has less than 100 registered pupils shall, subject to section 7 of this Act, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) one parent governor;

(b) one governor appointed by the local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(d) either—

(i) two foundation governors and one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) three co-opted governors, in any other case.

(3) The instrument of government for such a school which has more than 99, but less than 300, registered pupils shall, subject to section 7, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) two parent governors;

(b) two governors appointed by the local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

34

(d) either—

(i) three foundation governors and one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or—

(ii) four co-opted governors, in any other case.

(4) The instrument of government for such a school which has more than 299, but less than 600, registered pupils shall, subject to section 7, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) three parent governors;

(b) three governors appointed by local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(d) either—

(i) four foundation governors and one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) five co-opted governors, in any other case.

(5) The instrument of government for such a school which has more than 599 registered pupils shall, subject to section 7, provide for the governing body to consist of the following (and no others)—

(a) four parent governors;

(b) four governors appointed by the local education authority;

(c) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(d) either—

(i) four foundation governors and two co-opted governors, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) six co-opted governors, in any other case." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, unfortunately is not able to be present today. However, he has asked me to speak to these amendments, because I make exactly the same points under Amendments Nos. 267F and 268ZA, and it seems sensible to incorporate discussion on all three amendments rather than consider them separately.
I have been asked to speak on behalf of the business community because the Government have called upon us to play such a significant part on the governing bodies under the Bill. We accept those responsibilities with, I think, considerable satisfaction but also a growing sense of responsibility as we recognise how important they are. There has been a great deal of thought and of heart-searching among industrialists and business men as to the effective working of governing bodies, and I should like to give two general reactions before turning to the specific proposals in the amendments.
The first general reaction appertains to size. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which governs the regulations affecting governing bodies, it is stated that the maximum size of a governing body should be 25. Business men seek to advance the view that wherever possible in a committee, action group, board or governing body, small is beautiful, and that provided one can contain and obtain sufficient variety of views, necessary to ensure that every opinion is expressed, the body should be as small as possible.
We are of the opinion, advanced with due diffidence, that above 15 members a governing body is likely to find its effectiveness inversely proportionate to the size of the membership. There is a tendency, we feel, for bodies to become talking shops when they assume this size and for individuals to speak as if from a public platform. Rarely is there achieved an identity and cohesion of purpose which we believe necessary for effectiveness. It is our belief

35
that smaller numbers on a body work much better as a team. In smaller groups a contribution leads to dialogue. Contribution is more frequent, more informal, more flexible and leads, under good chairmanship, to a sense of common purpose and much speedier effective action. When bodies are smaller they tend to get things done.
I recall an earlier period in my life when I had the good fortune to be a member of the NEDC, which perhaps places a magnifying glass on this principle which I am putting forward. The NEDC used to meet regularly with six trade union representatives, a significant number of Cabinet Ministers and representatives of the CBI, the Bank of England, consumer research, small companies and the NED office itself. The NEDC enabled members to be aware of opposing views and there were educative implications and consequences which boded for good. But it was not, alas, a body which became famed for reaching decisions and getting things done. It is our belief as business men that, perhaps in a more constrained way, but equally effectively, the governing bodies of schools, if they are smaller, will achieve effective action much more speedily and much more in accord with the desired results which the body as a whole is seeking to achieve.
The next general point I should like to make on behalf of the business community is really concerned with attitudes and the danger of considering oneself, on any board, governing body or committee, as representing sectional interests, when one has an interest over and above the sector from which one has hailed. And that is the effective working of the body as a whole.
I refer somewhat obliquely to the famous speech of Burke to the electors of Bristol almost 200 years ago which I am sure many noble friends will recall. He took to task his electors by saying that he was not simply a mouthpiece representing those who had voted for him. He was there to give his judgment on national issues and it was because of that judgment that he sought to be in the position that he was in.
Although the various members of governing bodies come from different sectors of the community—from local government authorities, from the business community, from teachers and from parents—we believe that, having been selected and appointed from those sectors, they should not simply represent the views of those sectors on a governing body but should seek to ensure the effective corporate working of the governing body as a whole. Therefore, these amendments seek to ensure that the business community is not just representing business men but that business men are selected to act as they consider best in the overall interest.
So, bearing those two general points in mind, Amendment No. 228A proposes a scale with fewer governors. Instead of 25 there will be a maximum of 15, starting with six governors for small schools with less than 100 and working up to the maximum of 15 in schools with more than 600 children.
The amendment specifies the various interests which should be represented but—and here I should face a very clear implication—it does not mention
36
teacher governors as a category. If a governing body so wishes, this in no way excludes teachers from becoming governors. We are recognising the problem of size, our feeling that a head teacher should be able and competent to represent his teaching staff, and even thereby to become a better leader but also the possibility of teacher representatives meeting governors and attending governing boards in order to put forward specific views. Although there is no insistence that there should be governors from the teacher category, this amendment in no way excludes that.
In conclusion, business interests are not seeking to dictate or to superimpose views which they may have from their own experience on governing bodies, because we recognise that governing bodies must be democratically elected and represented. I believe that large bodies do not lead to speedy and effective action. To be a governor is not to represent a sectional interest, even though one is selected from a specific sector. On both those counts I put the amendments before the Committee.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the concerns which have led my noble friend to seek to make these changes to the composition of school governing bodies. He is concerned that they may prove to be unwieldly; there may be difficulty in recruiting enough people to act as governors and that, in the case of teachers, there may be inappropriate conflicts of interest inherent in their membership of school governing bodies.
While I understand those concerns I do not share them. In the course of the preparation of the measures introduced in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the Government gave careful consideration to the size, nature and composition of governing bodies. We see no justification for revising the conclusions which we then reached and which were endorsed by this House, especially as the first objective of the changes will be to secure a better balance of interest on governing bodies.
The measure which the 1986 Act introduces for county voluntary-controlled and maintained special schools will mean that in future there is a more even balance between the various interests which have a right to be represented on governing bodies; the parents, local authorities, teachers and the wider community served by the school. No single interest will predominate and the scope for governing bodies to be taken over by a particular faction will be substantially reduced.
The Government also gave careful attention to the question of the size of large governing bodies. My noble friend has spoken in favour of much smaller bodies. The Act provides for governing bodies of county-controlled and maintained special schools to range in size from eight to 19 members, depending upon the size of the school. Given that the largest comprehensive schools are organisations serving between 1,000 and 2,000 pupils, employing 200 to 300 staff and having an annual budget well in excess of £5 million, I do not believe that in such a case a governing body of just under 20 members can be regarded as excessively large.

37
Of course we recognised that there is work to be done in recruiting and training governors. For that reason the Government are currently publicising the role of school governors; hence also the current discussion with local authorities and other interested organisations about how best we can contribute to the development of appropriate training strategies. Recently we have also suggested to the local authority associations that education support grants on expenditure of £4.9 million may be made available next year in order to help all local education authorities carry out that task.
The matter of teacher governors was considered carefully in the context of the 1986 Act. We decided that it was appropriate to preserve the minimum position established in the 1980 Education Act. There are many good reasons for including teacher representatives on school governing bodies. For example, they can provide a professional viewpoint on a number of matters which will be of increasing significance in the work of the governing body. It is important that that expertise should be available, particularly in relation to financial delegations, for example. For that reason we believe that their presence should be more than merely optional.
There are safeguards to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise. Schedule 2 to the Education (School Government) Regulations 1987 requires any governor, whether or not a teacher representative, to withdraw from a meeting of the governing body that is considering matters in which he or she has a financial or personal interest. In our view it would be going too far to give teacher representatives a reduced role or to eliminate them from governing bodies altogether.
Finally I must stress that the great majority of schools do not have governing bodies constituted under the 1986 (No. 2) Act. For many schools the provisions will take effect this September, but in the voluntary-aided and special-agreement schools it will be the following autumn. Surely it is premature to propose to change the new composition of governing bodies without waiting to see whether it is successful. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will give the new bodies a chance and in the meantime withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pennock: In the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and shall not move Amendments Nos. 228B, 267F and 268ZA when we come to them. I rest satisfied that the business interests have made their points to the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228B not moved.]
Clause 94 [Agreements for establishment, etc. of city technology colleges]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: I should like to ask a question about city technology colleges. What is their relationship with the grant-maintained schools? Will
38
the Secretary of State turn down applications for grant-maintained schools if there is a city technology college nearby? Will that be a reason for not accepting a grant-maintained school? Alternatively will local businesses thinking of supporting a city technology college need first to establish whether a grant-maintained school is likely to be established in the area? I believe that the practical effect will be that the two will be in competition for some of the brighter pupils. I should like to hear the comments of the Minister in that connection.
Baroness Hooper: The purpose of many of the proposals in the Bill is to introduce an element of competition into the education system, particularly into the maintained sector, with grant-maintained schools. I see no reason why there should be any problem in a grant-maintained school and a CTC existing in a similar area. They offer different opportunities and I believe that they will be both welcomed by parents.
Clause 94 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 230:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("New foundation schools.
Extension of parental choice
—(1) The Secretary of State may also enter into an agreement with any charity under which

(a) that charity undertakes to establish and maintain, and to carry on or provide for the carrying on of, an independent school to be known as a new foundation school, being a school for children at primary as well as secondary level in a rural as well as an urban area and which offers an extension of choice in respect of educational principle, in respect of size of school, in respect of curricular emphasis in addition to that on science and technology, in respect of method of teaching or which espouses a particular faith or philosophy provided the school is open, without discrimination, to all children in its catchment area; and having such further characteristics as are specified in the agreement and in subsection (2) below; and

(b) the Secretary of State agrees to make payments to that charity in consideration of those undertakings.

(2) The further characteristics mentioned above are that the school—

(a) provides ecucation free of charge by means of an academically comprehensive intake for pupils of mixed abilities who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated;

(b) admits pupils on the basis of criteria compatible with the practice of local education authorities if it cannot accept all applicants;

(c) on inspection shows that it provides an efficient education;

(d) does not propagate doctrines tending to foment racial, religious or other forms of intolerance;

(e) has a curriculum such that there are not barriers to the transfer of new foundation pupils to or from county or voluntary schools;

(f) should be funded at a unit cost per pupil not in excess of the unit costs in schools at the appropriate level maintained by the local education authority.

(3) The provision of section 94(3), (4), (5) and (6) above (which set out the conditions and requirements on which payments depend) shall also apply to new foundation schools.").
The noble Lord said: I have much pleasure in proposing this amendment, which will give the Secretary of State the power to support new

39
foundations as new non-fee paying schools with many different biases other than those towards science and technology which are provided for by the city technology colleges. I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, who was prepared to move the amendment on my behalf last Thursday when I thought that it would arise. Unfortunately I was then laid low by the salmonella bug which also hit other members of the Committee. I have just managed to be here today and have therefore relieved my noble friend of his responsibility. I shall try to undertake the matter myself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has tabled a similar amendment which is grouped with this amendment. We have agreed to support each other's amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will say something to that effect a little later.
I should like to present three main arguments to the Committee in favour of the amendment. The first is about parental choice and the need for it to be extended. The second is about the need for a greater variety. The third is about the need for a common system of education which includes what have been fee-paying schools and the public sector.
As regards the first argument about parental choice, the oddity of the Bill is that, although the principal purpose has been to extend parental choice in one way or another, as the Minister is well aware, there is practically nothing in it which will achieve that objective, admirable though it is. Opted-out schools are to retain their character unless in exceptional circumstances, and the only new schools contemplated are the city technology colleges themselves. Unless this amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, uniformity will prevail.
On this issue Mr. Baker has been as generous, unless he relents, as was the original Henry Ford when he said that anyone could have whatever colour he liked for his Ford motor car provided it was black. I believe that this is a grave weakness in the Bill which should be recognised, and steps should be taken to add to the variety and so to genuine choice.
Apart from anything else, there are very strong educational reasons for the parents' choice to be extended; above all, because we have known from many studies, which support common sense, that the greater the encouragement that children receive from their parents, the better their performance at school. If parents can have a say in which school their children are going to they are more likely to support their children in the necessary way.
A study I made some years ago on parental preference in Hackney suggested that when parents' minds were opened up on the possibility, instead of taking it for granted that they had to put up with the schools which they had already in the district, many were keener on several alternatives, not just on schools which concentrated on the three Rs but schools which concentrated on the performing and visual arts, and, above all, smaller neighbourhood schools. Those parents had in mind what I have in mind in moving this amendment today.
The second argument, which stems from the first, is about variety, which is the lifeblood of any educational system. Britain is particularly fortunate in having a long line of educational pioneers, all of whom have necessarily been different in order to justify being called pioneers; but all of them have been alike in one sense in that they have departed in one way or another from what was, at the time, the orthodoxy. As Thomas Arnold of Rugby did with his new curriculum and new morality in his day, as Thring of Oundle did in including music and arts in the Arnold curriculum, as Sanderson of Uppingham did in substituting workshops for sedentary classroom studies, as William Temple at Repton did before he became archbishop and likewise in this century as did Kurt Hahn of Gordonstoun, A. S. Neill of Summerhill and W. B. Curry of Dartington in their different ways, they have put a new emphasis on learning by doing.
Harry Rée was a great grammar school and then comprehensive shool headmaster who helped to modernise teaching, and he was only one of many who did so. That is not to mention other great reformers like R. H. Tourney, whose report for the Labour Party on secondary education in the 1920s was such a landmark. One cannot leave out the great pioneering chief education officers in this century: Henry Moore of Cambridgeshire; Stuart Mason of Leicestershire; Sir John Newsan of Hertfordshire; Alec Clegg of the late-lamented West Riding, Peter Newson of ILEA, Jos Owen of Devon and Tim Brighouse of Oxford. These were and are all pioneers. I know it is an arbitrary and personal list, but those happen to be some of my heroes. They all did or are doing something splendidly different.
Under this Bill and the danger it carries of central control and more unrelenting crystallisation of current orthodoxies than ever, there will be a correspondingly greater need for more pioneering of the kind which we in our history can be so proud we have had before, still need and will need more in the future than in the past. We need more experiment, more pioneering and more variety rather than less.
To some extent my amendment will counter those dangers and keep the pioneering spirit alive by encouraging new foundations which put the emphasis on the arts as well as the sciences; on ecological studies or outdoor pursuits which will allow schools which use significantly different methods of learning to be supported out of public funds; which will encourage schools which, in themselves, also encourage the fullest participation by parents and children; open schools of the new sort which will use open learning methods to support study by children on their own; schools which represent denominations or faiths, both those of long standing in the country and those relatively new to us like Hindus, Moslems and Buddhists.
Above all, I wish to stress small schools. Following the example of the American high school, Britain has generally gone for large comprehensive schools and we have surely overdone it. Despite what Aneurin Bevan said—that bigness is the enemy of humanity—as a civilisation we have been taken in by the cult of bigness in government, in organisation, in high-rise tower blocks and in secondary and even

41
primary schools. There has been a fearful price to pay in loss of humanity, loss of morale and loss of decent behaviour. We could begin to recover by supporting parents who wish to start small schools in towns and villages, particularly in villages, which have lost 700 primary schools in the last decade.
My third argument is about a common system of education. The common school is a great ideal. I have stood for it for most of my life and I shall continue to do so. In its name great work has been done and is being done in every LEA. All the same, throughout this century the educational system has been deeply divided between the state and the private fee-paying schools which have given free choice to parents but only if you pays your money and takes your choice.
This division need not remain forever. Denmark, of which I spoke at Second Reading, has the free choice schools which I am advocating. Any group of parents with 28 or more pupils between them can start a maintained school in Denmark and consequently, because this freedom is open to everyone, there are no fee-paying schools in Denmark. There is a common system of education even though it contains a great deal of variety. So I believe it should be in Britain. Eventually, if we go the way of this amendment—starting small and building on it—we could have a common school system which serves everyone and gives everyone the same freedoms and creates a new sense of unity instead of the divisiveness which we have had to put up with for so long.
Based on pluralism we could have a set of mainstream schools surrounded by a network of smaller free choice schools embodying variety and which continuously nourish the main stream. I do not believe it is an unworthy hope and I trust it need not be a vain one. Speaking for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as well as myself, we are hoping for a favourable response to this amendment and the one that follows from the Government Benches. We are hoping that there will be shown a willingness to explore how the intent behind both of these amendments might best be taken forward at the next stage.
It cannot be the case that we have all we need to have in the legislation already on the statute book about voluntary aided schools and other matters, for if we had all we needed to have we should not be in the state in which we are and the voluntary aided list would not be as moribund as it has been for a very long time. In order to show sincerity about the desirability of extension of voluntary choice there is needed a clear signal which should be embodied in the legislation showing that there is a new spirit abroad and a new willingness in the DES to encourage people, charities and promoters to come forward with new kinds of schools which will benefit particular parents and children in the interests of the great majority of people in all types of schools in the country. We look forward to what the Minister says on these lines not so much with trepidation as with a little hope, which I trust will not be entirely misplaced.
5 p.m.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord who moved this amendment seems to suffer from the same delusion as
42
do a great many who sit on those Benches. It is that all children are exactly alike, or, if they are not, they must be made so. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are all different not only in appearance but in character, abilities, desires and in every possible way. Trying to make us alike is absolutely hopeless from the word go.
Lord Kilmarnock: Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I am not sure he is speaking to the amendment that my noble friend moved. My noble friend was directing his remarks essentially in the direction of variety in schools. It seems that the comments coming from the noble Lord may be appropriate to another amendment but I do not believe they are appropriate to the amendment before the Committee.
Lord Somers: I am very sorry if I have misinterpreted the amendment but that is the impression I gained. If my interpretation is incorrect, then of course I apologise to the noble Lord. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not receive any amendment that is trying to unify or turn all our schools into a state of uniformity.
Lord Young of Dartington: Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that I had no such thing in mind. I cannot think how this situation arose. I feel that I must have been far less clear that I tried to be. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is agreeing with me—at least he has a smile on his face. The whole thrust of the amendment is very much in line with what the noble Lord was saying. It is because children are not alike, their parents are not alike, their interests are unlike and their needs are unlike that they need different kinds of schools. It is because they are unlike that I am arguing for unlike schools to be permitted.
Lord Somers: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. It is such a lengthy amendment I am afraid I perhaps lost the meaning of it.
Baroness Cox: In speaking to Amendment No. 232, which is grouped with Amendment No. 230, I am very pleased to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I believe it is striving towards the same end as my amendment; namely, increasing diversity, initiative and choice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will be reassured as our discussions continue.
The effect of Amendment No. 232 would be to make it easier for independent schools to attain voluntary aided status. Its primary aim is to facilitate the establishment and development of new schools in response to parental demand and for such schools to have the benefits, and the corresponding responsibilities, associated with public funding.
Under the Education Acts of 1944 and 1980, existing independent schools can apply to become voluntary aided schools under their local education authority. However, there are a number of types of school, all of which cater primarily for poorer families and yet have to charge fees, which have been unable to obtain voluntary aided status, primarily

43
because of opposition from their local education authorities. Such schools include, first, some of the schools for orthodox Jews such as those in Hackney and Stamford Hill. Perhaps I may voice particular concern for the Yesodey Hatorah school, which has been applying for voluntary aided status for many years, but in vain. Secondly, there are schools such as the John Loughborough School in North London, set up by the West Indian community because parents were so dismayed at the education given in their local state schools; not only in terms of academic results but also in terms of their failure to provide good spiritual and moral education. In fact, one of the parent governors from that school described how he had had to send his children back to Jamaica to get a good old-fashioned British Christian education before John Loughborough was set up. Those parents who come from a very poor section of the West Indian community have to make enormous financial sacrifice to send their children to the John Loughborough School. In spite of that, it is heavily oversubscribed.
A third category of school is that of the many other new Christian and Moslem schools which are mushrooming in various parts of the country. Recent years have seen between 60 and 80 new Christian schools established throughout the country, together with a number of new Moslem schools, for example, in my own borough of Brent. Some of the parents who have established those schools and who send their children to them have had to make enormous personal sacrifices in order to have an education for their children compatible with their deepest philosophical and religious convictions. Some of them have sold their houses in order to establish the capital and to raise the money to pay the fees for these schools.
However, for many years applications for voluntary aided status for such schools have been blocked because local education authorities have argued that an application should not be allowed if there is a surplus of maintained school places in the area. Surely that argument is slightly strange because it is very likely that some of the surplus places are available and empty precisely because parents are dissatisfied with the local authority schools. Therefore, they have moved their children—often, as I have said, at great personal cost and sacrifice—to some of the independent schools that I have mentioned.
This vicious circle could be broken if the Bill were amended in two ways. These are the essential strands of Amendment No. 232. First, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to accept applications for voluntary aided status if he was satisfied on all relevant matters even if the local education authority were to object on the grounds that surplus places were available in local schools. Secondly, the amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State, if he thought it appropriate, to require the LEA to take such surplus places out of use if he needed to achieve a more efficient use of resources.
I believe that this amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, are entirely within the spirit of the Bill in
44
its emphasis on the importance of respecting the wishes of parents as regards the education of their children and also in terms of the fundamental principles of freedom, diversity and choice which this Bill is designed to enhance.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I hope very much that the Committee will not pass Amendment No. 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I should like to say something about that first and then come back to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Young, put before the Committee so forcefully this afternoon on the need for greater freedom of choice and variety in schools. There are one or two hard questions that he needs to answer on this way forward.
As regards the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, I believe that LEAs are often faced with great problems in distributing resources and raising standards in schools right across the field, especially those which are affected by quite severe environmental problems. I made this point—I was not the only one— when we were discussing Clause 42 on the opting-out towards grant-maintained status. The job of the LEAs is to serve all the children, parents and schools in an area in the context of the interests of the education system as a whole. One of the factors which is currently compounding the problems facing LEAs concerns the fall in school rolls in many areas and the backlog of empty places still to be taken out of the system. The noble Baroness told us that this was because people are dissatisfied with provision by the LEAs. I do not believe that that is so. Very often it is due to demographic changes, falling birth rolls, people moving out of an area, and so on. Those are the questions with which education planners are concerned. It is therefore absolutely essential that the LEA should be thoroughly involved in any plans for the introduction of a new school into such areas.
Amendment No. 232 would deliberately exclude the LEA from any planning for the establishment of a new voluntary aided school. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who is not at the moment in his place, noted in his brief speech welcoming Amendment No. 207A, it is not always enough for there to be a link between Church and school. There is a need to maintain the link between Church, school and local authority. I do not believe that those of us in the Churches should in any way welcome the proposal that the authority's voice in the planning of a new aided school should be excluded, however superficially attractive to the Churches that might be.
The extent to which this amendment would undermine the partnership between the Church and the LEA, a partnership which must continue to operate for the sake of the rest of the education system, is revealed most fully in subsection (3) of the amendment. If the creation of a new aided school added to the problem of existing overprovision of places, the LEA could be ordered to close down one of its county schools or cause it to become unworkably small so that the new aided school could in effect be substituted for it; all this in the face of what could be quite reasonable opposition on the part of the local education authority.

45
If it is argued by those who support the clause that if the LEA's opposition were reasonable the Secretary of State would use his powers, I would have to ask why he should be given the powers in the first instance. We already have quite workable arrangements under the 1980 Act by which new aided schools can be established. Under these arrangements the Secretary of State already has the power to set aside objections that are raised by the LEA.
If, on the other hand, we are told that this amendment is to deal with those rare cases where the LEA is being unreasonable, the Secretary of State is already empowered to act under the 1944 provisions. That should be enough. We do not want charitable trusts and other competent bodies to be encouraged to take on the role of being a further stick with which to beat the LEAs, making their job still more difficult at times of social change. The Churches seek to maintain their role as partners in the education enterprise both with central government and with the LEAs.
Perhaps I may briefly throw one or two questions across to the noble Lord, Lord Young, whose writings on some of these questions I have admired over the years, as have many other members of the Committee. I believe, though, that he must face the question of what will happen if multiplicities of small schools are encouraged, some of them on a sectarian basis. In the Church of England there has been a profound change in our attitudes towards involvement in the education system, a change which I hasten to say is not universally shared by all Anglicans working within the system. However, the great majority would see our involvement now as being service to the community from Christian principles and not primarily to turn out little Anglicans in our schools.
What worried me about what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said is that it seemed to me that he was going down the line of arguing that, because children are different, parents are different, and so on, one should encourage these differences in society. In addition, he was less than fair to the large comprehensives. Surely the argument that small is beautiful has distinct limits, especially in the education system. What we need to do is to secure the advantages of size at certain levels while breaking down the school's system into sub groups in other ways. The large comprehensives have a great deal more to be said for them than the noble Lord allowed.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps he will explain why he thinks it is that at a time of falling rolls between 60 and 80 new Christian schools have been set up. It is not a time of pressure on local authority schools. It is a sign of great dismay about what is happening in those schools. He is perhaps appearing, without intentionally doing so—I should like him not to upset those parents—to belittle or to denigrate the motives, sacrifices and commitment of those parents who have set up these new religious schools.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Without wearying the Committee, the short reply to the noble Baroness is that I have never denied that there may be dissatisfaction in certain areas with some LEA provision. There will always be a head of steam from certain groups which wish to set up their own schools. That is undeniable. However, the factor which she completely ignored is the much more important factor causing falling rolls—demographic change and movements of population.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Most new denominational schools have been set up in areas where the population is increasing, not in areas where there are major declines in population and where rolls are falling.
Baroness Cox: I wonder on what basis the noble Baroness makes that point. A recent report shows the geographical spread of those schools, and does not support the point she has just made.
Lord Hylton: It is clear from what has been said, especially by the right reverend Prelate, that these two amendments are sailing into somewhat rough waters. Perhaps I may invite the Government to say that proposals for new primary schools will be looked at more favourably than proposals for new secondary schools. It is a well-known fact of life that both the capital costs and the revenue costs of primary schools are lower on a per pupil basis.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, identified a point about which many parents are concerned. One of the schools he has in mind was established in Cornwall by parents who decided that they would set up an independent school. The points he made about parental choice and variety have a great deal to commend them. What I suspect the Government will say is that allowing this extension will be expensive and take up more resources and that one cannot be sure that it will fit precisely within the terms of the Bill.
When I was a Minister at the DES I had to listen on many occasions to parents who were extremely concerned about school closures, usually primary schools either in the country or in the inner city. They were concerned about the closure of their school. One of the themes which underlies the Bill is parental support. Where parents support a school it has a much greater chance of succeeding and doing well by its pupils than if they do not.
On the separate issue raised by my noble friend Lady Cox, I was well aware of the cases put up both by the school for orthodox Jews in London which has been seeking voluntary aided status for some time without any success, and by the school for Caribbean children. This issue needs to be looked at. I take the point of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that the 1980 Act helped to make it easier to establish a voluntary aided school. That was one of the purposes of that part of the Act which I recall very well. Nevertheless, there is a strong feeling about an increase in the number of voluntary aided schools.

47
I suspect that this is a large issue not entirely within the terms of the Bill as the Government have conceived it, and that it is a point which they will want to consider. However, the amendments would add a greater variety. Even if the amendments are not properly drawn up as they appear on the Marshalled List, there is a lot to be said for having a look at them on the grounds that they would add variety and widen parental choice.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Baroness replies and accepts the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of choppy seas or waters—I think that is what he said—with its implication that these amendments would be liable to sink, I believe that we should not lose sight of the essential thrust of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Young and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It is that the Bill as drafted is based on the concept of choice—choice is the buzzword behind the Bill. However, when one comes to look at it there is little variety in the Bill: choice, I submit, equals variety.
If one has a school which opts out it does so with the same ethos and structure as it had under the local education authority system; it jumps over some sort of invisible boundary and becomes a grant-maintained school. It may be that its exam results will improve, maybe they will not; however, we hope that they will. Yet it still remains essentially the same type of school.
The CTCs are the only new type of school which has been written into the Bill. All the other considerations to which my noble friend has been drawing the Committee's attention are not really there; there is no breathing room for them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, fairly said, perhaps the amendments are not quite right. However, those of us who have expressed an interest in them hope to hear from the Government that they will be looked upon seriously, with the idea of returning at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings with something more suitable.
The issue regarding the small school is also relevant to the amendments. Demographic patterns change; schools are evacuated; parents move back into the area and they may well wish to take over village schools again. There are many considerations which ought to be looked at and I hope that the Government will not just throw the proposals out without seriously considering them.
The Duke of Norfolk: I too support Amendment No. 232 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The amendment is designed to make it easier for new voluntary-aided schools to be established where there is a demand for them on denominational or other grounds. Surely that is a purpose which must command wide support from all concerned for parents' rights in education, especially in the religious education of their children.
Earlier in Committee I moved an amendment seeking assurance that the religious character existing in aided schools would not be impaired by the national curriculum. This was merely to ensure that aided schools could continue to offer religious environments which parents had chosen. However,
48
the choice of religious environment must also be open to parents in other areas where, as yet, aided schools meeting their religious wishes do not exist. In some cases, the areas will be those where new developments have taken place; where the school population is growing and more schools are needed. In other cases, there will be areas where changes in the composition of the local population create demands for religious schools which did not previously exist. In both cases there will be an unsatisfied demand for religious schools of one description or another. In a Bill which seeks to extend parental choice, it is most important, in addition to increasing choice within the existing range of schools, that the existing range of schools should be widened where there is clear evidence of demand from parents. I have taken advice on the amendment and quote the gist of it. In the first place, under the present law promoters of a voluntary-aided school are not required to obtain the consent of the local education authority before submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State and issuing public notice of it. Their obligation is simply to consult the education authority. I understand that in practice it is desirable to have the support of the education authority. The first subsection of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is fully in accordance with existing legislation.
In the second place, unless the promoters of a new-aided school already happen to own a building which is fully up to standard, the creation of a new-aided school will entail capital expenditure. It will require a capital expenditure allocation from the Department of Education and Science before it can go ahead and attract the capital grant of 85 per cent.—which, as I have already said, I wish was 100 per cent., as happens in Scotland—which is available for building works at aided schools. I am told that a difficulty may arise here in the long-standing policy of the Department of Education and Science that capital expenditure for new school places is only allowed if there is a basic need, which is defined as an overall shortage of school places. That is an objection that aided-school promoters have encountered frequently in the past. The amendment seeks to meet that situation by providing that a proposal should not be rejected on the grounds that there is already a surplus of maintained-school places in the area. It also provides that when he approves the proposal the Secretary of State may require surplus places in the area to be taken out of use.
I make a comment which is designed to anticipate objections to the amendments. It will be legitimately said that excess places cannot be eliminated overnight. To my mind that is not an argument for rejecting a proposal for a new-aided school. Rather, it is a possible argument for phasing the implementation proposal to give time for consequential adjustments. There may be other little adjustments which should be made to the amendment of the noble Baroness but I support its general intention.
Lord Peston: I have become most puzzled while listening to this discussion. I should like some clarification by the movers of the two amendments, because my interpretation of them is that the

49
amendments are fundamentally different. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Darlington, is about openness; about the common school; about variety and many other such matters of which we approve. Whether this is the way of achieving them is a matter for argument but it is certainly not about narrowness; it is not about schools being doctrinaire schools; and it is not, in my opinion, primarily about religion. In fact my reading of it is that, although it mentions faith, it mentions it en passant and it certainly refers to philosophy.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, seems to me to be entirely different. Indeed, her examples were entirely different. They were about an orthodox Jewish school and—although I am not sure whether she mentioned any by name—about Moslem schools and the Moslem fundamentalists who are putting pressure on them because they would like to have a fundamentalist school. Having listened to earlier debates, I think we are even verging towards Christian fundamentalism. I regard that as a different concept and a different type of parental choice, which is not in the least one which I support. Therefore, I want to ask the noble Lord whether that is precisely what he had in mind. However, my interpretation of what is behind the type of amendment he has proposed is a totally different concept; it is a concept of the comprehensive school that is built into it. It refers to pupils being admitted—certainly in the case of over-subscription—with the general criteria for entry into local education schools, and so on.
Therefore it would certainly help me to interpret the position if the Committee were given some clarification on the matter. Having listened to the two speeches I must say that the amendments seem to be about entirely different matters and that each has an entirely different approach to education.
Baroness Cox: I am happy briefly to respond and clarify the position from my point of view. The examples I gave were from those schools which have already applied for voluntary-aided status and therefore are, so to speak, already in the pipeline but have had little satisfaction. It was because they were tangible examples that it seemed to me to be useful to exemplify the principle behind the amendment by using them.
Of course the principle is entirely compatible with that of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. It would enable any of the other independent schools to apply for voluntary-aided status; for example, some of the schools may be Rudolf Steiner schools, which may be able to benefit a great deal from state funding. Therefore, although the examples I gave concern schools that are already in the pipeline, the principle could apply to a much wider range of schools. Indeed, I hope that it will do so.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: I am happy to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I hope that when he gets what I trust he will consider as being a satisfactory answer he will then feel able to support the two amendments. As I see them they are certainly, on this particular point, equally open;
50
neither is narrow, both are open. There is no prescription about the type of school that would be able to benefit from this provision provided it was carried into law.
The amendment tabled in my name goes into much more detail about the type of school that it is hoped would benefit from such a provision. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, (No. 232), when referring to the voluntary-aided school mentions a voluntary-aided school of a certain type or denomination being proposed; that is, proposed by whoever is suggesting that a new school should be set up. That kind or denomination is, as we have just heard, intended to go very wide.
I shall try to answer some of the pertinent questions and points put by the right reverend Prelate who referred to local education authorities' shortage of resources. All Members of the Committee will sympathise with him and local education authorities on that score. For a moment I was reminded of what happened when the 1902 Act was passed, when the great Free Church cry was, "Rome on the rates". I do not know what the modern counterpart of that cry will be, especially now that we are to have the poll tax. Perhaps it will be, "Pontius Pilate on the poll tax"; or more to the point, "Mecca on the community charge".
In any case, the complaint that was made in 1902 was an old one which goes deep in our history. It kept on coming up in different forms in the 19th century when the Churches were waging their great battle to make education free, compulsory and generalised. I have great sympathy with what the right reverend Prelate was saying, but by putting two amendments before the Committee we are offering the right reverend Prelate, and others who think like him, a choice. If they agree with the general tenor of what is being proposed they can either go down the road of the city technology colleges, in which case the bill will be picked up by the Department of Education and Science, or they can go down the other road, the voluntary-aided road, which is of long standing, in which case the bill will be picked up by the local education authority.
If the right reverend Prelate is especially concerned, as he has every right to be, with the local education authority, he can join me in the symbolic lobby, but the one symbolic lobby will be open to the other symbolic lobby. It will also be there for others to choose if they so wish. Behind that point is another which is much more serious. It is about the local education authorities and the point that from wherever the money comes it would represent a right distribution of resources to support schools of the kind which are in mind here, even though to begin with they would be on a small scale.
That point takes me back to a discussion that I had with one of the hearers I mentioned earlier in the debate—Peter Newsam. After I made the little survey in Hackney which I mentioned, and uncovered, as it seemed to me, considerably more demand by working-class parents for unusual kinds of schools than I had expected to find, I put the case to him that some local comprehensive schools there—I have the greatest admiration for many comprehensive schools—might be divided, especially those already

51
on different campuses, among schools with different regimes, some of them being performing arts schools, some of them basic three R schools, and some of them being what were then called free schools. They could all co-exist within the same overall campus.
My case, which was strongly argued on both sides, was that if ILEA, in that case, were to countenance such an increase in variety it would not be sacrificing the support of its constituents but adding to the support, because it would be meeting their sensitive demands and needs by recognising their dissatisfaction with the existing organisation of the school, and so would do something better for those parents and then, by one remove, for their children. It would also be better, as I was then arguing, for ILEA, which if it followed that course would have the support of even more Londoners than if it had stuck to what seemed to me, rather unimaginatively in that case despite my great admiration for the man, to what I thought of as a monolithic type of school which has not in all cases worked in anything like the way that we hoped.
Our case is that by recognising some, not all, of the multiplicities of deep-lying interests in the form that schools take and by encouraging variety we will not only be getting the good that flows from variety but in the end we should be getting more of the unity which can flow from from the recognition of variety. On those grounds, I appeal to the right reverend Prelate to say that there is at any rate a case which is worthy of consideration. I hope that I may have his backing in persuading the Government that this is a proposal which should be looked at further. I hope that we shall also be able to persuade everyone else who wishes to take part in the debate that this is the right course to take.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he clarify a point which is not clear to me, although perhaps it should be, and which also arises in connection with the contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester? In Amendment No. 232, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, she says specifically:
"The Secretary of State shall consider all applications… whether or not the relevant Local Education Authority objects to the application".
That is an important point and one which I would find difficult to accept. I do not see any such reference in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Will he say that before the Secretary of State does anything of that kind he would be in consultation, at least, with the local education authority so that it could take on board the point in its planning and could make its objections to the Secretary of State? One could perhaps go further and say that unless the local authority was prepared to go along with the application the Secretary of State would not proceed. I do not see that point in the noble Lord's amendment. Will he tell me where he stands on that matter?
Lord Young of Darlington: I am happy to answer that question. It may not have been entirely clear that two different routes to the same objective are being
52
put forward. One is the route of the city technology colleges, which is why the amendment has its place in this part of the Bill, in which case it would be the same as for city technology colleges. However, the purpose would not be to set up more CTCs but the schools of greater variety that have already been mentioned several times. The other route is the old route, which we have had for many years, of going for voluntary-aided status.
The question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, really applied to Amendment No. 232, and in particular subsection (1). The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, may want to speak for herself, but as I understand it, under the Education Act 1980 the Secretary of State, when considering an application for a new voluntary-aided school, can agree to it whether or not the relevant local education authority objects to the application. All that is being stated is what is stated in existing law. There would be no change.
What is being hoped for is not just that the law on this point, as it stands, will be restated, but that it will be restated in such a way as to show that the Secretary of State will be prepared to look much more kindly on such applications than in the past, in which case there is likely to be many more of them. It does not mean that he could say that they would be agreed in particular cases, because every case would have to be looked at on its merits. It could be indicated in the Bill that there is a new mood around. It would mean that there would be more applications which could be considered on their merits.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: The noble Lord is very persuasive but I am afraid I shall not be with him in the Lobby on this amendment. The reason is the linking of the Bill with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, Amendment No. 232, which has to do with the whole question of how local education authorities do their job.
I should perhaps make clear to the Committee that I regard the establishment of the city technology colleges as being potentially extremely damaging to educational planning anyway. Having said that, I do not really follow the argument that because LEAs will face problems over the establishment of these colleges, let them face even more problems by overriding any opposition and any interests of planning, in the establishment of more voluntary aided schools.
Baroness David: I do not wish to say very much. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has said everything and I shall not repeat it. Of the two amendments I much prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Young. He has had so many excellent ideas in the past that it is very difficult not to accept this one. However, the position of the local authority will be very difficult. I agree about the city technology colleges, I do not like them either.
The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says in subsection (2),
"it shall not be a ground for rejection that there is already a surplus of maintained school places in the area".
This will surely be a very uneconomical way of carrying on. Subsection (3) says that the Secretary of

53
State, if he approves the proposal, can make a requirement,
"that other surplus maintained places in the area be taken out of use".
That is extremely dangerous. I am afraid that we cannot support either of these amendments.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, has spoken very persuasively in support of Amendment No. 230. It is an argument I remember well from Second Reading. The opportunity to attend small schools is already available to children living in many rural areas. Indeed, in areas of sparse population small schools are sometimes the only schools available for children within reasonable travelling distance of their homes, and it is obviously right that where such schools are educationally viable they should continue to operate.
Geographical and other practical considerations apart, however there is widespread agreement among the partners in the education service that schools which fall below a minimum size face difficulties in developing and delivering high quality education cost-effectively to all their pupils. Size is not the only determinant of the quality of a school, but in general a school which seeks to offer and deliver a curriculum of the range and diversity nowadays required will need to be of a certain size and will face increasing difficulties if numbers fall below it.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that local education authorities and governing bodies should aim to bring as many schools as possible as close as possible to viable size, and that schools should be closed if the educational and financial arguments for their closure are clear, and practical alternatives are available. It would not be consistent with this advice to establish a system of new foundation schools with the explicit aim of encouraging the development and support of small schools.
Another area of choice which the noble Lord, Lord Young mentioned is that of educational principle and curriculum emphasis in addition to that on science and technology. In view of our proposals for the national curriculum—indeed, the noble Lord suggested that the proposed schools would offer a curriculum compatible with the national curriculum, although there might also be emphasis on other curricular areas—this must be considered in the context of the national curriculum. So there is difficulty in what the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggests. Existing small rural schools for example sometimes face difficulties in providing an adequate curriculum and for this reason may be grouped by their local education authorities together in clusters to share curriculum expertise. A newly established foundation school of the kind which—
Lord Young of Dartington: I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give way. The objection about the curriculum seems to apply immediately to the city technology colleges themselves. But they are to be allowed to have a broad curriculum which nevertheless gives special emphasis to science and technology. That same provision could apply equally well to many of the other kinds of schools that are in mind.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, I take the point of the noble Lord. But we feel that a newly established foundation school of the kind that he is advocating would not enjoy the sort of support structure which would provide that broad and balanced curriculum. If pupil numbers and teacher numbers in that school fell, there would be no means of ensuring that pupils received a sufficiently broad curriculum.
The amendment envisages also that a system of new foundation schools would embrace schools which espoused a particular faith or philosophy. But it is already open to those responsible for the running of an independent school of any religious persuasion to make a formal proposal that the school should change its status and become a new voluntary aided school.
In her Amendment No. 232, my noble friend Lady Cox proposes changes in the present arrangements for considering applications for voluntary aided status. I believe that the Government's existing powers are sufficient to meet the situation outlined by my noble friend. Every application for aided status is already considered by the Secretary of State on its particular merits, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Secretary of State certainly takes account of objections, including any made by the local education authority, and has regard also, inter alia, to the extent to which there are empty places in the maintained system in the area. But neither consideration is necessarily decisive.
The Secretary of State may consider also the grounds for the local education authority's objection and the scale of demand for special provision which cannot adequately be met within the mainstream of maintained schools. His decisions are made on the balance of these and other relevant considerations.
An aided school is maintained by the local education authority. Its best chance of success as an institution lies in the development of a fruitful and harmonious relationship between the two of them. The Secretary of State expects that in the great majority of cases where aided school proposals are otherwise likely to meet his requirements, any objections on the part of the local education authority will be capable of being resolved in discussion. Even if this proves not to be the case, he is nevertheless not precluded in the last resort from approving the aided school proposal.
The existence of a surplus of maintained places in the area is not necessarily a reason for rejecting an aided school proposal. It is nevertheless an important consideration, in the light of the Government's policies for the removal of surplus places. It is one to which the Secretary of State would wish to continue to give weight. It would not in his view be helpful or consistent with government policy to be constrained in all cases of applications for aided status to set this important consideration on one side.
Other factors arise in considering these proposals. We must recognise, as my noble friend Lady Young has said, that the resources available for public expenditure are not unlimited. Small schools are more expensive to run than large schools. If pupils are to be offered a full curriculum and properly

55
differentiated teaching, more general pupil/teacher ratios are needed.
We believe that local education authorities are best placed to consider in each case the balance between educational, social and resource considerations and whether the more generous level of resourcing needed to maintain a small school is justified by other circumstances.
Substantial changes and increased choice are being
introduced by this Bill. Parents will need time to learn about their new rights and choices in order to take full advantage of them. The Government believe that the introduction in the present Bill of a further category of schools of the sort envisaged by this amendment would not be timely. That is not to say, of course, that the idea will be lost for all time. I say to my noble friend that I shall look again at the criteria operated for voluntary aided status to ensure that they are not operating unfairly to the disadvantage of minority groups. New ideas are always welcome, but I must ask Members of the Committee not to accept these amendments at this time.
Lord Young of Dartington: I cannot admit to anything but disappointment. I wish, however, to express the hope that there might be second thoughts enabling even this amendment to be reviewed well after it has left this Chamber. A tiny slender hope was held out about the closer and perhaps clearer delineation of the criteria for the granting of voluntary aided status to new schools. Perhaps something can be built on that. Therefore in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 231:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to compile reports on absent pupils.
.—(1) Head teachers of all maintained schools shall prepare a report of all those pupils who are registered at the school and who have been absent, for any reason, at any time, during the four weeks prior to the preparation of the report.
(2) The report required in subsection (1) above shall—

(a) be prepared every four weeks during term time,

(b) report all pre-registration absences,

(c) report reasons for absence where known,

(d) report absences for days, or parts of a day, of pupils who have absented themselves after morning registration.

(3) The head teacher shall submit each four weekly report immediately to the chairman of governors of the school, who shall—

(a) consult with the local education and social services departments concerning any persistent absentees, and

(b) take whatever action seems to him appropriate to secure attendance at school of persistent absentees, and

(c) submit the head teacher's reports of absentees, and of action taken by him, to the next appropriate meeting of the governing body,

(d) in the case of a chairman of governors of a local authority maintained school, submit, at the end of each school term, the head teachers' reports of absentees to the chief education officer of the school's maintaining local authority,

(e) in the case of grant maintained schools, submit at the end of each school term the head teachers' reports of absentees to the Secretary of State.

(4) Each local education authority shall submit a report to the Secretary of State of absentees from school, which report shall—

(a) be submitted on or before 1st September in each year, and cover absentees for the previous school year,

(b) be a compilation of the individual reports for all the schools maintained by that authority.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report showing pre- and post-registration truancy amongst pupils at maintained schools, what measures have been taken to secure attendance of pupils at school, and what further measures are to be taken to secure such attendance.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Faithfull as she is unable to be in her place in the Committee at this moment. This is a very important amendment. All the debate that we have had at considerable length in the Committee both about the core subjects and the national curriculum will have no effect at all if children are not actually in school. This amendment, which is concerned with the whole question of truancy, is therefore very important.
Truancy falls into two types. It affects those children who do not attend school and register at the beginning of the day. It also affects those who come to school and register often both in the morning and in the afternoon yet, having registered disappear, change their school clothes and play truant for the rest of the day. This particularly affects those children between the ages of 14 and 16.
It is perfectly obvious that if the children are not in school they are not learning anything. Not only are they not learning anything but they are also acquiring extremely bad habits by not having to go to school regularly and take part in the day's work. Unfortunately it is very difficult indeed to obtain statistics on truancy, but in preparation for this amendment I looked again at Circular No. 2/86 published by the Department of Education and Science in February 1986, which states in paragraph 1:
"In some schools attendance rates are worryingly low, particularly among pupils in the 14–16 age range".
In the piece of research which has been carried out entitled Unwillingly to Lessons: Curriculum, Truancy and Nationalised Education, written by Patricia Stoll and Dennis O'Keeffe, a number of statistics are quoted which come from the newspapers. But they go on to write about post-registration truancy. That is the second kind of truancy to which I have alluded. They write:
"A pilot study carried out in a North London Comprehensive school over a three year period indicates that PRT is very common and that the newspaper headlines are not exaggerating. Of the one hundred and ten Fourth and Fifth year pupils in the sample, more than 70 per cent. admitted to this kind of truanting on a regular basis and often with their parents' and teachers' knowledge. There is no reason to believe that this school is atypical".
I have no reason for thinking that those statements are not absolutely true. If indeed they are true this is a very serious matter. It must concern not only the Government but also the local education authorities and not least the schools themselves.
There are obviously a great many reasons for that. I shall not go into them all but it is often said that one of them is that there is a kind of connivance by the school whereby when extremely difficult pupils stay away the school is in some way relieved that it does not have to deal with these children. Furthermore it

57
is suggested that there is from time to time a measure of parental connivance.
But whatever may or may not be the reasons for truancy, it does exist and it is a serious matter. I hope very much that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will be able to say that this is a matter that the Government view seriously. I know that had my noble friend Lady Faithfull been speaking she would have wanted to suggest that perhaps an inquiry should be set up. It may be that we need more educational welfare officers or that there should be more work done between the local education authority and the social services. That is not for me to say. But I hope that the Government will say that they will find a means of examining this problem, identifying it, obtaining accurate statistics on it and at any rate issuing guidance to local authorities on what they should do. While the truancy exists the parents involved are breaking the law, but it is the pupils who are suffering.
It is not surprising that quite a number of young people, particularly in city centres, are quite unable to get a job. Not only do they not have the benefits of any schooling whatever as they have been out of it, but they have never cultivated habits of regular attendance and of having to come to school and sit through things which they do not often particularly like. They have not had to face in miniature what the real world is like. It is no kindness to them, above all, to allow this situation to persist. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about what the Government could do about this if not at this stage at least at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: I have put my name down to this amendment because I was fortunate enough, with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to have quite a long interview with a teacher in a secondary school who had carried out quite a lot of research on this matter. The teacher had found about 69 regular truants to play ball and give her a great deal of information. It transpired that there was at any one time about 30 per cent. absenteeism in that school. At another school nearby the figure was, I believe, 34 per cent. That makes a nonsense, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, of the curriculum. Those children will miss out.
The sad thing for me was that the two classes which those children definitely cut were mathematics and French. It is serious when those important subjects—one of which is a primary core subject—are missed out by so many students. The question is what one does about this. That is difficult. My view is that, first, registration at the beginning of the day should be compulsory in every class. That would take a little time but at least one would know who was not present.
Secondly, every parent should immediately be told if his child is absent, because a lot of parents do not know that their children are truanting. The children having registered go off somewhere, put on their jeans and T-shirts, take the day off and then put their school clothes on again to go home. Parents do not necessarily know when their children are truanting.
58
If the child persists there must he a meeting of the parents, the child and the teacher to try to persuade them that education in this country is compulsory and legal action can if necessary be taken. It is vital that the child should be impressed with the fact that he is breaking the law.
In the school to which I referred there was no educational welfare officer. That had occurred as a result of cuts in the local education authority and since well before Christmas there had been no EWO in the school. So there is no follow up at the moment in the cases of truancy. I also think that a great number of cases should not be dealt with by the EWO but should be referred to the social services department. That is very important, as the teacher mentioned, that at least 10 per cent. of truants never come to school because of trouble at home. They very often come from a multi-problem family and their behaviour is not just the result of naughtiness.
This is not necessarily exactly the right wording for this amendment, but truanting should be included somewhere in the Bill. It is not as if it were just a sudden event. It has been going on for a long time and is steadily increasing. So its inclusion could be well justified in this Education Reform Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this.
6 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I support the amendment. We must be very careful about suggesting ways and means of dealing with the problem. I do not believe that we can consider this afternoon whether we should encourage the keeping of attendance records for every class and other such matters. That would impinge on questions of administration.
As regards teacher social workers, there is a lack of such people in many schools. The Government should accept the recommendation which has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and a committee of inquiry should be set up to look into the matter. A number of studies have been made over the last few years and many recommendations have been made. There is also an experiment at present in Birmingham which may be very useful. All those matters should be looked at carefully. I am absolutely positive that there is a link between truancy and juvenile delinquency. Therefore, this provision would help in that direction as well.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support this important amendment. Perhaps the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, can confirm the report which appeared in the Evening Standard of 11th May that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had been appointed to head a national inquiry into problems of discipline and indiscipline in schools. When will the report from that inquiry be available?
Secondly, I understand that it is the policy of the Inner London Education Authority to attempt to get particularly difficult and obstructive truants out of schools and into special remedial centres. Do the Government approve of that course and will they make sure that that sort of initiative continues, whatever the future of ILEA may be? I make those remarks having visited an excellent remedial centre in

59
Belfast called the Jaffe Centre. It has a high staffing rate. However, it also has a high rate of success with very difficult pupils.
Lord Peston: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, emphasised, the matter is extremely serious. We on this side of the Committee are very sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. There are two types of truancy, and it is concentrated in the 14 to 16 year-old age group. The noble Baroness was entirely correct when she spoke of the other consequences of truanting. Truants are people who have all the broad social difficulties and truancy is related to juvenile delinquency, vandalism and other such behaviour. That behaviour is confined to a minority. However, it sometimes seems to dominate our environment, particularly in the inner cities. One of the difficulties is that of parental complacency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, when he says that parents must be confronted with the problem. However, many of the truants about whom we are speaking this afternoon do not have the sort of parents who will help to solve the problem.
That leads us to what leverage teachers and others in authority have. That is a problem which has existed from the earliest days of the comprehensive school. The framework of those schools was free and there was no leverage, in the first instance, to make students do homework. What steps can be taken and what leverage do we have as regards the truant? Another point which must be borne in mind is that if we drag such students back to the schools—I do not say this cynically—they will create problems inside a school for other pupils. It is not surprising that teachers wish to concentrate on pupils who want to learn rather than on truants. I am not saying that teachers give in to truancy or encourage it. However, the fact remains that those young people are clearly indicating that what the school offers them is not what they want.
When I visited schools and looked at the facilities available for boys of my size, I noticed that they are often uncomfortable places. No one seems to realise that a six-foot boy needs a comfortable chair to sit on. I have seen boys sitting in chairs which were left over from the infants school because that was all that the local authority had to put into the secondary school. Teachers perform miracles in such schools every day and I am often amazed how marvellously they do in such physical environments. However, if the environment is uncomfortable physically and if what is being taught bears no resemblance to what stimulates young people, one can see that there are difficulties. All that does not condone truancy. However, it indicates that there are a number of underlying causes. The underlying causes are not all to do with disturbed children. Quite a number of the children we are discussing tonight are not disturbed. This is a different phenomenon.
I should also like to ask the Minister about the Elton inquiry. I should be interested to know what connection is seen by the Government between discipline on the one hand and truancy on the other. The two are undoubtedly connected. The clause says, quite rightly, that data should be collected. Then we
60
have the pregnant sentence telling us that we are to be told what measures have been taken to secure attendance of pupils at schools. I look forward to the reports on what measures could be taken. All over the country teachers will be interested to know what measures may be taken to secure attendance.
Lastly, many of us, and particularly the academics among us, may feel that the correct response to any problem is to have an inquiry. I am not encouraging the Government in that direction. However, this is a matter of such seriousness that we cannot let it go with a small debate in this Committee, an expression of shock and horror at the existence of truancy and an agreement to come back to the matter in a few years' time. This is a topic on which any government of any political persuasion must find a way of moving forward or at least of commissioning work which will allow us to move forward.
Baroness Hooper: The Government do not underestimate the seriousness of the truancy problem. We fully understand the concerns which underlie the amendment. At present the responsibility for taking action on truancy rests with local education authorities. It is for them to decide on a policy for their area, and it is for schools themselves, in association with the LEAs' education welfare service, to pursue individual cases of unjustified absence. There is an important distinction to be drawn between absence from school, which may be for entirely valid reasons, and truancy. Truancy is usually defined as unauthorised absence without parents' knowledge or consent, but the term can also be used to embrace absence which is unjustified from the viewpoint of the school or LEA but condoned by the parents. Such problems of definition make it very difficult to identify levels of truancy within the overall incidence of non-attendance.
I should like to pick up two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others. My noble friend Lord Elton has been appointed chairman of a committee of inquiry into discipline in schools. We expect to have his report later this year. So far as concerns ILEA and truancy, we are to discuss with the inner London boroughs the means for transferring responsibility for common services, including the education welfare service which is the prime agency for pursuing school attendance matters.
The Government believe that the present system of local responsibility would not be improved by the introduction of a complex system of national reporting. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools is currently examining best practice in securing good attendance levels, and the findings will be communicated to local education authorities and schools to help them to maximise their efforts. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, in 1986 the Department of Education and Science issued a circular on school attendance and the role of the education welfare service. I can reassure her that we intend to issue another circular on school attendance during the coming year. In addition, the schools inspectorate examines schools' attendance records in the normal course of inspections. We expect that the introduction of GCSE courses and the national

61
curriculum, with other initiatives such as TVEI and school/industry compacts, should improve pupils' motivation and thus help to remove the root cause of truancy. But the response to individual cases will continue to be for local determination and will be an important part of a local education authority's role.
With those assurances, I hope that the proposers of the amendment will not feel that they must press it.
Baroness Young: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I think it is helpful that she has clarified one or two points about the committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Elton, and that another circular is to be issued this year on this important subject.
It is not my intention to press the amendment to a Division. However, I think—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take note of the fact—that the very helpful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, the support from the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Hylton, and the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicates that my concern is shared in all parts of the Committee. It is a concern which will not go away.
I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about parental complacency and the fact that there is no leverage on parents. That is very true. I think that it would be very interesting to know why the record of some schools on truancy is so much better than the record of others. It seems to me that it would be worth while to carry out some research to see whether it can tell us something about that. It may, for example, be relevant to the size of the school.
I am quite certain that what comes out from all the points that have been made is that it is very important that there should be close co-operation between the school authorities and parents. The parents must understand that they are responsible for their children and that if their children are not in school the parents bear a real measure of responsibility for breaking the law. I do not think that we should hesitate to say that they are committing an offence.
The other point which I believe is very important is one made by my noble friend Lady Hooper about the new courses such as TVEI. I believe that they are much more relevant to a great many children and should encourage them to take an interest and to take part.
As I indicated earlier, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, I hope very much that this subject will be taken very seriously both by the Government and by local education authorities. That is in the interests of the children themselves and in the interests of the teachers, who will find it much better if children are in school willingly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Seebohm: Perhaps I may make just one comment. A lot of people blame the teachers. It so happens that in the school about which we have been talking in which absenteeism from the French course was particularly high, the teacher I spoke to said that the teacher involved was one of the best French
62
teachers she had ever come across. I should like to get rid of the idea that it is all the fault of the teachers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 95 [Prohibition of charges, etc., in maintained schools]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 95, line 8, leave out ("subsection (3) below and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 233 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 234 as the two go together. The amendments deal with a change in the law which means that a charge will now be made for music lessons, whereas that has not previously been the case. The government proposals for changing the law on charging for activities in state schools were added to the Bill at a late stage in another place. They followed a consultation which revealed widespread opposition to any attempt to dilute the principle of free state education. I think that I should say that the opposition did not come just from political parties; it came right across the board from those involved with music, educationists and others concerned.
The Government argue that the law was confused and needed to be clarified. In fact, Section 1 of the 1944 Act clearly forbids charging for admission to school or in respect of the education provided in schools. A court judgment in 1981 emphasised that anything provided as part of the school curriculum must be free. The changes proposed in the Bill do not simply clarify the law. In certain respects they change it, in particular by allowing charges to be made for instrumental music tuition even if it takes place in school time and on school premises.
I think that we should be absolutely clear that the Government are thus departing from the principle of free education which was first set out in a Ministry of Education circular accompanying the 1944 Act issued on 13th March 1945. It made clear:
"Where an activity forms part of the ordinary school curriculum, all expenses, irrespective of hardship of the parents, must be met by the local education authority, as expenses of maintaining the school, by virtue of the prohibition in section 61 of any fees 'in respect of the education provided in' maintained schools".
Therefore any activity which appears in the school timetable must be free of charge.
Subsection (2) of Clause 95 establishes the basic principle that no charges may be made for education provided in maintained schools during school hours. Subsection (3), which these amendments would remove, allows charges to be made for individual tuition in playing any musical instrument. The effect of the subsection which the amendment seeks to delete is to single out music tuition as an extra not worthy of a place in the basic curriculum which will be protected from charging. I believe it is a divisive and discriminatory provision which will undoubtedly threaten the development of musically gifted children from poorer families and will affect all musical activities in school.
There is no logic or justice in making this single exception to the general principle of free school hours education. Music is listed as a foundation subject in

63
the national curriculum in Clause 3 of the Bill. Indeed, when on 3rd May in Committee I attempted to change the wording of Clause 3 from "arts, music" to "the arts" the Minister said:
"we recognise, that our proposals for the various creative arts subjects must be consistent with each other and must also take account of developments which have taken place in the field of integrated arts … We are concerned that replacing art and music as foundation subjects with some generic title covering all the creative arts would result in less attention being given to arts subjects in the national curriculum and in those subjects being treated with less rigour than they would if they were separately identified, as they are in the Government's proposals".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 532].
It seems to me a very odd way of safeguarding a subject which is included in the Government's proposals in the Bill to change the law in order to charge for it. This is a matter of much concern to a great many people in this Chamber, not just to Members on these Benches. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My noble friend Lady Birk has said everything that is necessary of a legal nature to make it perfectly clear on a non-party basis that this subsection is entirely unacceptable. In support of that view, perhaps I may remind the Committee that it was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who in laying down details of the curriculum for music for the GCSE, established that it should include three principal activities: listening, performing and composing. The noble Lord was quite right, as he often is—unlike certain of his predecessors and successors. It is quite impossible to teach music in any constructive way without an instrument, even if it is only a piano at which the teacher sits.
The use of the voice is the first and most essential element. However, for any child who becomes really interested—and I understand that in ILEA terms rather more than 20 per cent. of children go on to further study—introduction to an instrument becomes an essential part of musical instruction. Among the enormous number of people who have given advice on this Bill, I cannot believe that any thinks otherwise. If some do think otherwise I should like their names and addresses.
If music is to be taught as a foundation subject—something on which, I think, all parties agree—instruments must be provided on loan. And part of the early teaching must consist of individual coaching in the use of an instrument. A situation may develop where the individual parent who considers that Jack, for example, is doing rather well pays for additional teaching. That takes place outside school hours and does not form part of our argument.
The denial of an element essential to the awakening a child's interest in music can result only from lack of understanding on someone's part. It is as though tuition in the use of a slide rule or of logarithm tables were excluded from the teaching of mathematics and had to be specially paid for if given in school hours. Nobody would believe that possible. Yet one cannot possibly teach music without musical facilities; it makes the Government look rather foolish if they stick to the assertion that it is possible.
I hope very much that this amendment will be accepted. It concerns something quite fundamental
64
to the teaching of music to all young children. We must stand on our rights and insist upon it.
Lord Somers: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is absolutely right. One cannot class music under one heading. Teaching singing to a class may be part of the curriculum for which no charge need be made, but if one child needs individual instruction in playing an instrument, that is quite different. His teacher will not form part of the regular staff but will be a peripatetic teacher from outside the school. That teacher has to be paid. Who will pay him? My experience tells me that no parent would hesitate to pay for proper tuition where a child has talent. That situation occurs regularly and is taken absolutely for granted. I cannot see that the ideal of having everything for nothing is at all workable in this context.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said but also to take the matter a little further. However tempting this particular amendment, I hope that the Government will find it possible to resist it. I believe that it will limit musical tuition in schools and not extend it. In my mind there is no question but that we should protect music within the curriculum and that any music that is taught should be free from a charging policy.
I can give the Committee some examples of schools where a peripatetic teacher has been brought in to give piano tuition. That can be given only on a one to one basis, which is above and beyond the basic fundamental music provision within the curriculum. If this amendment is accepted, it will mean that rather than more children having one to one piano instruction on the house, as it were, no children will have it at all. That is the alternative. The alternative will be simply not to have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, is right. Music tuition in many schools takes place with groups of children who learn an instrument. So the school orchestra flourishes as does the musical experience of the children within the school. However, there will be occasions when certain children show particular promise and one to one tuition is thought desirable as an extension of that teaching. If parents can afford it they are invited to pay a sum of money to cover the cost. Schools will go to enormous lengths to ensure that ways and means are found whereby children from homes unable to afford such fees obtain that tuition. If this amendment is accepted in its present form it will severely retrict a marvellously healthy extension to the musical experience of our children in schools.
Lord Hylton: I venture to disagree with both previous speakers. In this Bill I notice that music, art and physical education are all placed on a par; they are all foundation subjects. I cannot imagine that anybody would think of charging for paint and paint brushes in the art department. Nor would anyone charge for coaching the fast bowlers and the best batsmen who have a place in the first eleven. As regards music it must be clear that individual coaching has to precede orchestral playing. This

65
country has now reached a point in its history at which it is perhaps more musically pre-eminent than at any time since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Therefore I hope very much that the Government will have second thoughts and see fit to accept the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has largely said what I wished to say. It seems totally illogical to include music in the list of foundation subjects and then not provide the means of its implementation. Technology and art can certainly be taught in group situations. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that as children approach their GCSEs and A-levels in art they require a great deal of very individual attention. So they do, for that matter, in craft design and technology. Presumably, instruction will not be withheld from children on other foundation subjects. It seems to me that the Government are in a slightly illogical position here.
Baroness Seear: I should like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although she is no longer in her place. It seems quite extraordinary to suggest that in a foundation subject children should be means tested—for that is what it amounts to—for the wherewithal in order to study the subject. Where does one stop if one starts means testing for the equipment for a foundation subject? I cannot imagine!
It is sad that the noble Baroness is not present in the Chamber. Unless we reject her idea, we shall be making charges for all manner of things. Perhaps the English simply do not believe that the arts are anything like as important as the sciences and maths. Therefore while it is all right for instruction in those latter subjects to be free of charge, music is a frill and therefore charges may be made for it. That is the implication. Only for the really serious matters such as maths, which of course one has to have, will the state pay. That idea is totally unacceptable.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to say something in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although, as she has left the Chamber, perhaps I may speak to the noble Baroness who is to reply. What happens in a class is that after a certain amount has been taught the children are given very cheap instruments such as recorders. Four or five of them try to play and a teacher goes round from one to the other. It is not a question of having an hour's lesson on the violin or something of that kind. It is an integral part of the teaching of music. It is altogether unsatisfactory that this factor should be taken out.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Of course we believe that music is important. That is precisely why music is part of the national curriculum. However, these amendments would prevent schools from charging for individual music tuition. In introducing the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Bill would introduce charges for music lessons for the first time. That is not correct. Music lessons have always been seen as an optional extra to the mainstream curriculum and local education authorities have been free to charge.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps I may intervene to say: but not as a foundation subject.
Baroness Hooper: I should like to begin by reassuring this Committee of the Government's commitment to music as an integral part of the learning process and of each child's artistic and aesthetic development. We are indeed strengthening music's position in school life by making it part of the national curriculum. All children will now have to study music throughout the years of compulsory schooling.
Our charging proposals forbid charging for any tuition which is part of the national curriculum or required as part of a prescribed public examination such as GCSE music. In particular, this means that any individual tuition, whether vocal or instrumental, which is given as part of a GCSE syllabus—and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in particular—would have to be free. There is no question therefore of the provisions of the Bill, as presently drafted, in any sense undermining music education in general. Indeed, I would say the contrary.
We all recognise, however, that schools have always offered extra provision for which parents have been happy to pay. Any Members of the Committee who enjoyed individual music lessons at school will agree that these have always been seen as optional extras for which parents could be charged. I say could be charged, since I must stress again that we are only saying that charges may be levied in respect of individual instrumental tuition. It will be for the individual school or local education authority to decide if charges are to be made.
Individual instrumental music lessons take place during school hours simply because, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, demands on the services of specialist peripatetic music teachers, who may have to visit a large number of different schools to teach individual pupils, could not permit otherwise. These lessons cannot properly be seen as part of the basic education for all pupils which we are clear must be provided free. They are provided by agreement with parents to individual pupils in school hours and on school premises essentially for reasons of convenience only. They cannot be seen as part of the education provided by the school.
I recognise that there are fears in the music world that allowing charges for individual music lessons, where there are other calls on resources at local level, may encourage charging and thus reduce opportunities, especially for pupils whose parents are unable to pay. In practice, however, I believe that the opposite is the case. If charges were now—and for the first time—prohibited there is every likelihood that specialist music provision would be reduced and that parents and pupils would be denied the choice presently available of opting for individual tuition.
In view of the reassurances that I have given on the extent to which the Bill strengthens the place of music in our schools, and the fact that our provisions on charging are intended to safeguard the opportunities for individual music tuition, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she consider putting some provision into the Bill on Report to reconcile what she has said with what is in the Bill? The provision is perfectly clear. It states:
"Subsection (2)… shall not apply in relation to individual tuition in playing any musical instrument".
One cannot possibly say anything more clearly than that. It is a statement of fact. If it can be done for the GCSE, or for any reason, can we have an amendment? If the noble Baroness will consider giving us on Report an amendment which makes this clear, it would be another matter.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that it is perfectly clear and that there is no need for an amendment. However, I shall consider this to make absolutely sure of that point and take any action if it is necessary.
Baroness Birk: It is a great pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not in her seat because she may have been so convinced by the arguments in reply to what she said that she might have changed her mind. I cannot agree with the Minister when she says that this has not been the case. The provision may not have applied before 1944. However, the subject then became part of the curriculum. I must put to the Minister that it is a clear change in the law.
There was a judgment in 1981 known as the Hereford and Worcester case in which a parent and teacher took Hereford and Worcester Local Education Authority to court to challenge its introduction of a £10 fee for individual music tuition for the parent's two daughters. Mr. Justice Forbes ruled that charging for individual music tuition which formed part of the school curriculum was unlawful. He stated:
"If it is possible for a pupil to get an A-level as a performing musician, or an O-level, that is a qualification towards which a school curriculum might well aim … for this purpose there seems no logical reason for distinguishing between an O-level in physics and one in piano-playing".
In the Bill music is now part of one of the foundation subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was quite right when he pointed out that we are now becoming musically pre-eminent in this country. It is also right to remember that those of us who are very interested in the arts often feel that not enough is done in this country to encourage people. There is often an air of the philistine about the issue. What better way is there to encourage young people to be interested in the arts and to participate than to have these subjects integrated in their education? One cannot do that and at the same time say that such a subject is an extra and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said—regard it as a frill. This is what is wrong with the way in which we consider art subjects in a curriculum. They are too often looked upon as frills and not the serious part of life.
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may intervene and remind the noble Baroness that there is a great difference between having an interest in music, and performing it.
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for saying that. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. There is a great difference. When one is dealing with young people, encouragement is of extreme importance. This is what we are talking about.
In view of the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government to consider making any changes—the Minister was very honest to put it in the way she did and not to lead us up any garden paths—I shall have to divide the Committee.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 233) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 178.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ailesbury, M.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Annan, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cobbold, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Swann, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

TordofT, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beloff, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

Alport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Auckland, L.

Blatch, B.

Bathurst, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Bauer, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

69

Brentford, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lyell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Butterworth, L.

McFadzean, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Manton, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Chelwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chorley, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Middleton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Milverton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monson, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Morris, L.

Cowley, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nelson, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Croft, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denman, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Digby, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Polwarth, L.

Dudley, E.

Pym, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Quinton, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reigate, L.

Erroll, E.

Rennell, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrier, L.

Rodney, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Freyberg, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Geddes, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Greenway, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hanson, L.

Stockton, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Trafford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

London, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 234 to 234B not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Charges and remissions policies]:
[Amendment No. 234C not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Charges for board and lodging at boarding schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZA:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of powers as to trusts for religious education. 1973 c. 16.
.—(1) Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 (special powers as to certain trusts for religious education) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) Where the premises of a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school have ceased (whether before or after the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988) to be used for a voluntary school or, as the case may be, a grant-maintained school, or in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is likely they will cease to be so used, then subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, he may by order made by statutory instrument make new provision as to the use of any endowment if it is shown either—

(a) that the endowment is or has been held wholly or partly for or in connection with the provision at the school of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination; or

(b) that the endowment is or has been used wholly or parrly for or in connection with the provision at the school of such religious education and that (subject to subsection (IC) below) the requirements of subsection (1A) below are fulfilled.

(1A) The requirements of this subsection are—

(a) that the school was or has been maintained as a voluntary school since 1st April 1945 (the coming into force of Part II of the Education Act 1944) or, in the case of a grant-maintained school, was so maintained from that date until immediately before it became a grant-maintained school; and

(b) that religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned—

(i) is, and from that date has been, provided at the school; or

(ii) where the premises have ceased to be used for the purposes of the school, was provided at the school from that date until immediately before the premises ceased to be so used;

in pursuance of section 27 or 28 of that Act (religious education in voluntary schools) or section 73 or 74 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (religious education in grant-maintained schools which were formerly voluntary schools).
(1B) For the purposes of this section—

'endowment' includes property not subject to any restriction on the expenditure of capital; and

'shown' means shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State.

(1C) For the purposes of this section—
(a) where in the case of any school falling within subsection (IA)(a) above it is shown—

(i) that religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular denomination is provided at the school; or

(ii) where the premises have ceased to be used for the purposes of the school, such religious education was so provided immediately before the premises ceased to be so used;

such religious education shall be taken to have been provided at the school from 1st April 1945; and
(b) where religious instruction in accordance with such tenets is shown to have been given to any pupils at a controlled school or a grant-maintained school which was a controlled school immediately before it became a grant-maintained school, the religious instruction shall be taken to have been given to them at the request of their parents;
unless the contrary is shown."
(3) In subsection (4) for the words from "in connection with voluntary schools or" to "such a school" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(a) in connection with schools which are voluntary schools or grant-maintained schools; or
(b) partly in connection with such schools (or either description of such schools) and partly in other ways related to the locality served by the voluntary school or grant-maintained school at the premises that have gone or are to go out of use for such a school;").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 281CA. The purpose of this new clause is to give the Secretary of State a somewhat wider discretion to make an order to reapply for other educational purposes within the diocese the endowments—which normally means the proceeds of sale—of a closed or closing voluntary school. At present he may make such an order only where it can be shown that the endowments are "held" for the provision of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular denomination.
In practice it is the Church of England that is most often affected by these provisions. Many older voluntary Church of England schools are established on trusts which are silent about the provision of denominational religious education, even though there may be a strong inference that this was the original intention and even though the school has been for many years maintained and run as a voluntary school providing religious education in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England. In these circumstances the diocesan authorities are precluded from applying the proceeds of sale for other educational purposes within the diocese and they are instead used for local religious or educational purposes under schemes made by the Charity Commission.
It seems to the Government that where it can be shown that the endowments have in practice been used in connection with the provision of denominational education for a substantial period, the Secretary of State should have the power to make an order for their continued application for this purpose. Use in this way, since the coming into force of Part II of the Education Act 1944, provides an appropriate and convenient yardstick.
The clause will make no difference to those cases where the provisions of the trust make the intentions
72
of the original donors unambiguously clear. Even in those cases where the new clause will apply there is no presumption that the Secretary of State will be prepared to make an order in all circumstances. He will continue as at present to make a careful assessment of all the circumstances, taking account of the views of the Charity Commission where appropriate. What the clause does is to enlarge somewhat the range of circumstances in which it is possible for an order to be made. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to welcome the government amendments. In large measure they are as a result of correspondence between officials in the department, the Charity Commissioners and legal advisers of the Church of England. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that the long list of amendments attempts to deal with some complicated matters. We are still examining some of the amendments to make certain that they deal with the difficulties which have been experienced, particularly Amendment No. 236ZA. With regard to Amendment No. 236ZC, which relates to the 1953 Act, I know that some dioceses would like more flexibility in respect of controlled schools. We should like to look at the amendments carefully and if necessary come back. However, in the meantime I welcome these amendments and we are grateful to the Government for bringing them forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZB:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts
.—(1) Where under any provision (however expressed) of a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts 1869 to 1948 the power of the trustees under the scheme to apply any property to which the scheme relates for purposes authorised by the scheme is subject to the approval or order of any other person—

(a) the scheme shall have effect as if no such approval or order was required; and

(b) no liability shall be deemed to have been incurred in respect of any failure before the passing of this Act to obtain any such approval or order.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any person whose approval or order would but for this section be required under such a scheme, direct that that requirement shall continue to have effect notwithstanding subsection (1)(a) above; but no liability shall be deemed to have been incurred in respect of any failure before the making of such a direction to obtain any such approval or order.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 281CB. This is a wholly technical amendment. Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 has been repealed but trusts made under it still exist. These trusts have terms requiring the Secretary of State's approval before the proceeds of sale of redundant property can be reapplied. That is an anomalous requirement. Under Section 2 of the 1973 Act modern trusts do not include it. The amendment abolishes that requirement to the convenience of the Church authorities and should result in a small but worthwhile reduction in unnecessary work. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZC:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of power to require local education authority to defray expenses of establishing controlled school. 1953 c. 33.
. In section 2 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (power to require local education authority to defray expenses of establishing controlled school), in paragraph (b) (which limits the power conferred by that section to cases where the new school is required for pupils for whom accommodation in some other voluntary or grant-maintained school has ceased to be available) after the words "for whom" there shall be inserted the words "or for a substantial proportion of whom".").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 281DA, 285A and 285B. The amendment rectifies another anomaly in the present law. At present a local education authority which wishes to do so may under Section 3 of the 1967 Act pay for a new controlled middle school, provided that a substantial proportion of the children for whom it is intended would otherwise have attended some other voluntary school.
By contrast, under Section 2 of the 1953 Act a local education authority may provide a new controlled primary or secondary school only if it is required for the pupils from one or more other voluntary schools. The amendment brings the law applying to controlled primary and secondary schools into line with that applying to middle schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 236ZD:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause:
("Power to determine times of school sessions. etc.
. The following section shall be substituted for section 21 of the 1986 Act—
"Terms, holidays and sessions.
21.—(l) The articles of government for every county, controlled and maintained special schools shall provide for it to be the duty of the local education authority to determine the dates at which the school terms and holidays are to begin and end.
(2) The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body to determine the times at which the school session or, if there is more than one, each school session is to begin and end on any day and, where the governing body propose to make any change in those times, for it to be their duty—

(a) to consult the local education authority and the head teacher before taking any of the actions mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (g) below;

(b) to include a statement in the report they are required to prepare by virtue of section 30 of this Act—

(i) indicating that they propose to make a change in those times;

(ii) specifying the proposed change and when they propose that it should take effect; and

(iii) drawing attention to any comment on the proposal included as an annex to the report by virtue of paragraph (c) below and including such response to the comment as they may consider appropriate;

(c) If so required by the local education authority, to include as an annex to that report such written comment on the proposal as the authority may provide for that purpose;

(d) to provide an opportunity for discussion of the proposal at a parents' meeting held by virtue of section 31 of this Act;

(e) to consider any comments made at the meeting on the proposal before determining whether any change in those times should be made and (if so) whether the proposal should be implemented with or without any modification;

(f) not to effect any change in those times except at the beginning of a school year; and

74

(g) not less than three months before any change in those times is to take effect—

(i) to inform the local education authority; and

(ii) to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that the parents of all registered pupils at the school are informed;

of the change and of when it is to take effect.
(3) For the purposes of any provision included in the articles of government for any such school by virtue of subsection (2) above, the times determined by the local education authority immediately before the coming into force of section (Power to determine times of school sessions, etc.) of the Education Reform Act 1988 as the times at which the school session or, if there is more than one, each school session is to begin and end on any day shall be taken to have been determined by the governing body.
(4) The articles of government for every aided and special agreement school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body to determine—

(a) the dates and times at which the school terms and holidays are to begin and end; and

(b) the times at which the school session or, if there is more than one, each school session is to begin and end on any day;

(5) The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide for the governing body to have power to require pupils in attendance at the school to attend at any place outside the school premises for the purpose of receiving any instruction or training included in the secular curriculum for the school." ").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 284B. At present the control of the timing of the school day for county controlled and maintained special schools rests with the local education authority. For aided and special agreement schools it rests with the governing body. During the Committee stage in another place my honourable friend the Minister of State undertook that the Government would consider the transfer to the governing bodies of all schools, although with some safeguards, powers relating to the control of the timing of the school day and to the determination of places outside the school premises at which instruction may be given to pupils.
At this point I should make it clear that the Government undertaking did not extend to altering in any way the current arrangements for the control of school terms and holidays, or the powers of governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools, to control the timings of the school day. The clause leaves those arrangements unchanged. Furthermore, it makes no provision for grant-maintained schools. The Government are considering what further provision, if any, will be required to ensure that the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools possess all the powers available to those of aided and special agreement schools regarding the control of the timing of the school day, the dates and timings of terms and holidays and the attendance of pupils at places outside school.
The Government have consulted local authority and teacher associations on the form and scope of the safeguards to be attached to the transferred powers. Responses indicated concern to safeguard the effective and economic provision of local education authority services, particularly school transport; the interests of parents with children at more than one school; and the development of effective inter-school collaboration. The Government have taken careful consideration of those views in drafting the new clause and have—
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I am completely lost. Which amendment are we currently dealing with? I thought that we were dealing with Amendment No. 236ZC but the noble Baroness appears to be talking to Amendment No. 236ZD. Did we deal with Amendment No. 236ZC without anyone telling us?
Baroness Hooper: I said Amendment No. 236ZD.
Baroness David: It is not grouped with Amendment No. 236ZD.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I called Amendment No. 236ZD.
Viscount Davidson: We have dealt with Amendment No. 236ZC and we are now dealing with Amendment No. 236ZD. I hope that that enlightens the Committee as well as me.
Lord Peston: Has the Minister finished her contribution at this stage as regards Amendment No. 236ZD?
Baroness Hooper: I have not but I have entirely lost my place. I was saying that, as a result of the consultations that have been carried out, the Government have taken careful account of the views in drafting the new clause. They have endeavoured to balance the legitimate concerns of those affected by a transfer of powers with the need to ensure that the transfer is genuine and credible. The interests of parents, staff and other interests specific to the school and adjacent schools have been taken into account.
Giving the governing bodies control of the school day would be consistent with the powers they have recently acquired over the curriculum in the 1986 (No. 2) Act and with those to be devolved to them in the Bill concerning financial delegation, the national curriculum and charging for extra-curricular activities. We have sought to meet the legitimate concern of those whom we have consulted in drafting the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: It would be very much for the convenience of parents if the terms and holidays of schools in contiguous education authority areas could be harmonised. I speak with some feeling on the matter as someone living on the borderline of the counties of Avon and Somerset. It is a highly arbitrary boundary across which many pupils commute in both directions.
Lord Peston: I believe that I strongly support this clause but, since I am not sure whether I fully understand it, perhaps I may ask one or two questions before committing myself totally. As I understand the clause and as I understand the noble Baroness, the school day, if we take that as an example, will be determined by the governors. Am I to understand that they will be able to determine the school day in a totally unconstrained fashion? Will the governor who decides to concentrate the whole of the school's activity in the first part of the day be allowed to do that, or more or less have any other arrangement? More generally, is this an area where
76
governors will be able, and indeed be encouraged, to experiment with the school day in order to see parents' attitudes and so on? I read this as a decentralising or decontrolling clause but I should like a word or two in reply on that.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, it will be possible to experiment and to seek new ways of doing things. Since the Government are satisfied that the safeguards included are adequate to ensure that governing bodies consider all the relevant factors and consult and inform concerned interests before initiating any changes, I believe that these clauses will open up new possibilities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 101 to 103 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn for dinner and I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
I have no doubt that nearly all your Lordships are aware that this Bill has been before Parliament for a considerable length of time; in fact no less than three and a half years. Noble Lords will remember that on Report in another place there was a legendary filibuster by the Opposition which produced a Sitting that lasted no less than 24 hours and the discussions, as always in another place, were extremely engaging. They ranged from the evocation of the call of the Brent goose to the diet of Colchester United footballers and the proper use of parliamentary notepaper. I feel that in the light of that your Lordships' House can take a particular pleasure and pride in the fact that you have dealt with the Bill in a far more expeditious and, dare I say, responsible way with even more scrutiny of a pertinent character than the Bill has had since its introduction at the beginning of this year.
Given the long parliamentary history, I am sure that the House will be relieved that I propose to deal with my Third Reading speech very expeditiously indeed. If your Lordships cast your minds back, the key issue is that in a little more than 20 years the port of Felixstowe had developed at an astonishing rate from what can be called irrelevancy in a maritime sense—although it was always a very charming and interesting place—to becoming the UK's largest and most thriving container port. In the last two years alone container traffic has increased by almost 50 per cent. and in 1988 looks set to create further records.
However, growth and success of this kind, while altogether welcome, bring problems and the port is

77
now operating beyond its optimum capacity and therefore urgently needs room for expansion. The Bill before us would allow Felixstowe to extend its boundaries by an additional 1,000 metres along the northern bank of the Harwich harbour. Some 226 acres of land—or 95 hectares as we must learn to call them—will be involved for cargo handling and storage and approximately half of this expansion is to be reclaimed from the shallows of the harbour. Thus the port plans to develop this area of land over the next decade to provide further container terminals which are capable of handling the largest container ships afloat. These vessels are as large as the "Queen Elizabeth II" and they can carry up to 4,000 containers.
In 1986, which, as I shall say at the end of my remarks, was 10 years after your Lordships' House, played a vital part in the future of Felixstowe, the port commissioned Trinity Container Terminal, which was built at a cost of £42 million. All its cranes were of British make and can handle 60 containers an hour. They have revitalised the moribund British crane industry, winning export orders in the Far East and creating jobs in Scotland, the Midlands and the North-East of England. This is a success story with a vengeance and it is important for us to ensure that the success continues.
Of course in a crowded island such as ours very few, if any, developments can take place without consequences, and often worrying consequences, for the environment. The land involved in this expansion plan is owned by Trinity College, Cambridge, which strongly supports the development. Because the extension impinges on the edge of a large area of outstanding natural beauty the promoters have had to pass a far more stringent examination than would otherwise have been the case. I am glad to say that they have passed it.
The dock company has been sensitive to the fact that it is proposing the development of a greenfield site and will implement a large-scale landscaping scheme. About half a million trees will be planted creating close to 85 acres of additional, mainly deciduous, woodland, copses and hedgerows. A detailed environmental package has also been agreed with Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council and neither local authority opposes the expansion plans.
Moreover in extensive discussions with environmental groups the company has offered to provide a nature reserve of over 200 acres. Not only will this serve as a further buffer between the port and the surrounding landscape and provide a new habitat for birds, but it will also effectively prevent any future port development. Therefore this is not a thin end of the wedge scheme.
In addition the company and Trinity College, Cambridge, have agreed to provide a £235,000 lump sum to meet the immediate establishment costs of the reserve, and at the request of your Lordships' Select Committee the company has further undertaken to meet 60 per cent. of the annual running costs up to a maximum of £15,000 per year of the reserve for the next 30 years.
I mentioned Trinity College and I want to emphasise, and not in any way to skirt over the fact,
78
that financial advantages will accrue to Trinity College through the port expansion. The extra revenue provided by this development will be used for education and research not only in Trinity but in other colleges by way of the inter-college support system.
At the Second Reading debate in this House some speakers, while acknowledging the strength of Felixstowe's case, urged that due consideration should be given to the environmental matters surrounding this subject. Your Lordships' Select Committee examined the Bill, its promoters and the petitioners both long and hard for 15 days before finding in the promoters' favour. I have no doubt that we shall be hearing from the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. I should like to pay tribute to his work and the work of all the members of the committee, whose contribution will be perceived as being intensely valuable in the years to come.
If it happens that in a few moments' time your Lordships consent to give this Bill a Third Reading you will be able to look back at the great contribution the House has made to this British success story; not only in terms of the present legislation enabling expansion but also, all those years ago in 1976, when your Lordships frustrated an attempt to nationalise this port by the back door. Thanks to the actions of your Lordships I am now able wholeheartedly to commend this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. —(The Earl of Gowrie).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining again the details of this Bill and for amplifying the statement issued on behalf of the promoters which I was pleased to receive. I have read it with some care and I note that the noble Earl has amplified some of the points. I do not know whether they are agreements—that is what I wish to find out—or offers which have been made by the company. I do not intend to give my Second Reading speech again even though I believe I have an hour in which to do so.
I recall however the position of the Nature Conservancy Council which expressed great concern at the proposals. In fact, it expressed concern at all port developments affecting SSSIs; in particular those estuaries of national and international importance to wildlife. The NCC claims that this development is in that category.
In its submissions to the Commons Select Committee the NCC actually opposed the development stating that it would result in the destruction of nature conservation in an area of SSSI. The council urged that the Bill should not be enacted. It urged that the balance of the national interest of conservation and that of development should be properly determined by impact assessment. I was assured by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees, that the NCC had petitioned and would be heard by the Select Committee. I should like to know whether the council has fully accepted the offers made by the promoters and whether it regards them as meeting the serious criticisms which it made of this development.

79
I referred also to the Countryside Commission which holds the view that the siting of any major industrial and commercial development in an area of natural beauty should be permitted only where there is proven national interest and lack of alternative sites. I argued at Second Reading that there were alternative sites even though it was stated that no other port was carrying on development. I referred to the fact that while this Bill was before us there was also the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill. That development is on the opposite side of the estuary and has no effect whatever on an SSSI or on an area of natural beauty.
A specific question was considered by the Select Committee. I am not criticising the committee because—I shall be honest—I have not read all the 14 days' of evidence given to the committee. I have no doubt that the committee arrived at very good decisions. However, I should like to know whether that point was considered and what is the attitude of of the Nature Conservancy Council towards the proposal made on behalf of the promoters. I should also like to know the position on the Harwich Parkestone Quay Bill which, I believe, is still before another Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Were other petitions presented as well as that of the NCC? We know that the RSPB and the Ramblers' Association strongly opposed the development. I note from the statement given to us that Suffolk County Council is in full agreement with the stopping up of paths and the provision of alternative sites, but it would be interesting to know whether the Ramblers' Association agrees with these points.
I am not suggesting that we should hold up the Bill at this stage. However, in the light of discussions and the points raised at Second Reading, I believe that we are entitled to know the status of any agreement—if there was agreement—with those who were objecting and who actually petitioned.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words at this stage as Chairman of the Select Committee to which this important Bill was committed following Second Reading in February. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for his kind words about the Select Committee. We sat for no less than 16 days and we heard and read a very great deal of evidence submitted by the promoters and by the various petitioners against the Bill. In addition we made a full day's visit to Felixstowe and were able to inspect the site of the proposed extension, both on foot and from the air.
I am very grateful to the other members of the committee—the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, Lord Foot and Lord Wise—for their faithful attendance over such a long period and for their individual contributions to the deliberations of the committee. The committee was unanimous in its view that the Bill should proceed. It was felt that the Bill was justified on commercial grounds and the committee was impressed by the beneficial effect the development was likely to have for the local
80
community. Above all, it was convinced that the extension of container terminal facilities at Felixstowe was justified on grounds of national interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, emphasised, the site of the proposed development occupies part of the Suffolk coast and heaths of outstanding natural beauty. Part of the site has been notified as a site of special scientific interest and identified as a potential wetland of international importance.
The committee therefore listened with great care and concern to the cases put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other parties representing the conservation interests. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the committee considered all the issues submitted by those respective parties. After the most careful consideration of all these matters, there was, as I have said, unanimity in the committee that the proposed development should proceed. The committee took the view that this expansion of the premier container port of the United Kingdom would create a unique national asset.
The committee was impressed by the proposals made by the promoters for landscaping. It attached importance to those proposals and also to those of the land owners—namely, Trinity College, Cambridge—to finance and establish the nature reserve, referred to by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, which will be adjacent to the development site. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, to help ensure the continuing good management of this reserve we sought and obtained from the promoters a written undertaking that for a period of 30 years from the date of establishment they would contribute 60 per cent. of the cost of management of the reserve up to a maximum annual sum of £15,000, duly index linked.
With those few words, I commend the Bill to the House and wish it well on the last few days of its long and eventful journey towards Royal Assent.
Lord Annan: My Lords, your Lordships may have thought that we had left education for commerce, but I want to emphasise the part that Trinity College has played in this Bill. It may be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to know that, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, Trinity will be devoting to education and research the financial benefits it gains from the change of use of this land. When one hears those depressing words, so often used today, one has the unworthy suspicion that it means more oysters at the high table of Trinity. It does not mean that. Trinity took the lead in 1970 by setting up a science park in Cambridge. It is that to which I believe the college intends to devote any extra revenue it will now derive if the Bill passes. That will be of immense value to this country's industry and commerce.
I very much commend the work of Mr. John Bradfield, the senior bursar at Trinity, who has been behind all the negotiations over the Bill in which the college took part. He is the founder of the science park and deserves well of our country.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and to the Select Committee for all the hard work they have put in on this Bill. I am not entirely surprised at their decision. In the circumstances it was the only logical decision that could have been reached.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said, the success of Felixstowe is to a certain extent your Lordships' baby. We have watched it grow over the past years. We have just heard from the noble Earl how many containers are handled by the port. It handled 1 million TEUs last year, an increase of 40 per cent. over the previous two years. It is already up to its 1990 predicted level. The port urgently needs this expansion not only to accommodate the new business that is constantly being attracted to it—and the Trinity terminal completed two years ago is already running to capacity—but also to provide a long-term solution to the unacceptable levels of congestion that have occurred from time to time, to the great frustration of the freight forwarding and haulage industries. There is simply nowhere else for the port to expand.
Important amendments have been made in another place regarding the conservation issue. I for one see no reason why nature, in its infinitely adaptable way, should not continue to exist in harmony with the port once this new extension has been completed.
As a postscript, I should add that I was having lunch aboard a large Taiwanese container ship in Felixstowe last week. The captain was regretting the fact that he had never been able to visit an old college friend in London. When I asked him why, he said, "Because this port is so efficient it turns round my ship too quickly". That to me speaks volumes. The time for talking is now over. It is time for the digging to begin. I wish the Bill every success.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I owe your Lordships an apology for intervening in this debate, but I could not let the occasion go by without saying a brief word. In 1962 a major committee of inquiry into the ports of Great Britain reported to the government of the day. I happened to be chairman. I regret to say that the committee made only one brief reference to Felixstowe and we were rather disparaging about it at the time. Perhaps I may report what we said:
"As regards the minor ports of the East and South coasts of Britain, they could perhaps benefit from increasing trade with Europe".
We went on to say:
"We cannot accept the view that development here is a matter of immediate national importance".
How wrong we were! It is certainly true that we foresaw on the horizon what was to become known as the container revolution, but we did not foresee that it would apply in particular to Felixstowe. We could not see what was going to happen there.
A few years later when I was chairman of the National Ports Council I visited Felixstowe again. It was a first-class port, well managed and impressive, but nothing like what was to follow a few years later. Now we see this absolutely meteoric increase in its efficiency, size and importance, so that, as we have heard this evening, it has become the United
82
Kingdom's major container port, with world-wide trade.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate all concerned—the directors, the management and all the workers in the port—and to say that, assuming your Lordships give this Bill approval this evening, as I sincerely hope you will, I have every confidence that the port will continue to develop in the great way that it has done in recent years.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I briefly intervene to give the Government's view on the Bill.
A month ago the most popular marathon race ever took place on the streets of London. Tonight your Lordships are participating in the ending of another, less popular, marathon. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, it is just three and a half years since the Bill was first deposited in Parliament. Its consideration has stretched over four Sessions in two Parliaments. It has been examined in opposed Committee in both Houses, and debated in both Houses, with a thoroughness and, at times, a passion rarely accorded to Private Bills. It was one of the main factors leading to the establishment of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which has yet to report.
Stripped to essentials, the Bill has been a classic example of the perpetual conflict between development and environmental conservation. As a sub-plot it has epitomised the competitive tension between a closely regulated regime and unrestricted enterprise. No one can say that the various arguments have not had a full hearing. I believe they have also had a fair hearing. The end result is a Bill which fairly reflects, and does justice to, the various interests which have been at stake.
The Bill has been considerably altered since it was first deposited. I believe it has been much improved. I am glad to see the environmental protections that have been written into it. I am pleased that the promoters have given positive assurances about landscaping and the creation of a new nature reserve. It is also satisfactory that questions of navigational responsibility and priority have been resolved. But the essence of this Bill is that it will permit the further expansion of this country's biggest container port and of a successful enterprise that has been good not just for Felixstowe and Suffolk but for the country as a whole.
In 1987, Felixstowe became the first British port to handle in a year 1 million TEUs, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said. Ports like this, as I have seen for myself, do not happen by accident. They are not just the right collection of physical facilities in the right geographical spot. The people who operate them have built up skills, efficiency and a reputation for reliability; they have won the confidence of customers.
Like other types of business, ports cannot stand still: they must adapt and expand or face decline. Felixstowe is not our only good port—far from it—but it is an asset which we should be foolish to allow to waste away. The Bill will help to ensure that this asset can be enhanced. I warmly support the Third Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 104 [Functions of local education authorities with respect to higher and further education]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 236B.
Page 101, line 38, at end insert—
("(1A) It shall be the duty of a local education authority in respect of its area to consult such bodies as it considers appropriate and thereafter to publish a local scheme in relation to further and higher education, in order to facilitate the efficient provision of such education within its area, and any institution maintained by a local education authority to which this Part refers shall have regard to the local scheme").
The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 264F. We now move to Chapter I of Part II, which deals with local education authority functions with respect to higher and further education. The amendments concentrate upon further education. They focus on the issue of the LEA's co-ordinating role. I wish to establish that there should be one. Amendment No. 236B provides:
"It shall be the duty of a local education authority in respect of its area to consult such bodies as it considers appropriate and thereafter to publish a local scheme in relation to further and higher education, in order to facilitate the efficient provision of such education within its area, and any institution maintained by a local education authority to which this Part refers shall have regard to the local scheme".
Amendment No. 264F is more or less consequential upon Amendment No. 236B. There have been many changes as a result of the Bill. The most significant change relates to the management and funding of higher education because nearly all non-university higher education provision will be removed from the control of local education authorities and put under the control of a newly established Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. That change applies to all polytechnics and colleges with over 350 students and with more than 55 per cent. of work concerned with AFE or an equivalent full-time enrolment number for advanced further education courses exceeding 2,500. Other colleges may be included in those provisions if the Secretary of State judges that the number of students involved in courses of advanced further education exeed 55 per cent. although the number of students was not above 350.
Those changes will leave LEAs with almost no role in relation to higher education. The only higher education for which they will have direct responsibility will be in FE colleges which have some HE courses. LEAs will also lose some of their FE work to the PCFC sector in the colleges which have over 55 per cent. but under 100 per cent. HE work. The FE colleges remaining within the LEAs will not be unaffected by the Bill because there is local financial management.
The governing bodies will change in their composition. The proposals in the Bill specify that a college governing body will have not more than 25 members, including only 20 per cent. of members selected and appointed by the LEA, and a minimum of 50 per cent. who are engaged or employed in business, industry, any profession and any other field of employment relevant to the activities of the institution, or co-opted by the governing body. Both local financial management and the changes in the membership of governing bodies are likely to affect the relationship between colleges and the LEA since they give colleges far more control, and therefore more independence from the LEA. For example—this is important—under LFM a college will be responsible for appointments and dismissals of staff although the LEA will still technically be the employer. We shall be having amendments on that subject later.
The DES draft circular Local Management of Further Education Colleges—Delegation Schemes and Articles of Government, published on 21st April this year, proposes that a maximum of only 15 per cent. in total of places might be held back by the LEA.
With regard to the co-ordinating or strategic planning role, for a number of years the Government have been urging local authorities to be more responsive to the consumers—the employers—and to plan their provision of education more effectively. On further education, the Training for Jobs White Paper, published in 1984, was an important statement of the Government's views. As a result of negotiations between the local authority associations and the Manpower Services Commission, following publication of the White Paper, an agreement was reached on the provision of work-related non-advanced further education by which LEAs would produce three-year plans for their provision of work-related non-advanced further education and one-year programmes as a basis for contracting with the MSC for the provision of MSC-funded courses.
The Government's aim in establishing that agreement was to improve LEA planning and responsiveness. In 1987, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells prepared a survey of views on the MSC/LEA/NAFE planning agreement for the Manpower Services Commission which concluded:
"LEAs and colleges are now setting objectives and formalising plans which are forward looking. There is now more LEA-wide co-ordination leading to an impetus for an FE policy in some of the LEAs".
We have an HMI survey on NAFE in practice, published in April 1987, which concluded:
"The picture of NAFE which emerges from this inspection is of a flexible and responsive service. In some LEAs, the call for clearly focused development plans and programmes has generated structural and policy changes which should help the FE service in its desire to be responsive, up to date and reasonably well equipped".
While both reports are critical of some aspects of NAFE and the LEA role, their conclusions are generally positive. LEAs are seen to be planning NAFE increasingly effectively and providing a responsive education service. It is vital that the Bill does not prevent the LEAs' strategic planning role from being further developed.
During the course of the Bill in the other place Ministers made a number of statements about the

85
importance of the strategic planning role of LEAs. For example Mrs. Rumbold stated on 11th February 1988 (col. 1312):
"Our provisions for FE recognise that the local education authority will play a key role in the strategic planning of further education under their control".
At a later stage in the debate, Mrs. Rumbold said that the DES will issue guidance to LEAs on how to draw up their schemes and if necessary would provide model schemes. She went on to say that Clauses 96 to 113—that has probably changed in the Bill as it now is—would allow LEAs to continue to exercise their strategic planning role and to use their discretion to a large degree.
However, while the amendment to the current Clause 121, which specifies that schemes should set up principles and procedures to be applied, has been inserted, there is still no mention of the precise wording which underwrites the LEA's position. The absence of that formulation is all the more remiss since we now find that the DES draft circular Local Management of Further Education Colleges Delegation Schemes and Articles of Government reaffirms the strategic role of LEAs. Thus under approval criteria paragraph 171 provides:
"Each scheme should give colleges as much freedom as possible to manage their affairs and allocate their resources as they think best within the sterategic framework set by the LEA".
Our amendments would ensure that the Education Reform Act 1988 carried the same terminology with the same understanding as is conveyed by the DES consultative paper, government Ministers and DES circulars.
The amendments would write onto the face of the Bill the strategic planning role which is crucial in establishing the LEA role in relation to further education. I am very anxious that the further education provision will not be made worse by what we are doing in this Bill. It is important to make quite clear what the LEAs' role is, because it is being diminished. What we want to do in these amendments is to make it quite clear that LEAs have a strategic role and will have a say in what goes on in their colleges. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I want to speak very briefly in support of this amendment and emphasise the importance of the strategic role in the new situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the developments in the MSC. If the MSC plans for the YTS second year are to be successful they must be developed in close co-operation with the colleges. The colleges have to be able to make a strategic plan, and the provision which is required if the YTS year two is to be successful should be clearly in those plans. The LEAs should be able to forward the plans as they had originally intended.
The whole of the Government's programme in this area to provide decent training for 16 to 18 year-olds—I underline "decent training"—the whole success of that programme, depends on whether the second year training is good. It can only be good if the colleges are able to plan and to follow the plan through to provide what is required. I very much hope that this will be accepted.
Baroness Hooper: Since worries have been expressed that the strategic planning role proposed for local education authorities might constrain the ability of colleges to respond to the changing needs of students and employers, I am happy to give an assurance that that is certainly not the Government's intention. Nor, we believe, will it be the effect of our proposals. On the contrary, a key purpose of delegation is to give colleges greater freedom of manoeuvre. The Government have all along emphasised the importance of strategic planning by local education authorities of the FE provision in their areas. In the absence of such planning, there is likely to be unnecessary duplication of provision in some subject areas and lack of provision in others.
It is therefore for each local education authority to determine in broad terms what each college should be contributing to the local FE service. That planning should provide the basis for the setting of college budgets so that the money a college receives is directly related to the task it has been asked to perform. But clearly the college also has a role in conjunction with the local authority in deciding on or helping to create this strategic plan.
As far as Amendment No. 263B is concerned—[Interruption.] Are we not discussing Amendments Nos. 263B and 264F? I seem to have this wrong. It must be the wrong juxtaposition. In any event, the Government do not feel able to accept Amendment No. 236B.
Baroness David: I must say that I am rather surprised. I am not worried about the numbers being wrong, but it seems to me from what the Minister said, that she accepted the idea but not the actual amendment.
Baroness Hooper: We think that the idea is already covered and for that reason we do not think that the amendment would add anything to what is contained in this section of the Bill.
Clause 121 already provides that each local education authority must prepare a scheme which sets out its procedures for planning provision in colleges, for setting college budgets in the light of that planning and for delegating the management of budgets to college governing bodies. Clause 122 requires that the scheme must be prepared in consultation with colleges. Clause 129 requires that schemes must be published. So the great bulk of what the amendment proposes is already covered.
Further, the amendment seems to hark back to the old FE schemes procedure set out in Section 42 of the 1944 Act. Under that provision each local education authority had to put to the Secretary of State a scheme of FE provision for its area. The local schemes proposed in the amendment would apparently contain particulars of the provision to be made in terms of the pattern of courses and institutions. That was what the old 1944 Act schemes tried to do, and they failed because the pattern of provision is and should be continuously changing.
A scheme was no sooner agreed than it was out of date. By contrast, the schemes which local education authorities will prepare under Clause 121 will not contain details of the pattern of provision but only of

87
the mechanism to be employed by the local education authority in planning what the provision should be. The amendment would take us back to a method which has been tried and failed.
As far as Amendment No. 264F is concerned, we do not believe that that amendment changes the substance of the clause, but it weakens the drafting. The Government's proposals for the procedures which local education authorities might use for planning provision in colleges are set out in Part II of the draft circular of guidance which we issued in April and to which the noble Baroness referred. It is procedures of that sort which we expect to see set out in schemes. Amendment No. 264F would not of itself change that. The procedures set out in the draft guidance are compatible with both the present drafting of the clause and with the amendment. So from that point of view the amendment would make no difference.
A further objection to the amendment is its use of the term "strategic plan". It is true that the department frequently refers to strategic planning by local education authorities because it is a convenient shorthand which everyone understands. But we do not feel that it is an appropriate term to use in legislation because it is not sufficiently precise and will only cause confusion. Given that it makes no difference in substance, I hope that these amendments might be withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: While thanking the noble Baroness for the answer so far, perhaps I could press her since we are seeking to probe this matter to say someting about two other aspects of these amendments. Unless I misheard her, she does not seem to have included these in her answer.
First of all, Amendment No. 263B refers to higher as well as further education. We were looking for two matters here: first, to elucidate further the role of the local education authority in higher education, bearing in mind the remarks we made on other aspects of education about its local and regional aspects. We wish to know something about that, and in particular there are our worries about a possible growing gap between further and higher education, whereas we wish to see that boundary blurred.
Secondly, in the other Amendment, No. 264F, there is reference to the word "training". I thought that all our views now were that we ought not to separate education and training in an artificial way. Unless I misheard the noble Baroness, again she did not seem to include any thoughts on that matter in her answer. We are seeking to probe here and to understand how the Government think the Bill will work. In particular we are seeking to elucidate the role, and in my case also to understand a bit more about the power of, the local education authority in this area. Perhaps therefore I may ask the noble Baroness whether she has anything more to say. If she has not at this moment, is she willing to say more subsequently?
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness replies I am sure that I am not the only Member of the
88
Committee who has had a mass of letters from individual consumers of further and higher education. There seems to be very widespread concern lest by some sleight of hand occurring through this Bill what is presently available to people and in particular to unemployed people shall in some way be diminished. Any assurance that the noble Baroness can give us on that score will be more than welcome.
Baroness Hooper: In general I would say that the detail of these issues is discussed in the guidance which the department issued on 21st April. A number of queries might well be answered by that. The guidance shows that we have sought to achieve the right balance in what is admittedly a difficult area.
I should perhaps say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that further education is defined in Clause 104 to include training, if that was his concern. In relation to the concerns about possible fragmentation of FE and HE, I believe that those fears are not well founded. We must recognise that in a sense FE is already fragmented. It is seeking to meet a wide diversity of needs and it could never be wholly coherent. What matters is that an adequate range of opportunities should be available to meet the variety of needs, including opportunities for progression between levels.
The Bill provides local education authorities with the powers they need to secure that. It gives them full discretion to decide what is required in order to secure an adequate further education facility. We must avoid the temptation to prescribe from the centre how local authorities should exercise their discretion. They will be much better placed than we are here to work out what the needs of each community are in this area. I hope that that has gone some way towards answering the query.
Baroness David: I certainly agree with the Minister that we do not want prescription from the centre about what local education authorities do. What we are afraid of is that under the new arrangements the LEAs will not have a co-ordinating role. That is what we wanted to ascertain from these amendments.
We must look to make sure that what the noble Baroness says is correct and that this requirement is properly covered in the Bill. We shall look at the clauses and the subsections she has mentioned to make quite sure that if we are not satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination and the LEAs have a proper role we shall return to this on Report. In the meantime if the noble Baroness whose name is also down to the amendment agrees, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 236C:
Page 102, line 3, at end insert ("This shall include an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for persons over compulsory school age who have special educational needs".)
The noble Lady said: I am not proposing to move this amendment, but am I correct in thinking that the Minister has agreed to look at this group of

89
amendments again? I refer to Amendments Nos. 236C, 236G, 236L, 236M, 246, 253, 260, 264L and 268.
Baroness Hooper: I can assure the noble Lady that it was my intention to listen to any arguments that might be advanced and to look again at these amendments.
[Amendment No. 236C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 236D and 236E not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): There is a misprint on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 236F should read "Page 102, line 12" and not "Page 102, line 17".
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 236F:
Page 102, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Full time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils over compulsory school age shall for the purposes of this Act be regarded as education in school or further education depending on the designation of the institution in which it is provided. In determining whether an institution providing full time education only for senior pupils over compulsory school age is a school or institution of further education, regard shall be had to the extent to which it is intended that the institution should be able to provide part-time senior education or post school education.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 236N. I thank the Deputy Chairman for pointing out the error on the Marshalled List in this amendment.
The purpose of these two amendments is to explore the position of full-time post-compulsory-age education particularly with reference to the question of the sixth form college and the tertiary college. In some areas sixth form colleges have developed which are exclusively full time for young pople who would otherwise be in the sixth form inside a school. They are not to be seen, we understand, as part of further education.
On the other hand, in other areas tertiary colleges have developed which provide education and training for youngsters in the 16-to-18 age group and indeed above. They also provide part-time courses for people who may be or probably are in employment as they are following the courses part time and who may be seconded from their place of work. Many people feel that in some areas at any rate there is very considerable advantage to be gained from the tertiary college approach, although in other areas sixth form colleges are already established and they have their supporters in comparison with the tertiary colleges.
We are hoping that this is a matter which can be left to be decided at local authority level. We should very much like to hear from the Government that they accept the validity of both types of post-compulsory education and will give flexibility at local level to decide how the education at this stage is to be carried out. I beg to move.
Baroness David: This provision is thought to be very unfair because the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to change the status of an existing further education college back to a sixth form college. There are two colleges which are affected, Alton Tertiary College and New College, Swindon.
90
I hope that the Minister can say something about this matter because it is very backward looking to try to prevent colleges being tertiary colleges. I have a great feeling for tertiary colleges. They are a very good idea. To try to prevent changes and to try to prevent sixth form colleges having any part-time or older pupils is a terrible mistake. I hope that the Minister can take this matter back and think again about this clause which was I believe put in in another place either in Committee or on Report by the Government. It is a very unfortunate clause indeed.
Baroness Hooper: This is a complicated issue. The need to define the boundary line in the Bill arises from the repeal of the old provisions in the 1944 Act on further education schemes. Those provided a means of deciding at any given place whether an institution was a school or a further education establishment. In effect FE was defined as being the provision set out in the local education authority's FE scheme.
The Government inserted into the Bill on Report in another place provisions designed to meet this need for a definition and we wanted to make them as objective as possible. We wanted to avoid the exercise of discretion in order that everyone should know exactly where they stood.
The difficult area relates to school sixth forms and sixth form colleges, as has been said, and the need to ensure that they remain classified as schools even though they provide for those over the age of 16 and therefore might otherwise fall within the Bill's definition of further education. The feature which distinguishes sixth form colleges from further education institutions is that as schools they can only provide full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds and are precluded from providing for part-time students or students over the age of 19.
The solution now incorporated in Clause 104 focuses on this feature, stating that where an institution provides full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds and does not provide to any significant extent for part-time or post-19 students, that institution is to be considered a school. We believe that this gives a relatively neat and objective boundary line. It recognises the existing institutional patterns and will not require the disruption of institutions except perhaps in a tiny number of cases.
The two amendments, by contrast, seek to establish the dividing line between the two sectors by reference to the designation of institutions as being schools or FE establishments. The Government do not believe that this would be satisfactory. There is no mechanism for designating institutions and the amendments do not provide one.
I must emphasise that the Government have no intention of using the amendments as a means of ruling out future tertiary colleges. As is presently the case, a local education authority which wants to propose a reorganisation replacing school sixth forms with tertiary colleges is free to do so, and my right honourable friend will consider each such case on its merits. What the amendments prevent is the transformation of a sixth form college into a tertiary college with no statutory process of consultation and approval by the Secretary of State.

91
We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. We believe also that they replace clear objective criteria with a discretion to designate which could leave many people wondering where they stand. I trust that the noble Baronesses will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
8.30 p.m.,
Baroness David: Perhaps the noble Baroness will refer to the two colleges I mentioned. Under the Bill, they will have to give up their tertiary status.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the two colleges to which the noble Baroness referred were New College, Swindon and Alton College in Hampshire. Those colleges are classified as FE colleges and they have the pattern of provision typical of a sixth form college. Since we need a clear boundary line between the secondary and the FE sectors, there is always a chance that wherever the line is drawn some college will fall on the wrong side. The two colleges concerned have fallen on the wrong side. It would be relatively simple for the colleges concerned to bring themselves within the requirements of classification as a college simply by increasing the proportion of part-time or post-19 work.
Baroness Seear: I was not intending to intervene in the discussion. However, this is a matter of considerable importance to a large number of people. I am not entirely clear as to the the Government's thinking. Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to decide the matter? In a changing scene at local level we are encouraging more employers to send people for part-time education on day release. They should be going to colleges for that day release. It is highly desirable that such programmes should develop quickly. What is the objection to a local authority saying it believes that a certain college can best serve the local community and meet local demands through being able to develop as a tertiary college? Why should that matter go to the Secretary of State? I cannot see that anything is gained, other than delay, by putting that matter to the Secretary of State when a local authority, local employers and local people have decided that that is what they want.
Baroness Blackstone: Does the Minister agree that it would be a great pity if the two institutions to which my noble friend Lady David referred have to revert from being tertiary colleges, with all the flexibility that that involves, to being either sixth form colleges or sixth forms? It means, that a possible future growth in part-time provision for 16 to 19 year-olds in the areas that the colleges serve will become more difficult.
The great advantage of tertiary colleges is that they can combine part-time and full-time work in a whole variety of different proportions. Once they go back to being sixth form colleges, there is no possibility for any part-time provision. A second great advantage is that tertiary colleges can provide a much wider range of subjects and combinations between academic and vocational studies than would normally be possible in a conventional sixth form college. Perhaps the Minister agrees that to have to revert back to being
92
sixth form colleges disadvantages those colleges. If that were to happen elsewhere in the country, it would put back progress in increasing opportunities for 16 to 19 year-olds.
Lord Peston: Before the Minister answers, perhaps I may say that I have been listening to the discussion and I find it difficult to understand why we need to draw the line in the way the Minister has suggested. Why can we not define something to be called 16 to 19 year-old education, some of which takes place in predominantly full-time institutions and some in more flexible institutions? Why must we have the distinction between schools and FE colleges? That seems to me to be a hangover from the past. Since we are dealing with the Education Reform Bill, perhaps this is a chance to get rid of the distinction altogether and to realise that we are moving into an entirely new era in which we can call all such schools "colleges" without worrying about their composition.
Lord Hylton: I have no views on the merits or demerits of the amendments or of the Bill as it now stands. However, I believe we are entering a constitutional area. It would be a great mistake for either the Secretary of State or the local education authority to be in a position to modify the governing instrument of an educational establishment without the consent of its governors or trustees, if it has any. If there is to be any kind of modification without consent, we need some process of appeal.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that sixth form colleges and further education colleges have distinctive characteristics and that it is right that those characteristics should be preserved. If we allow too much blurring of the boundaries, local people who have been consulted on the creation of schools and colleges will have no assurance about their future character. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, with all such matters there is an evolution and it may be that in future the need for such distinctive characteristics disappears. We do not believe that that time has arrived.
As regards the two colleges which the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned, they are both looking at ways of remaining FE colleges. All they need to do to ensure that is to increase the proportion of part-time or post-19 work. At that point, Clause 196 will allow them until the end of 1989 to do so.
Turning to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as regards why the Secretary of State is involved, he has established statutory controls over changes in the character of schools. That is why he is involved in deciding where the boundary between schools and FE colleges lies.
Baroness Seear: We are not satisfied with those answers. The Government do not seem to appreciate the fluidity of the position or the importance of getting the matter right in line with their own policies in other directions. I do not wish to keep harping on the importance of part-time education. However, the whole programme for training 16 to 18 year-olds will fall unless there is good part-time education available. Much depends on the success of that phase of the Government's plan. The tertiary colleges,

93
unlike the sixth form colleges, are ideally equipped to provide that kind of training. There is an enormous value in seconded youngsters from industry meeting full-time students. Some of them may decide that they want to pursue full-time studies. They may discover talents they never knew they had. The mixture of full-time and part-time students is invaluable.
I hope that the Government will take the matter back and think again. We have not been told why the preservation of the sixth form college is so important. We have only been told that the Government believe it is. We are always told, "The Government believe …". That is an assertion of faith. We have had rather too many assertions of faith, one way or another, without bringing it into the question of sixth form and tertiary colleges.
Baroness David: I should very much like to support the noble Baroness. The Government ought to think again about this point. It is tremendously important for everyone's future that more people are allowed the opportunity to take up part-time education. I hope that the Minister will take this back and have another look.
Baroness Hooper: We also believe very much in the importance of part-time education and training, particularly for this age group. If it would help the noble Baroness, I shall be happy to write to her explaining the government proposals more fully, if I have done so inadequately. We are doing an enormous amount in the Bill and also outside the Bill to encourage work in this area and to emphasise the importance of part-time education and training. I do not see that the amendments proposed would help in any way.
Baroness David: I agree that the amendments may not be perfect. They are perhaps not good enough in themselves. I am not entirely pleased with them. I wish nevertheless that the noble Baroness would consent to look at this question. The Bill is tremendously inflexible as it stands. We shall certainly come back with amendments that are perhaps rather better than those now before us should the noble Baroness not agree to reconsider; I hope that she will.
Baroness Seear: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 236G to 236K not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 236L:
Page 104, line 22, at end insert—
("(iii) after the definition of "senior pupil" there shall be inserted "except that where a person has been assessed as having special educational needs, it means a person who has not attained the age of twenty-six years; and it includes any person who is newly disabled for three years from the date on which they re-enter education after they became disabled"; and").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that this amendment was part of the group attached to an amendment the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, moved earlier. It was an amendment the noble Baroness said she would look at again.
[Amendment No. 236L not moved.]
[Amendment No. 236M not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236N not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 236P:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
("Purpose of, and duty to provide, higher education.
.—(1) The statutory system of public education shall be organised in four progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, further education, and higher education.
(2) Accordingly the following section (which—

(a) re-states the duty of local education authorities in relation to the first three stages;

(b) separates that re-statement from the other parts of the section; and

(c) provides for the duty of the Secretary of State in relation to the fourth stage);

shall be substituted for section 7 of the 1944 Act—
"Stages and purposes of statutory system of education.
7.—(1) The statutory system of public education shall be organised in four progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, further education, and higher education.
(2) It shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education throughout the first three stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, so far as his powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of society by securing that efficient higher education shall be available to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales."
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, discharged by him through the Funding Councils established by this Act, to secure adequate facilities for higher education, that is to say, education provided by means of a course of any description mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act, or by means of any other activity funded in accordance with this Act by the Funding Councils, which—

(a) provides instruction in skills;

(b) promotes the general powers of the mind;

(c) advances knowledge and learning;

(d) facilitates adjustment to technological, economic and social change;

(e) meets individual needs for personal development;

(f) assists in the transmission and maintenance of standards of citizenship.

(4) The higher education referred to in subsection (3) above includes in particular any of the following—

(a) full-time and part-time academic and vocational education or training; and

(b) full-time and part-time social and physical and recreational education or training;

(including, in the case of vocational education or training, continuing education or training for persons already in employment or already engaged in a vocation as well as education or training for entry into any employment or vocation".").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say a few words about this amendment in order to help the Committee to understand its purpose. Although the clause is very long the idea behind it is very simple. There does not seem to be a specific duty in the Bill to provide higher education. Essentially the clause considers education as divided into its normal constituents of primary, secondary, further and higher. It sets out a prima facie notion that LEAs are particularly to have regard to the first three stages. In particular it makes it explicit that the duty of the Secretary of State is to ensure that efficient higher education will be made available.
Despite its length the purpose of the clause is simply to ask the Minister to let the Committee have a clearer idea of the Government's thinking on this matter. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The proposed new clause seems to have two main purposes. Firstly, it provides a philosophical exposition of the place and purpose of higher education and, second, it places a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the provision of efficient higher education to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales.
Let us take these points in order. It really is not the function of this part of the Bill to provide an exposition of the nature of higher education. The Bill already does all that needs to be done to establish the ground rules for the provision of higher education. It provides a workable statement of what courses constitute higher education—namely, those courses of a standard higher than A-level. And it states the roles of those involved in providing higher education including the PCFC, the new higher education corporations, the UFC and LEAs.
The Government readily accept that the definition of higher education contained in Schedule 4 does not make the blood race. But it is entirely adequate to meet the need. For the purposes of the PCFC and the power of LEAs to secure the provision of higher education we need to know what sorts of provision are to be considered as higher education. We have no quarrel with the new clause's statement of the purposes of higher education as such: much of it is drawn from a passage in the Robbins Report which we endorsed last year in the higher education White Paper. But it is the stuff of policy statements rather than of law. The purposes of higher education stated in the new clause are demonstrably not specific to higher education. They could perfectly well apply to any other sector of education, and therefore do not perform any useful function in law.
As to the proposal to place a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the provision of efficient higher education to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales, this is unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a duty under Section 1 of the 1944 Act to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose. That duty encompasses higher education as much as any other sector.
In any case, the Government have already made clear their policies in this area. The Government have explicitly committed themselves to the principle that courses of higher education should be available to all those who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from them and who wish to do so. In the White Paper issued last year the Government emphasised the need to widen access to higher education.
This new clause would add nothing, and I hope it will be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: While thanking the noble Baroness for her answer there are two points I should like to
96
make. My reading of the 1944 Act is that it refers to three stages of education—primary, secondary and further. As a matter of the history of thought, I am not sure that one used the term "higher education" very much at that time. It may be a more recent term. I think there is a slight difference between what one has in mind at this time and what existed in 1944.
My main point is not entirely philosophical. I do not see the Bill as enabling the Secretary of State to promote or to see that higher education is promoted to meet needs. I think that it is somehow taken for granted. No one has thought as to whether we ought to make it explicit. If, for example, one wanted to have a debate as to whether we have enough higher education in this country or the wrong sort of higher education, one would want to see that debate lead to action by the Secretary of State through the funding councils or by various other means. It is by no means obvious from the Bill that anything exists that would enable that to take place. I think that we take it for granted that it can happen.
There is a vagueness about the Bill so far as concerns the provision of higher education. I do not think my proposal would be detrimental. I think it would be helpful, except of course that the moment the Secretary of State was given such a duty and it was made explicit it would give many of us a basis for complaining strongly that he was not meeting his duty. We should like to have a basis for saying that we need much more and better higher education. So we should like the Secretary of State to have that explicit duty as a path to action.
My intention is to clarify the Bill. I have no intention of doing other than withdraw the amendment, but I should have liked a slightly more sympathique reply, especially as we are all committed to the enormous importance of education in general and certainly of higher education in the future of our country. That is certainly the case for taking the 21st century view. It would do nothing but good to have that kind of explicit statement in this reform Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: When making her response to those comments would the Minister confirm, first, that the Government's view is in sympathy in general with what is stated in this amendment to be the aims of higher education in these items in subsection (10)(a) to (h); secondly, that those aims do not appear elsewhere in the Bill in relation to the purposes of higher education; and, thirdly, so far as concerns the 1944 Act there is no specific reference to those aims in connection with higher education? It seems to me that those who moved this amendment have made their case for something along those lines as a guide for the aims of higher education.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that in the arrangements made in the Bill we are establishing some new and revised structures in order to deliver higher education more efficiently and to a wider group of people. We believe that to be the essential aim of the Bill. I can certainly confirm that we are sympathetic to the aims but do not feel it appropriate to state them in this way on the face of the Bill. There are many way in which one can widen access and improve the means of ensuring that people enjoy

97
higher education and they do not necessarily all have to be written into a Bill of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Provisions supplementary to sections 105 and 106]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 106, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to the initial appointment to the Board of Governors of the Corporation to take effect on vesting day, the Secretary of State shall have the same powers as provided in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 below.").
The noble Baroness said: I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Onslow to move this amendment on his behalf as unfortunately he has been delayed abroad. For the convenience of the Committee I should point out that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List. The amendment should refer to page 133, line 16. It should therefore be placed in the Marshalled List in a position which refers to Clause 136. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may have permission to deal with it at this point in time. It is only a very brief and probing amendment.
The amendment refers to the unique position of the ILEA polytechnics. Since these are already corporate bodies the desirable reform of their governing bodies is not achieved by other provisions in the Bill which will ensure smaller and more effective governing bodies for polytechnics outside London. It would therefore perhaps be particularly unfortunate if the Secretary of State lacked the powers to approve the initial appointment of a board of governors of ILEA polytechnics after they leave the control of the local authority. Surely they deserve assurances that their governing bodies will be revised in line with the revisions promised to their other colleagues elsewhere.
This amendment proposes that Clause 136 should he revised to give to the Secretary of State the same powers that are provided for him in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Bill; namely, that he should be the appointing authority in relation to the appointment of the first members of an ILEA corporation and that he shall secure that at least half of all the members of the corporation as first constituted are independent members. Basically I understand that this has given comparability to the ILEA polytechnics as to other polytechnics outside that authority. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): On the assumption that one alters the wording to "Page 133, line 16" the position is that the concern expressed by my noble friend on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, relates specifically to the position of the inner London polytechnics. The Government accept that some changes will be needed to the composition of their governing bodies and their articles of government following their transfer to the PCFC sector. Once Clause 136 of the Bill has passed into law it will allow the Secretary of State to make
98
amendments. Officials have written to the institutions about this matter.
With those assurances, perhaps my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment. In other words, we feel that although the powers that are to be used in this connection are not precisely the ones to which the amendment refers, the point is covered otherwise.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for those assurances, and with gratitude I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [The higher education corporations]:
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 186, line 9, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eight").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 238A I shall speak also, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 239A to 239D, 240A to 240C and 242A to 242F, because they all deal with proposals for strengthening the future governance of the polytechnics and larger colleges of higher education. If I seem a somewhat lone voice in support of the changes that are advocated in these amendments, let me assure the Committee that I am speaking at the behest of many polytechnic directors. I can but hope that the rest of the educational establishment will not lightly disregard the wishes of polytechnic directors, who, after all, are the people who will have to run the new institutions.
It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that when the non-university sector, as it used to be called, came into being in its present form in 1966 the intention was that it should enjoy parity of esteem with the universities. The polytechnics and colleges, as I am sure the Committee will agree, have earned such esteem. Unfortunately, that is not reflected by representation in this Chamber. Indeed, I think that I may be the only Member on these Benches who has teaching experience in a polytechnic, and I reached only the level of head of department. I believe that the Benches opposite may be better stocked with Members who have experience of the public sector of higher education and I hope that they will support the concerns of polytechnic directors.
At this stage I should perhaps stress that academic freedom, in which I believe passionately, will in no way be compromised by these amendments. Academic quality and freedom must remain the exclusive province of academic boards; overall management and planning should belong to directors and governing bodies.
These amendments deal with the composition of the future governing bodies. Their main effect is to be found in Amendments Nos. 239C and 239D. Paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 5 to the Bill as drafted envisages up to 13 members who must have experience of and have shown capacity in industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of

99
any profession. Amendment No. 239C requires the capacities shown to have been managerial. In view of all the new responsibilities being given to directors and governing bodies under Clause 108 of this Bill, I feel sure that the directors are right in their wish to have strong managerial experience in their governing bodies. Amendment No. 239D is designed to enhance and streamline further the decision-making competence of governing bodies.
The basic effect of these two amendments is to produce a new paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 which would require the appointed members to choose up to four further members, at least one of whom would have to have educational experience. The appointed members would thus be free to invite representatives of local authorities, academics and students to join them on the governing body if they so wish. This system would have the added advantage that local authority members most suitable to the tasks set by the Government could be appointed by governing bodies, whereas under the present proposals they might well be excluded.
Perhaps I may just remind the Committee that the Government have laid great emphasis on the wide powers to be exercised by the boards of governors of these corporations, as is evidenced in Clause 108. In addition to their responsibilities for the provision of higher and further education and the conduct of research and other such activities, these institutions are to become more entrepreneurial, to own their own buildings, estates and other assets, employ their own staff, supply goods and services, acquire and dispose of property, borrow and invest and, in short, operate more nearly like any other company.
I also remind the Committee that the Government themselves have emphasised the enhanced role to be undertaken in the governance of these institutions by those of wide experience of industry, commerce and the professions. If the boards of governors are to be effective they must be sufficiently small to be cohesive and so constituted as to undertake the functions that they are expected to discharge. They must not discourage successful and busy people by inappropriate composition and discussion.
Surely it cannot be appropriate for the composition currently envisaged in the Bill to determine matters relating to overall strategy, the employment of staff, the acquisition and disposition of assets, the supply of goods and services, and borrowing and investment. The proposals as they now stand call into question the role of the polytechnic directors themselves as chief executives in these corporations although the Government have made it plain in another place in Standing Committee on 11th February that it is their expressed intention that that is how they are expected to function.
In conclusion, the unease generated by the lack of an apparent rationale for the provisions of governance outlined in Schedule 5 is compounded by the fact that these must be considered in the absence of any firm knowledge of whether the articles of governance referred to in Clause 109 will reflect a clear logic of responsibility and accountability in which decisions can be taken. There is a general
100
concern among polytechnic directors that unless these articles clearly delineate the directors themselves as chief executives responsible to these boards, then the polytechnics will be incapacitated in their ability to achieve the objectives identified for them by government.
My honourable friend the Minister in another place summed up the Government's rather muddled position—as it appears to me—when he argued that the Government have had to make a judgment about whether to opt for an exclusively management-directed governing body or a representative governing body. He confessed that the Government decided on a hybrid of the two.
However, I suggest that a hybrid model is a recipe for confusion. The polytechnic directors have indicated that they need governing bodies that will enable them most effectively to fulfil the demanding responsibilities laid upon them. I have been asked to represent their concerns to Members of the Committee. I sincerely hope that the Committee will consider them sympathetically. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government's consultations on the higher education White Paper produced two different views on the size and composition of the boards of governors for the higher education corporations. Some argued, as my noble friend has just done, that the proposals in the Bill did not go far enough to limit the size of these boards. Others argued that these plans went too far: that the board should be as fully representative of staff, students and other bodies as many governing bodies now are.
In the new situation, differing from the present, the boards will be responsible for the overall character, strategy and finance of the institutions. The Government fully recognise that the boards will need to include a strong voice for people from business, industry and the professions to ensure that the institutions are responsive to the wider world and in particular to the needs of employers and to help foster a spirit of enterprise in the institutions. But we also recognise that there is a long, and generally useful, tradition of representative involvement in the government of academic bodies. We think it desirable that staff and students should be party to decisions which affect them. Representation on the board of governors is a means of giving effect to that aim.
My noble friend argues that the representative element unnecessarily inflates the size of the board and—and perhaps this is her particular point—that thereby effective decision-making is hindered. We certainly agree strongly that the new boards need to be smaller than many existing governing bodies. The upper limit of 25 set in the schedule means that they will be. At the same time the schedule permits institutions which wish to have a smaller governing body to go as low as 13 members, including the director or principal.
It is also suggested—and I think that this is implicit in what my noble friend said—that the representative element may well side with the staff against management. That risk is inherent in having students and staff on the board, but equally others have

101
claimed, as one of the strengths of the representative tradition, that it involves staff and students in the management of the institution and often makes them more understanding of, and responsive to, the pressures and opportunities that face management. The case for local authority representation rests on the regional significance of the higher education which these institutions provide and on their role in the local provision of further education.
The approach that we have followed is to give representatives of the staff, the students and the local education authorities a voice on the governing body so that they can be heard. But the director and the independent members will have a clear majority. There is no question of their being overwhelmed.
I think that nobody would deny that there needs to be strong management in the institutions to ensure that they fully meet their potential. The head of the institution must be able to manage. These are really matters for the conduct of the institution and the articles of government. We wish the articles to include a clear statement of the respective roles of the board of governors and the director and to give the director the necessary authority to manage within the overall resposibilities of the board of governors. The Department of Education and Science will shortly be circulating draft model articles for consideration, seeking to give effect to these principles.
I am grateful to my noble friend for stimulating, through this amendment and the related ones, a debate on the membership of higher education corporations. I shall certainly draw what she has said to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, at the present we remain unpersuaded that it would be right to follow the line that she has proposed. The effectiveness of management is quite clearly recognised, but this is the way in which we hope to effect it. I hope that, with these considerations before her, my noble friend may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Seear: I very much want to agree with the Government in wishing to keep the representational element. Colleges are essentially places in which it is the staff who determine whether the colleges will be successfully run and will meet their primary objective, which is to provide good courses and good research. There is a tendency at the present time to overdo the managerial element in the running of colleges and not to recognise sufficiently that unless the staff have a very considerable say on a collegiate basis in the way the institutions are run, those institutions will suffer very severely. I am very glad indeed to hear that the Government intend to keep the representational element for the staff, and for the students. That is essential in the running of the college.
Baroness Cox: Let me say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend for his clarification of the Government's position. I shall read with great care the details of what has been outlined. I was especially interested in the points relating to the articles, because the articles and the structure must be seen together as a totality. I am also most grateful to him for the assurance that he will draw these matters to
102
the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 239 to 239C not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 239CA:
Page 186, line 17, at end insert ("or to represent community interests served by the institution").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment tries to widen the representation a little and to make sure that community interests are involved, because the present clauses narrow the representative base of these bodies compared with what goes on at the moment. As these governing bodies will have more responsibilities than the present ones, it seems important that there should be very wide representation on them.
The Bill appears to have failed to acknowledge the important contribution that a broad range of community interests can make, or indeed the valuable experience built up by the present governing bodies over the last 20 years. Governing bodies set up by this Bill must be seen to be at least as accountable as their predecessors if the credibility of the newly independent institutions is to be assured.
A very wide range of educational interests are concerned to achieve increased accountability and community representation on the governing bodies of the higher education corporation. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be willing to put in this amendment, because it will give satisfaction to a great number of people. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to support this amendment as strongly as I can before the noble and learned Lord replies. It seems to me that as the schedule is drafted at the moment the words:
"industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession",
are not wide enough to include the great diversity that we now get in many areas of our country which are served by these great institutions of higher education. I hope very much that the Government will see their way to including this wording.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government's plans as set out in Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge provide for boards of governors to have strong representation from industry, commerce and the professions. We want this to foster effective management in the institutions, to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of employers and to develop a strong enterprise approach in them.
The Bill therefore provides for the boards of governors to have at least half of their members from business, commerce and the like. The inclusion in the independent category of community representatives who do not have strong links in business and so on could detract from this. But there is absolutely no reason why people who have such links should not be representative of the community. I cannot therefore accept this amendment.

103
That does not mean that we want to exclude community representatives from the boards. It will also be important for the institutions to be responsive to the needs of their local and regional community. Community representatives who do not satisfy the criteria in the Bill for independent members will be able to serve on the boards in one of two main ways: first, as local authority nominees, which is the primary way in which the link with the community is recognised—there is nothing in the Bill that requires local authority nominees to be councillors—and, secondly, as additional nominee members; that is, as co-opted members under the provisions of paragraph 3(2)(c) of the schedule.
So there is no question of community interests being excluded. They are included in that way and of course, as I said, there is an overlap very possibly between the other description of independent persons and the interests of the community. I hope that with these assurances the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate may feel that we have catered for the concerns which they have raised.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry, but I do not feel that the Government have catered for this in the way described by the noble and learned Lord. Community interests will not necessarily be represented either through the people who come in under the classification of industrial, commercial or professional or through the local authorities.
Let us take the example of a heavy concentration of ethnic minorities. It is quite likely that they will not be represented through either of the groups about which the noble and learned Lord has told us, but it is highly desirable that they should have a voice on these bodies. There are also other powerful voluntary groups of one kind or another who will with very great advantage need to be represented if a college is to be fully able to respond to local needs and interests.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I should like to support that line of thought. In my area there are the Polytechnic of Lancashire and the Polytechnic of Manchester. Within 15 miles of the Polytechnic of Lancashire, based in Preston, is the University of Lancaster. It is good for them to work together and for someone from the university to be on the council of the polytechnic. The same applies to the Polytechnic of Manchester as regards Manchester University in Salford. It is helpful to the local community to have that cross-section working together.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is valuable to have a mix of people on governing bodies and committees of that kind. The Government have become somewhat obsessed with representation from industrial and commercial interests. We must remember that many of the students who leave the institutions will be employed by the public sector and not only by the private sector—although many will and I do not doubt that is is desirable that they should be
104
represented on governing bodies. Where in the arrangements is there proper representation of public sector employers as well as the voluntary organisations, the black community and groups of that kind which are equally important and which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear?
Lord Peston: I should also like to add a little more. I assume that these are still education institutions and that academic matters still take first priority. I am most concerned that we seem to have lost sight of that altogether. Having sat as a governor on such bodies I must tell the noble and learned Lord that on the whole business people are pretty useless. They do not understand many of the matters although they try very hard. I should like them to be there to some degree but the weight given to them does not appear to me to be helpful. I find to be most distressing the lack of weight given to the community with people concerned with the highest education and academic standards. I do not believe that these institutions have any hope whatever of prospering if they do not see their first duty as educational and, related to that, the maintenance of the highest of academic standards. I should like to hear a government response that recognises that.
Baroness White: Can the noble and learned Lord enlighten the Committee on the position of those who are members of quangos? I believe that it is now unfashionable to use that term. For example, for some time I had the honour to be chairman of the Land Authority for Wales. It is the only part of the Community Land Act which still stands and is active. Does membership of that body qualify one to be considered to be in either industry or commerce? Strictly speaking one is in neither, yet one is engaged on the most active transactions in development land but from a public point of view. What is the position of someone in such a capacity? As regards the Principality of Wales I could mention at least half a dozen quangos, some of whose members would be highly desirable. However, I am not sure that if the definition is strictly applied one would say that they were either industrialists or in commerce.
Lord Trafford: I should not have risen to speak except for the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that business people are so useless. I do not find that acceptable and I disagree with him. Within the field with which they are familiar they are extremely valuable. The major function we are discussing is education. Other bodies are stated as being represented; for example, the professions. I draw to the attention of those proposing the amendment that the Bill states "any profession", which allows for an extremely wide range of people. I am not entirely certain of the definition of a "profession" or whether it can be regarded as any activity that calls itself a "profession". Be that as it may, I find the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to be slightly wide of the mark. I do not believe that people who serve in business, commerce or the professions lose sight of the importance of education. Indeed, they are usually most keen upon educational attainments or whatever other skills they are looking for.

105
Secondly, as regards the point directly related to the amendment, I believe that there is a wide range of choice. It is hard to see how the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would not be covered by the scope of:
"industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession".
Lord Peston: I should like to respond to that, rising to the bait, so to speak. I did not say that there should be no business representation. I have had experience of this and I speak as a former academic at least. Business people appear to suffer from three delusions: first, they think that teaching is easy, but it is incredibly hard; secondly, they think that if academics are not confronting students they are doing nothing and are idle; and, thirdly, they have not the faintest idea what academic research and scholarship are about. That is the nature of the problem. They are often very well meaning and can be helpful in a minority of cases. I believe their role in this is excessive and I would rather see less of them than more.
Lord Trafford: I do not wish to turn this into an argument about whether businessmen are educated in one way or another, but I do not accept any one of the three propositions about business people put forward in such general terms by the noble Lord. I too have experience of such bodies and I have not found that. I have found that such people use their expertise, usually fairly sparingly, in areas with which they are familiar.
I have some experience of teaching and I am well aware of prejudice that exists generally in people's minds that if academics are not teaching or in a laboratory—as in my case—they are not doing anything. That is a general proposition and does not apply to businessmen or to the other categories of people described, which is very wide indeed and gives a huge choice.
Lord Annan: I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right in his experience. He had the remedy in his own hands; namely, to educate the people in what they are meant to do. There is something which troubles me about the wording here. The amendment states:
"or to represent community interests served by the institution".
To include the word "or" means either that you can choose everybody from the community interests or you choose everybody from the commercial, business and industrial interests. If the phrase included the word "and", I could understand an amendment being moved so that one had more people or one had a division and it was laid down how many were this kind and how many were that kind. However, if one has the word "or" it leaves the matter wide open and the purpose of the Government, which was to try to involve business people in this work, falls to the ground.
Baroness David: I should like to jump at that suggestion. I shall withdraw the amendment and bring it back with the word "and" instead of "or".
The Lord Chancellor: In case the noble Baroness has been rather quick in that perhaps I should say that I was taking it that the amendment meant "and"
106
when I addressed it before, which is probably the beneficent construction. As Members of the Committee have heard from the various contri-butions that have been made, there are a great number of competitors for these positions on the board and I doubt whether it would be the most obvious construction that the University of Lancashire would be representing the community in its neighbouring polytechnic. It may well represent the profession or the university educationist in which case it would be on the board anyway.
The community is not a very specific concept. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made that point when she talked of the ethnic minorities. I can see that it may be highly appropriate in some situations for ethnic minorities to be represented and I would hope that they might be represented among the business people, the industrialists or the professions; or alternatively among those nominated by the local authorities, because, after all, the local authorities are the primary authorities for representing the community as the law recognises it. If all that failed, there is the co-opted membership to use for that purpose. Therefore, there is plenty of scope for proper representation of the community in what we propose.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is perhaps not directly in support of this amendment, but the recognition of the principle that he was advocating was the essence of the answer which I gave to my noble friend Lady Cox on an earlier amendment. We recognise the importance of the teachers in the institutions and hope that this scheme will develop a strong community of interest in the boards of governors between the teachers and the others.
I believe that in such a strong community of interest the business people will quickly learn the difficulties facing the teachers, and conceivably the teachers might learn the difficulties facing business to the mutual advantage of themselves and the pupils. In the light of this further discussion I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this amendment and possibly consider not coming back with another one.
Baroness David: I shall certainly read what has been said and then I shall decide whether to come back with another amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): In calling Amendment No. 239D I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 240.
[Amendment No. 239D not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 240 to 240B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 240C, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 241, 241A, 241B and 242.
[Amendment No. 240C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 186, line 33, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Baroness said: We now come to students. Very many governing bodies have two students at the moment. The body on which I serve has two students and they are extremely valuable members. I hope that the Government will think again and decide not to allow just for one but for two. The National Union of Students feels very strongly about this matter and it has a number of directors of polytechnics and colleges who have given support. At this time of night I shall not read it out, but I have a list of colleges where the principals or directors have supported the idea that two students should remain on the governing body.
In speaking to this amendment—Amendment No. 241B is merely to insert "nominees" instead of "nominee"—at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 242BA, which is linked. In this part of the Bill on the number of additional members that may be appointed, a student is made ineligible. We should like a student still to be eligible as a co-opted or independent member of the board. We hope that the students' case will be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: I warmly support the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is absolutely true that students prefer, if they can—the higher and more august the body, the more they wish it—to have one person to support another. I know that in the past there has often been abuse of student participation and representation. On student union bodies the number of sabbatical officers multiplied far further than it should. Nevertheless on this matter I believe that one should have some regard for the feelings of the students—the actual feelings which they have when they enter a room entirely filled with people much older than themselves and much more experienced in business. Very often they have to try to put a case of some complexity. It is much easier if there is a colleague in support. Frequently students feel most strongly that it should not be put—perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness—simply by a male student and that a female voice ought also to be heard.
Lord Butterworth: I support this amendment very strongly. There is one point I wish to add arising from my experience. It is very difficult for one student when he has to return and face the other students. The communication between the students and the governing body is enormously strengthened at that delicate point if one has two students.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness White: I should like to support the proposition that there should be two students. It is perfectly clear that whoever suggested one student has never had experience of presiding over such meetings. It is essential that there should be more than one person representing the students, and for bodies of this size two would be an appropriate number. It is not only that a student would require moral support in entering the room and support
108
when facing fellow students later on. It is only natural that a student representative would wish to have at least one person with whom he could with propriety discuss possibly confidential matters. That consideration seems not to have entered the mind of whoever drafted this provision. I have had some experience, as have other members of the Committee, of presiding over councils. We know very well that to have a single student shows an absolute lack of practical sense or appreciation.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support those words entirely. Let them hunt in couples. I have known what it is to have to bat single-handed at a board meeting against a group of non-executive directors whose sole director I was. Until I could get a colleague promoted it was jolly hard work surviving those board meetings.
Lord Adrian: I should like to support the amendment. I have just ceased to preside over a small council of the Senate of Cambridge, with 16 members and three students. I found the students enormously valuable and helpful.
Baroness Blackstone: I also have experience in these matters and speak as the head of an institution of the University of London. I should like to refer to one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He said that it would be difficult for a young person to go into a group of much older people, many of whom had more experience in these matters. My institution has many mature students. Even mature students, who perhaps have greater confidence and more experience of speaking in committees, would find it enormously useful to have a colleague so that they could confer together.
Students on these bodies can often make valuable contributions. They have something to add which some of us may not always perceive or understand although we may be sympathetic when we hear about it from the students themselves. Greater representation of students—it should be a minimum of two—in no way makes it more difficult to manage the institution. Indeed, it facilitates the management because it allows for proper discussion in a formal context of issues affecting all members of the institution—staff, those responsible for running the institution and students themselves. I support the amendment.
Lord Rochester: As someone who until recently was the chairman of a university council, I support the amendment. I had thought that it was now normal practice that in higher education institutions there should invariably be two student representa-tives. I certainly found it helpful in my experience and I very much hope that the Government can withdraw from what seems to me a retrograde step in permitting at this stage only one representative.
The Lord Chancellor: That the student body may have an important contribution to make is recognised by the fact that we have made the proposal to have a student. It is said that a single

109
student will have a difficulty in representing the student body among a great group of the more mature. All Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment will come into the latter category. All Members of the Committee who have spoken thus far with experience of being in such bodies come with an appreciation of the position of the single student. Surely that will give the student a fine atmosphere in which to approach the body. The mature people will understand that the student is all alone and will therefore be most attentive to what he or she has to say, giving him or her perhaps an even better chance to put a point of view than if the student representatives were hunting in pairs and relied upon one another for strength. I am sure that the result will be that the student will have much more support from the mature people than if the students are seen as a separate group—two together, requiring to be together for strength—and thus separated from the others; that is, from the mature. Surely it is just as good to have the representation arranged in this way. I do not think that it necessarily bespeaks inexperience; it may bespeak more confidence in the single student than Members of the Committee have expressed.
Baroness Lockwood: Is not the noble and learned Lord overlooking one simple fact—I refer to the majority of Members of the Committee who have spoken this evening—which is that such people have had many years in which to gain their experience? When one talks about student representation one is in an entirely different situation. Students remain in the college for a period in the region of three years; they are not likely to be appointed during their first year, which means that even if they come in during their second year they will probably have only two years during which they can represent the students in the institution. That will not give them much opportunity to gain confidence. The additional representation would help one to support the other.
If one looks at most of the student representation in universities and so on, one will find that one student is senior to the other; in other words, a student comes on the board and serves for possibly two years and then there is an overlap with the student who follows. Therefore, between them, they are able to have more accumulated experience that if there was just one representative.
Lord Butterworth: If one looks at the charter and statutes of almost every university in the country, one will find that there are at least two student representatives, never just one. I think experience has shown that that is much the best and most efficient way of having student representation.
Baroness Seear: I think the noble and learned Lord has concentrated too much on the issue of the confidence of the student coming into the group of mature people. He may not be over impressed by the mature people—in fact, students were not always so in my experience. However, the much more important point is when a student is party to a board decision which is an unpopular one. That is a most
110
testing situation for the student because he has to return to his constituents and say, "Look, we agreed to this. We know you do not like it, but this is why we did it." That is why one wants them there; that is their great value. However, to ask one person by himself, or herself, to go back alone and do that is asking a great deal. I should also point out to the noble and learned Lord—this he will not be able to disagree with—that, although I am not in favour of quotas, if you only have one, you cannot have a man and a woman.
Lord Grimond: When I was Rector of the University of Aberdeen I appointed a student as my assessor. He was the first student to serve on any court of any university in this country. I am bound to say that although he was alone he did very well indeed. He was a postgraduate student but he was not very old.
I am also bound to say that the university represented to me that he would have a most difficult time alone on the court. Of course I had no power to appoint more than one student but the university said it felt that I was putting him or her—I tried to find a girl but failed to do so—into a difficult position, as he or she would be the sole younger person on the court. Nevertheless, this student did extremely well and I think he made a great contribution to the court.
I should also say that the university itself was pretty chary about his appointment and indeed made efforts to have certain business reserved. At least, not they but others further south did, and I had to threaten them with proceedings in the Court of Session should they dare to do any such thing.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that in my first response I concentrated on that aspect of the matter because I understood it to be the main aspect being concentrated upon in support of the amendment.
As to communication with the students, it is plain that the governing bodies will need to maintain good communications with their students. Having a student on the governing body is one part, but only one part, of that system. Other liaison and communication channels are also important. To have a good system of communication it does not appear to me to be necessary to have more than one student.
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for reminding me of his experience as Rector of Aberdeen. When he suggested one student, he was faced with the same kind of reaction we have heard from the Committee. He had power only to have one. He had one. And one was able to make a good contribution, perhaps better than if there had been two.
The experiences about which we are hearing help to dispel the difficulties, based on experience somewhat similar to that of Aberdeen University, that the Committee would at first sight envisage.
Baroness White: Surely the noble and learned Lord recognises that a rector is in a different position to some of us who have had to preside over councils. I ask the noble and learned Lord to take into account

111
that everyone who has so far spoken on this amendment has had experience he clearly has not had. Had he had it, I am certain that he would side with the rest of us who appreciate that one needs to have two students. Apparently there is no provision for even an alternate. It is true that one can have other forms of communication with students; but it is invaluable that the student representatives should have heard arguments for policy which may be unpalatable to students and which they will have to defend before the student organisation.
In my experience most student representatives do not lack a certain confidence when they attend council or court meetings. But they may well lack confidence when facing their own constituency—the student members—in difficult circumstances. As I have said before, it is invaluable to have someone with whom one can discuss these matters independently and in confidence. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to pay some attention to those on all sides of the Committee who have had years of experience in this matter. The niggle of saying we must have a single student representative when all our experience tells us that two are better than one is entirely unconvincing. I hope that my noble friend has no intention of withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Sherfield: I too have had a great deal of experience in this matter. I entirely support what has been said by the various representatives of the universities.
Lord Annan: In view of the various expressions of opinion we have heard in the Committee and without giving an inch to those who have expressed doubts, will the noble and learned Lord nevertheless give an assurance that he will discuss the matter with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Baroness David: I am disappointed in the noble and learned Lord. I thought that he had more imagination. Not one voice has been raised in his support. If he does not decide to take this matter back and say that he will agree to two representatives we shall have to divide the Committee. I am sorry to do that, but it is an important matter.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure what part the quality of imagination will play at this juncture.
Baroness White: You are lacking in experience.
The Lord Chancellor: I could make some reference to experience but I do not propose to do so. However I shall point out the experience that has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. He has told us, as I understand the position, that, as Rector of the University of Aberdeen, he had the right to appoint one person as his assessor to be a member of the university court. He did that. The result was that there was in this distinguished body, the university court of the University of Aberdeen, during his tenure of office as rector, one student and one student
112
only. During that time this one student was able to make an excellent contribution. That is a very important fact. So far as I know, it is the only instance which has been given of a single student, on his or her own, being in a governing body of this kind. So the only really important experience on this matter which we have had given to us in detail tonight is such that the noble Lord has given us the best possible example.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me for intervening. I am indebted to him. I shall make no calls upon his imagination, for which I have the highest regard.
I was intending to say that all those with much more experience in university government than I had at Aberdeen told me that a single student would have a very difficult time. Those people knew much more about it than I did. I was safeguarding the reputation of my wretched assessor, who is still around, because I do not in the least want to criticise him. I should have appointed two, could I have done so, but considering that he was the sole representative of the students on that body I think he did extremely well.
I wish to make quite clear that if I could have appointed two, I should certainly have done so. Everybody with experience in the university said that to appoint one single student to a body of that sort was unfair to the student. If we now have the opportunity of writing into the Bill that we have two students instead of one, I should be in favour of doing that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think that there is a need for imagination here, with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend. This is not the normal discussion about representation that we have had so often in this Chamber where people are trying to say something else when talking about representation. What we are talking about is the educational process that goes on when students represent the student body on the governing body; what all the students learn from the to-ing and fro-ing between the governing body and the students; and what happens as a result in the government of the institution. This is all of extreme importance. Many of us here have experienced it.
People learn from making representations together. Sometimes one is not there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said; sometimes one is senior to the other; the junior one is learning from the other and it makes for an overlap of representation. There are very many reasons why it is better. Quite honestly, I think it is extraordinary for the Government to resist this so strongly. It is not pro-student or anti-student or anything like that; it is just about the educational process in the institution.
Lord Perry of Walton: Perhaps I may say that the rector's assessor is responsible for reporting back only to the rector, not to the student body. That puts him in a totally different position from student representatives appointed by the student body.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I may make a point to the Committee. Every Member who has spoken has said that the view is unanimous, but it is not unanimous. I for one also have considerable experience of this over 20 years or more. I believe that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, because my attitude would be slightly different. It would be: who is the student representing the students? We have had good ones, when we only needed one and that one has made a tremendous mark. We have had two when the two were good or the two were bad. Therefore it has been extremely variable. It seems to me that if we are in this predicament where there is any slight division of opinion my noble and learned friend might consider discussing the matter with the Secretary of State to see whether it is critical for the Bill.
My own experience is that the really important factor which was brought out by both comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is: what is the quality of the student? It would not be his representation in the court, the council or the governing body that would worry me, but it might be the point made by my noble friend and I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that he would have problems in representing the views taken. In my experience, my own students always get round this by constantly abstaining or voting on the opposite side, knowing that they would have no such problem with their own constituencies.
Nonetheless, I am still convinced that it is the quality of the student which cannot be guaranteed. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend might consider discussing the matter with the Secretary of State to ascertain whether it is so important and critical.
Lord Harvington: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has heard all the views which have been brought forward. There has been no one at all to support the Government in the question of one or two students. My noble and learned friend should tell us what is the supreme advantage of going against what seems to be the general opinion of the Committee in having two students rather than one. What is so sacrosanct about it? Is not this just an instance when the Government in their generosity could see the wish generally of the Committee and give way? This is just the type of occasion where a government should give way unless they are prepared to say why one student is better than two when everyone around the Chamber has been saying the reverse.
The Lord Chancellor: We have had a very interesting debate and it would only be fair for me to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to all that has been said, and perhaps when we come back on Report I shall be able to answer the question that my noble friend has just put to me.
Baroness David: If I may say so, with that slightly ungracious—
The Lord Chancellor: It was not intended to be ungracious.
Baroness David: It took a long time to drag that reply out. But having dragged it out, obviously I must withdraw the amendment. But we are very serious about this. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will speak quite firmly to his right honourable friend. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241B to 242A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 242AA:
Page 186, line 50, after ("in") insert ("the provision of).
The noble Baroness said: This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 242B I should say that if it is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 242BA.
[Amendments Nos. 242B to 242E not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 242EA:
Page 188, line 8, at end insert—
("(5) The broad balance of membership on the corporation established in sections 3 and 4 shall be continued in subsequent appointments to the corporation.").
The noble Baroness said: We just want to make clear that we wish to keep the breadth of interests on the governing body that there are now and that this breadth and the numbers should be maintained. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The polytechnics and colleges will be independent statutory corporations. The Bill therefore deliberately allows the boards of governors to amend their subsequent composition within the broad constraints of the legislation. It is highly possible that something that might be called the broad balance may continue but it does not appear right to put any limitation on the boards' independence to require them always to maintain the initial balance established by the Secretary of State. Furthermore circumstances may alter in the future and it may not be appropriate to retain the initial balance in all changes of circumstance. I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness David: I shall think about what has been said, but in the meantime I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 242F not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 242FB:
Page 188, line 20, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph,").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243A and 247A. These amendments deal with the upper age limit for governors of the new higher education corporations which are to be established under the Bill. They fulfil a commitment made in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was agreed that Amendment No. 243 standing in my name on the Marshalled List would be taken with this group of amendments. What the noble Baroness has said will be much appreciated. It covers substantially the matter covered by my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment no. 243A
Page 188, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) A person over the age of seventy shall not by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above be disqualified for appointment as a member of the corporation where—

(a) the appointing authority in relation to the appointment is the Secretary of State; or

(b) the appointing authority in relation to the appointment determine to make the appointment by a vote representing an absolute majority of all the members of that authority (whether or not taking part in the vote.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness David: I am glad to see that a vote representing an absolute majority of all the members is now accepted by the Government. That seemed rather unlikely the other day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 188, leave out line 31.
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 when I moved their twins in Schedule 1. I was delighted when the Minister accepted them. Since then the Minister has pointed out to me two places in Schedules 6 and 9 where the unacceptable and dubious wording also occurs. I shall therefore be moving Amendments Nos. 274ADA and 274ADB in Schedule 6 and Amendments Nos. 276BA and 276BB in Schedule 9 when the time comes. Perhaps I may thank the Minister for bringing those clones to my attention. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government are very happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 188, line 32, leave out ("otherwise").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 189, line 21, at end insert—
("Accounts
18.—(1) It shall be the duty of each corporation—

(a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and

(b) to prepare in respect of each financial year of the corporation a statement of accounts.

(2) The statement shall—

(a) give a true and fair account of the state of the corporation's affairs at the end of the financial year and of the corporation's income and expenditure in the financial year; and

(b) comply with any directions given by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(3) The accounts (including any statement prepared under this paragraph) shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the corporation.
(4) The corporation shall consult, and take into account any advice given by, the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales before appointing any auditor under sub-paragraph (3) above in respect of their first financial year.
(5) No person shall be qualified to be appointed auditor under that sub-paragraph unless he is—

(a) a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985; or

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;

but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
(6) In this paragraph, in relation to a corporation—
"the first financial year" means the period commencing with the date on which the corporation is established and ending with the second 31st March following that date; and
"financial year" means that period and each successive period of twelve months.
Efficiency studies
19.—(1) The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council may arrange for the promotion of carrying out by any person of studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of a corporation.
(2) A person promoting or carrying out such studies at the request of the Council may require the corporation concerned—

(a) to furnish the person, or any person authorised by him, with such information; and

(b) to make available to him, or any person so authorised, for inspection their accounts and such other documents;

as the person may reasonably require for that purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment makes generally common form provisions requiring the new statutory higher education corporations to prepare accounts and have them audited. It is right for that to be a requirement. The amendment puts the corporations on all fours with universities, which are required to appoint auditors under the terms of their statutes, and with the polytechnics and colleges, which are companies limited by guarantee and which are subject to annual accounting and auditing provisions of the Companies Acts.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to two matters. First, the requirement in paragraph 18(2)(b) provides that the institutions should comply with PCFC directions as to the format of the accounts. Secondly, there is a provision that institutions must seek the advice of the Audit Commission on the appointment of their first external auditors. Both requirements were foreshadowed in the consultative document of the Department of Education, Accounting and Auditing in Higher Education, published in October 1987. They form part of the general policy of the Government and of the heads of the institutions that accounting and auditing should be placed on a firm footing at the outset of the new arrangements. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Powers of a higher education corporation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 245B:
Page 106, line 18, at end insert ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 245B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 245C, 246A, 246B, 246C, 250ZC, 281DB and 284AA.
The Bill declares that the higher education corporations and the grant-maintained schools "in so far as they are charities are exempt charities". These amendments, which have been prepared in consultation with the Charity Commission, are essentially technical but seek to put this on a more secure footing. They provide that the higher education corporations and any successor companies established to undertake their responsibilities shall have exclusively charitable objects. They declare that the higher education corporations, the successor companies and, for consistency, the grant-maintained schools are exempt charities. They also simplify the higher education corporations' powers to establish subsidiary companies without substantially affecting the continued operation of the companies established under the Further Education Act 1985. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness David: I find it rather surprising that the Government have had to bring forward five amendments to the clause on the powers of higher education corporations. It shows that this provision was not very well thought out in the first place.
I wonder whether the set of amendments provides a higher education corporation with more powers or less powers to carry out functions connected with the provision of education and any other associated activities. Has the Minister issued any guidance on the setting up of higher education corporations or is that still to come?
Baroness Hooper: These amendments do not increase or decrease the powers of higher education corporations. They are essentially intended to clarify and simplify the provisions in the Bill. As yet we have not issued any draft guidance on this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 245C:
Page 106, line 21, leave out from ("fit") to end of line 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 106, line 22, at end insert—
("In exercising powers under this subsection the higher education corporation shall have due regard for meeting the needs of disabled students with special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would spell out explicitly in the Bill that higher education corporations have responsibilities to students with special educational needs. That seems sensible at a time when people are being made to consider cost-
118
effectiveness. Over the past few years there has been a movement to much wider choice of accessible colleges and courses for students with a disability or learning difficulty. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that this progress has come to a stop. The amendment would help to protect the interests of future students with special needs. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to the provision in higher education for the special educational needs of disabled students. Generally speaking, special courses for the disabled are the province of the schools and the further education colleges. Disabled students entering higher education study alongside their able-bodied peers but they may need special facilities to gain access to buildings or aids to study. I pay tribute to those disabled students whose determination to overcome handicap wins them places in higher education and to the institutions which provide for them.
The purpose of Clause 108(1) is to confer on the higher education corporations broad powers to provide further and higher education. We should expect the corporations as responsible independent bodies to have regard to a wide variety of considerations in making that provision. The needs of disabled students should certainly be one. We have recently appointed the formation committees for most of these corporations. I am sure that they will read with interest what the noble Baroness has said. However, I ask the Committee to reflect on the wisdom of singling out one consideration among many for expression in a statutory duty. It is not hard to conceive of other kinds of special needs which would also have to be mentioned for the sake of balance if we were to go down that path.
A major issue for disabled students in higher education is access to buildings and facilities. We do not need this amendment to induce the corporations to give attention to that because paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 to the Bill applies Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to all institutions in the PCFC funding sector.
The provision of education in the broad sense is incumbent on those institutions. The special needs of disabled persons in respect of that particular type of education is not so much in the character of the education itself, which would be the same as for their peers, but in the provision of access and related facilities and we have dealt with that specifically in paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 to the Bill. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could explain the Government's policy on this matter. Quite recently on the Employment Bill the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, put down an almost identical amendment dealing with training, and the Government accepted it.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I wonder whether he is perhaps taking too narrow a view of the thrust of this amendment,

119
which, to my mind, is not exclusively concerned with access to places of education, ramps and suchlike. It is equally and perhaps even more concerned with the special educational needs of handicapped or disabled people, which is a further question.
Lord Winstanley: The noble and learned Lord's words appeared to suggest that he regarded the present position in universities and other colleges of higher education as regards the provision of facilities for disabled students as entirely satisfactory. I have to tell him frankly that such is not the case. It is patchy and varies. I have studied the provisions in various universities. In some of them they are truly excellent, in the main because those universities have realised that in future they may be short of students because of the demographic changes which are expected to come along. They have found that many of the disabled students are extremely good students who are very successful. In their own interests many universities have gone to great lengths to provide access in the way referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
However, I have studied other universities which have not made that kind of progress. I rise merely to say that the noble and learned Lord appeared to suggest that the present situation was satisfactory. I say that it is not. It would be satisfactory if all establishments raised their standards to the standards of the highest. It would cease to be satisfactory if those with high standards now came down to the standards of the lowest.
The Lord Chancellor: I sought to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I think that my comments also dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Special courses for the disabled are the province of the schools and further education colleges. That is the general position.
So far as higher education is concerned, the real need is in relation to access and the like. I do not mean to suggest that everything is perfect, but we have made the appropriate statutory provisions in relation to that matter in paragraph 62 of Schedule 10 to the Bill. Therefore I venture to suggest to the Committee that the Government's policy is consistent in this matter and that the appropriate provisions have been made in that connection.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, particularly in regard to access. I also thank all Members of the Committee who have supported me on this issue. I am not totally convinced by the noble and learned Lord's explanation that we do not need this amendment in the Bill. However, I shall not make a fuss about it at this time of the night. I shall read carefully all that he has said and think a little; perhaps he too will go away, think a little and see whether he can meet us a little of the way. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 107, line 1, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
("(f) to form or take part in forming a body corporate for carrying on any such activities,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 246B:
Page 107, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 246C:
Page 107, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Articles of government]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 247A:
Page 108, line 22, leave out ("(including") and insert ("and the procedure in relation to the appointment of members of the corporation (including in either case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is a printing error in Amendment No. 247B; the last "and" should be omitted.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 247B:
Page 108, line 26, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
("(b) procedures for the admission, suspension and expulsion of students").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 249A:
Page 108, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) The articles of government may also make provision authorising the board of governors to make rules or bye-laws for the government and conduct of the institution, including in particular rules or bye-laws with respect to—

(a) the conduct of students and staff or either of them; and

(b) any such procedures as are mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above.").

The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 249B and 249C. These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 249B:
Page 108, line 39, at beginning insert ("to secure that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 249C:
Page 108, line 40, at end insert ("are amended by the board of governors,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Transfer of property, etc. to higher education corporations]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 109, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Any property transferred under subsection (3) above shall be in reasonable structural condition suitable for occupation by the Higher Education Corporation. If the property transferred is not in such reasonable structural condition, the transferor shall undertake to put it in such condition within a reasonable time of the date of the transfer. Any dispute between the transferor and the Higher Education Corporation shall be referred for resolution to the Education Assets Board.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Onslow has asked me to move this amendment on his behalf.
Not all local authorities have been the most diligent of housekeepers in maintaining the polytechnic buildings for which they were responsible. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money are invested in these buildings and many have been allowed to deteriorate into an alarming state of disrepair. Perhaps nowhere is this more acute than in inner London. It is suggested that it would be wholly reasonable to expect the authority to hand over the buildings in a state of good order, fit for the educational purposes for which they are to be used. The higher education corporations would not then be burdened with huge bills for repairs and maintenance. Nor would the new funding council be expected to take on that burden which properly belongs to the local education authority as previous and often long-term owners of the buildings. This amendment is therefore designed to ensure, with proper safeguards, that the local authorities meet their responsibility in respect of the buildings to be transferred. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My difficulty with this amendment is to see where the local education authorities are to get the money from. I had the impression over the last eight years, and possibly a little more, that there was a certain amount of constraint on what local education authorities spent money on. It seems that this money in the end was to come from the Government or from the taxpayer. In that sense it seems a rather pointless exercise to land the responsibility on the local ratepayer in this way when presumably the local education authorities, if they are like the education authorities in Scotland, have been desperately trying to get permission to spend money on buildings and have not been able to do so.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in that direction. However, the clause proposes the vesting of these properties without any compensation. The argument for not compensating local authorities is that for the most part the assets now used in local authority higher education were acquired under arrangements which shared the cost between ratepayers and taxpayers on a national basis.
The cost of maintaining those assets is also shared between ratepayers and taxpayers on a national basis and will in future be met nationally. It would not be right therefore in the Government's view to put the
122
onus on local authorities, and therefore largely on the ratepayers of individual authorities, for putting right structural defects when properties are being taken over without any consideration to be paid for them. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment which she has moved on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
Baroness Cox: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that clarification and in the light of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 250ZA not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 111 [Transfer of staff to higher education corporations]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 250ZB:
Page 110, line 3, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: Here we come again to the question of transfer of employment. The amendment seeks in effect to delete the last two lines of subsection (4) of this clause, which states,
"Subsections (2) and (3) are without prejudice to any right of an employee to terminate his contract of employment if a substantial change is made to his detriment in his working conditions".
The words that I seek to strike out follow thereafter and I suggest possibly take something away from the employee's rights and add nothing to the clarity of the subsection.
If the subsection finished at the word "conditions", it could be interpreted as meaning exactly the same as if it went on to where it is at the moment. Alternatively, if you have to add some extra meaning to those two lines one sees that the only meaning you can add is that there is a change to his detriment by the change in employer. Which is the meaning that is intended? I am not quite certain, but I suspect the meaning is that it is just a change of name and therefore that would not be to his detriment. If that is so, one could put a full stop after the word "conditions" and that would make it perfectly clear. That is the purpose of this amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of the words sought to be deleted is to make it plain that the mere change of employer would not in any way detrimentally affect the right conferred by this subsection. I should have thought that clarification was desirable, but if the noble Lord thinks it is not I certainly will read what he said. But it seems to me that it is highly desirable to make that plain.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the only change is in effect a change in the name of the employer from A to B, it is not a change that is to the detriment of his working conditions and therefore the last two lines are unnecessary. Therefore from what I have been taught about judicial interpretation—of course I bow to the noble and learned Lord who has far more

123
experience in that—one looks for some additional meaning in those two lines. The only additional meaning is that something detrimental may have occurred but it is to be ignored. If that is not what the Government mean, the best way of dealing with that is to leave out those two lines, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Is what it means this—that if there is this change there are certain rights that the employee would have had if there had been a detrimental change in his conditions? Are there certain rights which he would have had but which he forfeits? Is that what the subsection means?
The Lord Chancellor: What it means is this. The employee will have a right against a new employer as if the new employer was the old employer. But if on the change something detrimental to the employee is introduced, the employee will have a right to terminate. However, the mere change of itself will not confer a right to terminate, and it is that last point that these words that the noble Lord has sought to delete make clear. That is the position and perhaps I may repeat it.
The employee will have a right to continue as though he had a contract with the new corporation. However, if the new corporation seeks to worsen his conditions in any way he will have a right to consider that to be a termination. The mere fact that there is a change of employer will not of itself constitute a detriment. Therefore, he will not have a right to terminate merely because of the change; he must point to something in addition which is a detriment. I believe that that covers the whole of the situation to the reasonable advantage of the employee. To leave out the last part would introduce the possibility that the mere change of employer was a detriment. The last few words are required to make clear the fact that that is not so.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have difficulty in seeing how the change of name of the employer by itself, and nothing more, can possibly be argued to be to the detriment of the employee. However, I shall read what was said by the noble and learned Lord and at this stage ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Designation of institutions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 250CA:
Page 111, line 38, after ("objects") insert ("—

(i) are exclusively charitable according to the law of England and Wales; and

(ii)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Universities Funding Council]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 112, line 33, leave out ("fifteen" and insert ("thirty").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 251ZA because, in effect, they constitute a single amendment. I feel that I owe the Committee an apology for so much as moving an amendment at this time of night. However, we are beginning to enter one of the most controversial clauses of the Bill and some points can be made as briefly as possible.
I believe that a few Members of the Committee present—one or two are in my eye at the moment—have sat through a University Grants Committee visitation. They will probably recollect listening to a long series of technical submissions asking for money to support, for example, the college's outstanding internationally recognised strength in Near Eastern archaeology; the implementation or co-operation between the schools of architecture and engineering; the Lighthill Report on building technology; and the costs of implementing recent parliamentary legislation on the provision of the animal house.
They are a fairly multifarious set of propositions. If one is sitting in the background and watching the faces of the committee then as the discussion goes around the room one will see two or three alert faces following everything, making notes and asking questions. One will also see a succession of rather glazed faces. One can often tell who is thinking how difficult it was to catch the early morning train from Manchester and who is wondering what is for lunch. However, as one moves from one submission to another one will see the alert faces moving round the table according to the subject under discussion. That is the importance of having a wide range of subjects represented in a committee with functions which will succeed to those of the UGC.
It may be said that much of the work will be done in sub-committees. Undoubtedly it will and much of it is so done at present. However, it is important to achieve a reasonable balance of subjects within the main committee itself. Otherwise major subject areas will be unrepresented and major submissions will have to be made to a body of people none of whom is capable of understanding them. That means that we need a larger academic representation on the Universities Funding Council.
This amendment refrains from challenging the Government's major shibboleth in Clause 115—the degree of lay representation. However, because it refrains from challenging the Government on that point, it is necessary that it should instead move to increase the size of the committee to what seems to me the smallest size compatible with a reasonable subject mix. If that is not done, I do not see how this committee could work effectively.
We have here, as we have in so many places throughout the Bill, a question of professionalism. It is an issue between the two sides of the Committee, or at least between this side of the Committee and some parts of the other side of the Committee. I regret to say that there are some issues where the professions

125
are necessary, simply because specialist information is needed. Lay members of the Committee can make many valuable contributions to it. I am glad to see them do so and I hope they will continue. However, they must do so in conjunction with specialist information which only professionals can provide. If something resembling this amendment is not accepted, I do not see how they can provide it across the range of subject areas. I beg to move.
Lord Butterworth: Perhaps I may try to help on this point. The proposal in the Bill translates the recommendations of the Croham Committee and in particular it organises a smaller body than the present UGC with a proportionately greater lay representation. The committee made that recommendation after considerable thought. There was evidence that while a number of lay members of the University Grants Committee were extremely useful, it was often extremely difficult for lay members to give sufficient time in order to get efficiently into the interstices of the work being undertaken.
Therefore, one of the major changes which the Croham Committee recommended was that there should be a small main committee which would have a greater proportion of lay representation but which would confine itself to the general principles. The small main committee would lay down the main principles. The Croham Committee then went on, in a paragraph dealing with the new director-general, to state:
"We would expect the director-general to recommend the appointment of an executive committee to assist with the details of the allocation procedure".
It was therefore seen that on the executive committee, which would be chaired by the director-general, there would be a full representation of the academic sides of the university and under these recommendations much of the work which now goes on in the main UGC would take place in the executive committee.
Therefore, perhaps I may repeat the point. It was intended that the main funding council should concern itself only with general principles and for that reason the recommendation was that it should be a small committee of which about half would consist of lay members.
Lord Grimond: I believe that Amendment No. 251A, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Morton, is to be discussed with the amendment which has just been moved. I have none of the expertise which was brought to the Committee by the mover of this amendment and by other speakers with long experience of government and teaching in universities. However, as an amateur I have had some peripheral contact with four universities.
I shall speak briefly about such conclusions as I have reached. One of them is the paramount importance of retaining the independence of universities as bodies which stand upon their own feet and are not subject to pressures from outside. Secondly, they are extremely capably run, much more
126
so than many of the institutions that appear keen to interfere with them. Thirdly, they appear to me as an amateur to be the best judges of how to set about the higher reaches of research and teaching. Therefore, while I fully accept that there must be lay representation, I believe that it is extremely important that there should be an academic majority upon the main committee of the funding council.
I appreciate that a great deal of work is said to be taken up by committees. Nevertheless, it seems that the funding council is to be a body of great power. In laying down the general principles it will, or could, exert a very powerful influence over universities. The academics should be in a majority on the council.
I have grave doubts as to whether a university should come any further under the control of business. As far as I know, all universities are extremely keen to be in touch with business and industry. Nearly all have distinguished people upon their councils and are anxious to consult them. I attended the general meeting of the Royal Chemical Association at Kent University: half of the delegates came from industry. Therefore, I do not believe that universities can be accused of ignoring industry. There is a danger that the Government are apt to treat them as technical colleges and may forget the wider aspects and the pure research which it is their business to undertake.
I am somewhat doubtful whether eminent business men can give the time for what is going to be an extremely important and time-consuming job on this council. Therefore, my amendment—and I hope I speak also for those whose names are attached to it—is simply designed to ensure that there is an academic majority on this important body.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he take note that I have just come from a meeting at the City University, which he knows extremely well. City Technology Limited is a company wholly run by the City University; it has just won its third Queen's Award, this time for export. On the other two occasions it was for technological expertise. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The amendment should be supported.
Lord Quinton: I should like to state a case—exactly opposite to that presented by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—for not having an academic majority on the proposed Universities Funding Council. I feel that experience shows that where one has some specifically interested group dealing with government through a body principally composed of representatives of that interest, the representatives inevitably have to serve that interest. With the best will in the world they cannot return to those institutions which, in some sense, they represent and say, "We have taken part in an important decision by the central body which is going to catch a number of people's fingers in the door around here." Inevitably, they have to operate as delegates.
This is absolutely no criticism of them; it is unthinkable, unless they are persons of an intensely self-sacrificial nature, that they should approach

127
their duties in any other way. Of course, their loyalty is to their subjects and to their institutions. They believe that that is what they are doing and they have to work as delegates. The whole function—the sub-text as it were—of the Croham Committee's report was to produce a body which would have the independence of mind and the freshness of view of the great reforming commissions of the universities in the middle of the 19th century. The mid-19th century universities—perhaps with not the best will in the world—proved totally incapable of reforming themselves and persons had to be brought in from outside.
I am not for one moment suggesting that our condition at present is a simple repetition of that. Nevertheless, it is the case, I believe, that the mode in which the central management, such as it has been, has operated at the universities in recent times has been obstructive to introducing major change. It is much better to do it through a central body of this kind which can exercise an influence rather than through bursts of more or less excited legislation. This makes a strong case for having a body strongly academically supported and with substantial academic representation on it but not with an academic majority.
Baroness White: I should like to raise a point of definition. I know that we are discussing amendments dealing primarily with numbers, but one cannot consider them intelligently unless one is reassured about the definition. I raise again the definition in Clause 115(3)(b) of persons who appear to the Secretary of State,
"to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
I do not wish to sound unduly egocentric in this but I should like to know whether the Civil Service is a profession or whether being a member of the other place is a profession. I had the honour of being a member of the University Grants Committee and of being on the governing bodies of four university institutions. I cannot say that I have practised any profession or industrial, commercial or financial matters other than as chairman of a quango and a member of several other quangos. Someone who has had a reasonable amount of experience in public administration in one way or another may not necessarily fall into the categories that are specifically described. There should be room somewhere for persons who may have had relevant experience but do not fall within the definitions contained in this clause.
In establishing the Universities Funding Council it is important that there should at least be a possibility of appointing someone with reasonable experience of public life but who is not necessarily qualified in any of the professions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not reply when I mentioned quangos at an earlier stage of our discussion. Perhaps he can deal with the matter now.
Lord Trafford: I should like to support the comments of my noble friends. This part of the Bill follows the Croham Report whereby the UFC is substituted for the UGC with the deliberate intention
128
of creating a lay majority on that council. It is not the only function of the UFC to make visitations, although I entirely respect the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this point. When he started I thought he was describing part of your Lordships' House, with the various glazed views depending on what it was we were talking about. Nor do I wish to go over the argument I had with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the competence or otherwise of various types of businessmen. We can take that for granted.
However, it seems to me that the strong point here is an independent outside assessment of the progress likely to be made in the directions that should be taken and the funding that should be undertaken. It should essentially be that which follows the pattern recommended by Croham and the pattern that is now in the Bill.
If I may speak to the first amendment directly, I can see no reason why one should raise the number from 15 to 30 because the increasing size of any council or committee is probably a reflection of increasing incompetence. It is perhaps of interest if I tell the noble Earl that my university has just spent quite a long time trying to reduce the council from just above the number that he described to well below the number for the simple purpose of making it slightly more efficient. That is all. I do not wish to enter into an argument as to what is an ideal number, but to increase it from 15 to 30 is moving towards a size of council or committee that is difficult to manage and difficult to get business through.
However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was the significant part of this argument. He said that one should have an academic majority. My feeling is that we should follow the report and this part of the Bill. I see many advantages in there being a lay majority as has been suggested.
It would seem to me that the noble Baroness belongs to a profession simply by sitting in this Chamber—the noble profession of politics. Therefore I am sure that under that, as well as many other qualifications, she would qualify as a member of a UFC or any such organisation. However, that is a matter for my noble and learned friend to deal with.
Lord McCarthy: I would probably agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, than I would with the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, on the case for an academic majority. However, the question is: what do the Government think? They should tell us what they have in mind, because if one looks at the Bill it appears that the Government do not seem to know what they think. They say that there should be 15; academics should be between six and nine; and non-academics between nine and six. Therefore there might be an academic majority or there might not be. What do the Government want?
Lord Beloff: Having been involved in discussions on the Bill for so long I find myself somewhat divided on the present subject in the sense that I think that there are reasons for believing—I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford—that persons from the industrial and commercial world would be incapable of exercising a beneficent influence in this way and that the recruitment of such persons in any numbers would constitute a considerable difficulty.

129
In such circumstances one is often reduced to persons not currently engaged, but retired, and it may well be that the spontaneity of contact with people who are still engaged in a certain occupation might be somewhat lacking. That is one of the reasons why, of the amendments under discussions, I would strongly oppose that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If one increases the numbers one would then have to find even more lay persons to keep something of a balance.
I am also against the amendment for the reason that it seems to go quite outside what we understood to be the purpose of the funding council, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Butterworth, which is to look at general principles by which universities are to be funded so that within those general principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested to us, they can maintain the maximum autonomy. If one had a council such as the one that the noble Earl appears to favour in which there would be an academic specialist in each of the main spheres of academic study, one would be almost bound to have a degree of interventionism, which is exactly the object which he and other Members of the Committee are trying to avoid.
There may be fields of study of which I am ignorant in which any one academic of distinction would do as well as any other. However, in the fields of study with which I have some minor acquaintance, such as the noble Earl's own, I can think of pairs of people, for example, with one on one side of the table asking for money and the other on the other side of the table saying, "Not if you're going to spend it. Not on my life!". This is true of history; it is also true of economics, and of political science. It is wholly undesirable that there should be such dialogues at that level when one comes to allot money for subjects which are largely a research matter and for research councils and where the different interests within a certain subject can be balanced.
On the whole I think I am caught on the horns of a dilemma here and it seems to me, although I should like an academic majority in the sense that I doubt the possibility of recruiting enough laymen to give their full attention to the matter, I am inclined to think that the proposals in the Bill are probably about as good as we can come up with.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may ask what sounds to be a stupid question. We are told that the body will deal with general principles. I am not sure what that means when it comes to acting on a body. There are not many general principles, and once they have been laid down I do not see what the members of the body will do. If they do not have enough to do they will start interfering in things that are not general principles. Are we clear as to what the provision means? Members of the body will deal with general principles and the other people will do the work. May we know what members will do on this body as regards general principles?
Lord Rochester: Although firmly in favour of representation by industrialists, I incline to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Grimond that on
130
the whole there should be a majority of academics on this body. But, like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I am intrigued by the phraseology in the Bill as it stands, because it seems to me that the Government beg that question in determining that there should be,
"not less than six and not more than nine",
members appointed by the Secretary of State and having experience of or being currently engaged in higher education. I await with interest the reply on that point by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Annan: Perhaps I may just add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, said. I think that he is right. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that there is a law by which we must always have academics in a majority in the governance of a university. If we look at America, at those great institutions of Harvard, Berkeley, California, the University of Chicago, they all have lay corporations, trustees or regions governing them. I do not think that there are any academics on those governing bodies.
As regards the numbers, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in that I think that if we increase the number of academics to 30 we will merely have a debate on trade-offs. There will be trade-offs between different academic disciplines. Such is my experience over the years.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention is that the funding councils—we are dealing here with the Universities Funding Council—will be executive bodies. They need to be small enough to reach effective decisions. The maximum of 15 members for the UFC, including the chairman and chief executive, was recommended by the committee which reviewed the University Grants Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham. We believe that that number is right. A body of 30 members, with the number of academic and lay members increased accordingly, would be too large to be effective.
We agree with the views that have been expressed by Members of the Committee with experience of this matter that if we make the body too big we reduce its effectiveness in deciding anything. As my noble friend Lord Butterworth explained, the Croham Committee had in view that the body would be advised in specialist areas by specialist committees and that the ultimate responsibility for deciding would rest with the UFC. It would be informed on technical matters by committees which would be specially appointed for the purpose.
So far as concerns the other amendments, the provisions in the Bill follow the Croham Report, which advocated first of all in paragraph 4.13 that,
"broadly equal numbers should be drawn from the universities and the non-university world".
The members of that committee gave as their reason:
"The decisions of the UGC frequently require the exercise of academic judgments, but they also require judgments about the public interest, about wider economic and social questions, about prospective developments in industry and commerce, and about issues of finance and management. Through no fault of its present membership, the UGC lacks the necessary balance of experience which would ensure that, particularly in a period of rapid change, all these factors are given proper weight."

131
The result of this is that in our view—and this is exactly following what the committee recommended—a strong academic voice is essential. But a strong lay voice is equally vital, for the reasons to which I have just referred.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has pointed out, the Government have not decided whether the majority should be academic or lay. That may be a matter that ought to vary from time to time. My right honourable friend has made it clear in another place that in the first range of appointments he would be inclined to go towards the upper end of the six to nine range for academic members. But he would want at least some of the lay members to have current or recent experience in higher education. The need for flexibility is underlined by what my noble friend Lord Beloff said. It is not always easy to get the best people for appointments of this kind. It is therefore wise to have a range which is broad in balance but not determining exactly where the balance lies in the legislation, enabling the Secretary of State to get a good result from what is available to him.
Turning to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady White, I regret that I did not deal with the quango question earlier. I had been diverted by the amendment to the matter of the community interest or representation. I am afraid I let quangos go out of sight. I think it is important to see the full context in which the phrase to which she refers appears. Clause 115, page 112, line 40 of the Bill, says:
"in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capactiy in, industrial, commercial or financial matters, or the practice of any profession".
That does not mean that the Secretary of State can only appoint people who appear to him to have such qualifications. These are to be included. But when you go to look at the qualifications themselves, they are very broad. I think it might not be easy to answer about a particular quango (if that is still a current expression which is understandable) whether or not all the members could be said to fall into one or other or more of these categories. I think that someone who had been on a quasi-autonomous national government organisation and who had been dealing with handing out grants, for example, to applicants, particularly if they had shown capacity in it, might well come within this sort of qualification. It is difficult to express fully the sort of experience that one is looking for. This is perhaps as good a shot at it as can be made. It is looking at the sort of people whom the committee had in mind.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will permit me to intervene. Would he consider it conceivable that it might include a trade unionist?
The Lord Chancellor: I think it very possible that a trade unionist might have shown capacity in industrial matters. It says,
"experience of, and to have shown capacity in",
so both are mentioned in that connection.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me to define general principles. If I may, I shall leave that to the philosophers, but the intention of Lord Croham's
132
committee was to set up a working organisation in which the top body, with ultimate responsibility, would not itself have specialised knowledge in all the matters to which it might have to direct its attention. Therefore it would be the ultimate body that would have to deal with competition between the various specialist fields.
The amendments that are proposed would prevent the Secretary of State from achieving the results which the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and his committee thought desirable after very full consideration. In my view, which has been supported by many of the Members of the Committee with great experience of the university field, the position which the noble Lord, Lord Croham, advocated and which the Bill takes is the best position in the circumstances. I hope that the Members of the Committee who supported these amendments will therefore feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I may be wrong, but I gather that the Cabinet has about 24 members. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would think that that would probably be a better figure than the 15 that is being suggested.
The Earl of Halsbury: Cecil Northcote Parkinson, author of Parkinson's Law, the Pursuit of Progress, taught that anything over 20 was ineffective.
Earl Russell: It seems that my noble friend Lord Grimond and I without any concerted design have succeeded in impaling the Government on the horns of a dilemma. Every argument that has been put forward against my amendment is an argument in favour of the amendment of my noble friend and every argument against the amendment of my noble friend is an argument in favour of mine.
I listened with interest to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, about general principles, which seems to me to illustrate the somewhat ideological outlook behind this Bill. It seems to me entirely wrong to have a general principle about how many centres of Near Eastern archeology one needs in the British Isles before one has discovered who is doing good work in Near Eastern archeology. To do that, one needs professional competence.
I listened also with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, with his nineteenth century parallel. There is a significant difference there. The nineteenth century parallel comes from a time when universities were finding rapidly increasing sums of money being spent on them and when, with the creation of the Indian Civil Service, there was a rapid increase in the supply of patronage available for university graduates.
Patronage is a great solvent but that solvent is not in very great supply at the moment, which is why restrictions on autonomy are operating in a rather more grating way than they might do otherwise. The noble Lords, Lord Trafford and Lord Beloff, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor all dwelt on the problems of increasing the size of the committee. I have sympathy with those points. The reason why I proposed so large a size was because I

133
did not wish to challenge the Government's principle of increasing lay representation. It seems to me I was too timid. Perhaps I should instead have gone along with the amendment moved more courageously by the more experienced politician, my noble friend Lord Grimond.
I shall beg leave to withdraw this amendment now but if the Government do not accept one or other of these proposals I prophesy that before the end of this Parliament the Government will be back with a new education Bill to adopt one or other of these proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 251, I have to inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 251ZA, 251A or 251AA.
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 251AA not moved.]
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 251 B:
Page 112, line 41, after ("including") insert ("some").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment for the sake of clearing up one point that may be raised as regards the definition of "professions". I take it that they unquestionably cover the armed services, which I believe do very fine educational work in this country.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will look again at the special mention of industrial, commercial and financial matters. I genuinely wonder why they have picked out those areas. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that the provision is not confined to such people. However, they are picked out and I should have thought that some of the things which have been done in the commercial world lately are not the kind of thing that we should like to see in universities. There are other sources of people for the funding council which may be rather superior.
I return to the point that I fear that the Government confuse the universities with technical colleges. They think that they should turn out the people that industry wants. In my view, they should stand back from industry and should be entitled to criticise it. Lastly, I hope that it is not the Government's belief that industry should undertake practically the whole of the funding of research. That would be extremely dangerous. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already said most of what I should like to say as regards the amendments. However, the idea that the Government are not distinguishing between the universities and the technical colleges is not well founded. We have gone to considerable lengths to distinguish between the funding arrangements for universities and those for higher educational establishments which are not universities. That is an important distinction which is enshrined in the Bill and emphasises the Government's commitment to the universities.
134
So far as the question of profession is concerned, I should have thought that the profession of a soldier, sailor or airman was a profession within the meaning of that word in the clause. As I have said, it does not matter all that much. The reference to professions makes it plain that the balance is not wrongly in favour of industry and commerce in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to mention that the sole responsibility of the Universities Funding Council is funding the universities. It is not in the same category as the Cabinet, which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, mentioned earlier. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have given him a sufficient answer on the point which he raised.
Lord Grimond: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 252 to 252B not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 252C:
Page 112, line 43, at end insert—
("(3A) One of those appointed under subsection 3(a) or (b) above shall have experience in a Scottish university and one of the remainder of those appointed to the Council shall be resident in and have had experience of working in Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment ensures that the Universities Funding Council will contain two people who have Scottish experience. The position of the Scottish universities is that they represent eight out of 45 universities. Broadly speaking, if they are represented by two out of 15 members, that will be roughly proportionate.
Scottish universities are, as Croham recognised, operating in a distinctive environment which serves Scottish needs which needs explicit recognition. The editor of The Times Educational Supplement described Scottish university education as operating in a straitjacket cut to English specifications. There is general resentment in Scottish universities, as I understand it, at what they feel is unfair treatment from the University Grants Committee. That particularly applies to the universities of Aberdeen and Dundee. Scottish education differs from English education and that difference is not recognised if the Universities Funding Council is, as it could be, purely English in composition. It is for that reason that the amendment is put forward.
It is necessary that the distinctive character of Scottish universities should be recognised at the point where decisions of principle will be made. As an illustration of the lack of Scottish representation, I have drawn attention in another debate to the fact that when we have a debate on universities in this House, people with experience of English and Welsh universities come out in great numbers. However, there is no one who speaks with recent or present Scottish university experience. The same could well happen if there is no specifically Scottish representation on the Universities Funding Council. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I should like to say a word in support of what has been said by the noble Lord,

135
Lord Morton of Shuna. We are extremely lucky to have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with us tonight because he will know better than anyone of the particular position of the Scottish universities. I would remind him, as he well knows, that they are specifically mentioned in Article 25 of the Act of Union where it lays down that:
"The Universities and Colleges of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh as now established by law shall continue within this Kingdom for ever".
They are therefore in a very special position, both in Scottish life and Scottish history, and quite different from those in England. After all, when England had two universities, the district of Aberdeen alone had three.
The particular point to which I wish to draw attention is that there seems to be a danger that the funding body or the commissioners may take the view that certain of their departments could be dispensed with. I am thinking particularly of Aberdeen. Aberdeen covers a tremendous area and is in a different position to most universities, certainly in England, in that it is the only genuine, wide-reaching university in different disciplines in the whole of the north of Scotland.
To bring the point home, it seems not inconceivable that people who know nothing about Scottish traditions, Scottish life, the Scottish educational system or the position of Scottish universities, might say that the great university of St. Andrews could give up the department of mathematics because after all there is one just across the Tay at Dundee. The noble and learned Lord is well aware that that would be a most horrible thing to do. The department of mathematics at St. Andrews has been a very celebrated part of intellectual life in Scotland for many centuries. The mere fact that there are other mathematics departments in Scotland does not mean that one should deprive a Scottish university of particular bits and pieces, as I believe is now threatened at Aberdeen.
I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will look at this issue now and later in the Bill when it again arises and guarantee that Scotland is properly represented.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna and also the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I speak as a graduate of a Scottish university—Strathclyde, although in my day it was the Royal Technical College—and as the pro-chancellor of the City University, London.
The fundamental fact—it underlies this amendment, which ought to be accepted—is a very simple one. It is that the Scottish universities are quite different from English universities. Their mode of entry is different; their length of course is different; their mode of instruction is different; their whole tradition is Continental rather than English. They are wholly different. The attempt, if deliberate—I think, however, in the normal British way, it is accidental—to put them in an English straitjacket, as my noble friend said, is wholly to be deplored. They have a regional significance of their own which
136
recognises and reflects a regional culture and a long and historic educational tradition.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who referred to the antiquity of some of the Scottish universities. That would not include Strathclyde, my own university, which is a fairly new one, having been founded in 1790 or some such recent year. However, it is a fact that Scotland had four universities for a time while England had only two. They were very historic universities in their way but there were only two of them. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will realise that Scotland had four.
There is one other significant fact about the Scottish universities and their regional aspect of which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be well aware; namely, that in a very real way they are local universities. That is not true of the English universities. In England there is a relatively recent but nonetheless significant tradition that young people should go away to university, whereas in Scotland that is not so. If someone lives in the West of Scotland he does not go off to some distant part to attend university; he goes to Glasgow. If he lives in the south-east of Scotland, he goes to Edinburgh. If he lives up in the north-west corner of Scotland, he goes to Aberdeen. I think that one should always go to Glasgow, but that is another matter.
This amendment ought to be supported. Looking at the benign features of the noble and learned Lord, I am perfectly sure that it will be supported.
Lord Swann: I should like briefly to endorse the comments made by a number of Members of the Committee. I went to Edinburgh University as an Englishman and came back 25 years later as an adopted Scotsman. The Scottish universities are indeed different. The whole education system in Scotland is different. All these kinds of bodies are dominated by the South-East of England and I hope profoundly that they will indeed include a Scotsman.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to support the amendment. I am not convinced that the requirements in this amendment are exactly right, though the amendment is certainly right in principle. I do not think that we have to explain the differences to my noble and learned friend. It is extremely important that when these matters are discussed the way that funding works out in a Scottish university should be properly comprehended. The structure of the universities is so different that the way the funding affects those universities is also different. That is important.
I believe that at the moment there is a member of the UGC who is from Scotland and he finds that he has a lot of responsibility in interpreting the matters under discussion in Scottish terms. I think that point should be considered. It is not in any way an "us Scotland too" request. This is a very serious matter. It is very difficult to discuss Scottish funding without the participation of people who are experienced in Scottish universities.
Lord Hylton: I am an Englishman whose sympathies are deeply committed to Northern

137
Ireland, and therefore I am delighted to see a specific reference to Northern Ireland on page 113 of the Bill. As will be widely known, Northern Ireland is a separate legal jurisdiction from England and Wales. It has totally different local government arrangements and even the central government functions are organised in a different and distinctive manner. On such grounds I should have thought that Scotland, with its much larger population, deserved a special entry in this section of the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: First, perhaps I may say that so far as concerns Northern Ireland, the reason for that is rather technical.
On this amendment and others like it, the Secretary of State has responsibility in relation to the universities of Scotland, as he has in respect of the universities of England and Wales, and his appointments will have these interests in view. I agree that the Scottish universities are different. They are also each different from one another. For example, St. Andrews, the oldest, is very different from, say, the University of Edinburgh or the University of Strathclyde, which had the honour of teaching the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
So far as concerns Aberdeen, before I came to my present situation I had made representations to the Secretary of State about the special situation of Aberdeen. With regard to Dundee, I have the honour of being an honorary visiting professor of law at that university, although in the past month or two I have not discharged many duties there. However, I am well aware of the position of the Scottish universities, and so is the Secretary of State. He has already stated that he will be looking to the Universities Funding Council to set up a Scottish committee, using the power given by paragraph 9 of Schedule 6 to the Bill to set up committees with special responsibility.
The important point is that this council is to be a comparatively small group, as we have already discussed, with responsibility for funding all the universities. Therefore it ought to work as a unit. All the considerations affecting all the universities should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in making his appointments. If this kind of amendment were to be accepted, it would require to be mirrored in almost all the other groups of universities. That would destroy the unity of the concept.
However, Members of the Committee can be assured that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in proposing appointments to the Universities Funding Council will have very much in view the situation in Scotland. I hope that with that assurance Members of the Committee who moved and supported this amendment will feel able to agree that it should be withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he look back to Clause 115(3), below line 40, where it refers to having regard to the desirability of including a variety of persons? Can he perhaps encourage his friend in the Government to consider the desirability of having Scotsmen as well as the other people.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the end I shall withdraw this amendment because of the lateness of the hour. I regret to say that that has nothing to do with what the noble and learned Lord said because in effect he said nothing.
We have been promised a Scottish sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. That does not appear in the Bill. It clearly should. As the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the difficulty is that the Department of Education and Science is responsible for virtually all English and Welsh education, including the universities. The eight Scottish universities sit like a kind of carbuncle which does not fit into the DES situation. The Department of Education and Science and the Secretary of State know education in England from pre-school through to university, covering polytechnics and all the rest. The Secretary of State has responsibility for these eight Scottish universities, but for no school education, no polytechnic and no other element of further education in Scotland—simply for the universities.
As has been said by Croham and everybody else, Scottish universities are totally different from English universities. If you take a group of universities in East Anglia or somewhere like that and compare them with a group of universities in the East Midlands, no doubt they will have much the same sort of set-up. They are all fairly new universities. But if you take the Scottish universities, three of them certainly pre-date the Reformation. They are very large universities. Certainly Glasgow is a very large university, and St. Andrew's and Aberdeen are universities of great merit and tradition which are totally different in their make-up from the other universities.
I must say that it gives no confidence whatever just to be told that of course the Secretary of State will bear this in mind in appointing members of the Universities Funding Council. From what has happened with the University Grants Committee, one does not see anything which would give any confidence. But in view of the lateness of the hour, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 254 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 254AZA:
Page 113, line 4, leave out ("facilities and the carrying on of other activities by universities") and insert ("any facilities and the carrying on of any other activities by universities which their governing bodies consider it necessary or expedient to provide or carry on for the purpose of or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 261A. These amendments extend the definition of activities eligible for funding by the UFC or PCFC, to make absolutely clear that it covers everything that higher education institutions actually do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swann Lord Swann moved Amendment No. 254BZA:
Page 113, line 6, after ("payments") insert ("but not to enter into contracts").
The noble Lord said: My intention, as I informed the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, last week was that this should be a probing amendment aimed at finding out before Report stage what the Government mean by contract funding of universities and other institutions of higher education and what they propose to do about it. Contract funding is a very radical and in some ways alarming innovation and there is a lot that one could say about it, but the hour is late and I shall be as brief as I can.
Some noble Lords may recall that on Second Reading of this Bill I expressed grave doubts about the proposed funding of universities by means of contracts. I gave examples of the sort of illiberal restrictions and, in some cases, preposterously complicated procedures that government departments have recently started imposing on research contracts with university and research council staff. Since the officials in the proposed Universities Funding Council will inevitably be the same sort of officials and in some cases no doubt the very same officials as arrange research contracts for government departments, it seemed to me only too likely that the sort of centralised bureaucratic controls that are already imposed on individuals will, as things stand, soon be imposed on whole institutions. I said that I shuddered to think what would happen to our internationally admired university system if such thinking crept into their funding.
I want to examine the problem in a little more depth. For some years past, the Government have been pressing the University Grants Committee to become more interventionist in a whole variety of ways, and in July 1985 they set up a committee under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, to review its role and work. The Croham Report was published in February 1987 and made a lot of sensible detailed recommendations, but at no point did it suggest that funding should be by contract. On the contrary, it recommended:
"While recurrent allocations should continue to be mainly by means of block grants the University Grants Committee should have unambiguous powers to attach conditions to grants".
In fact, it has long earmarked funds for particular purposes and the whole tenor of the Croham Report is towards clarifying, improving and tidying up existing practice rather than towards detailed centralised control.
Notwithstanding the Croham Report's central recommendation about the continuance of funding by means of grants, a point underlined by a recommendation that the new funding body's title should still include the word "grants", in April 1987 the Secretary of State issued the White Paper in which the central recommendation of the Croham Report was swept away and contract funding put in its place. Into the bargain, the Government say under Clause 115 in the notes on clauses in the orange book that the proposed new structure is:
"in line with the main recommendation of the Croham report".
Surely that is being somewhat economical with the truth.
The White Paper gave no indication whatever of what contract funding might mean in practice. The
140
phrase did not at once arouse the concern that it now does. In May of last year the Department of Education and Science sent to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee a document entitled Contracts between Funding Bodies and Higher Education Institutions. It is not the kind of document that one can possibly summarise and I can only urge those Members of the Committee who care about higher education to read it. Some Members have seen it already and are as appalled as I am. It sets out the nature of the contractural system that the Government have—or at any rate had—in mind. I can describe it only as central control and bureaucracy gone crazy.
In passing, there are some odd features in the document. It contains passages of such excruciatingly awful English that I find it hard to believe that it could have been written by even the most junior of civil servants. Nor can I conceive how senior civil servants could ever have approved it for circulation. I showed it to one industrialist friend who observed contemptuously that it showed elements of what he called "management newspeak". I leave Members to draw their own conclusions as to who thought it up.
The concern of contract funding has been growing, as Members will know, at least if they have been able to keep up with the torrent of protests on this and much else in the Bill that has flooded through so many Lordly letter-boxes in recent months. The reason why dismay has grown is clear enough. There has never been any official clarification of what exactly the DES means by "contract funding", nor has there been any public repudiation of this awful document.
The Secretary of State made some would-be reassuring remarks to a conference of vice-chancellors last October to the general effect that contract funding was not intended to be excessively bureaucratic and inflexible; must not jeopardise the pursuit of research and scholarship; and must take into account the distinctive nature of higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, read out the Minister's full comments at Second Reading. However, the trouble is that what a Secretary of State intends is not necessarily what happens when officials get to work on the day-to-day details, as the DES paper makes too painfully clear.
In short, despite the Secretary of States's good intentions, I have the very gravest reservation about a system which by its nature must inevitably be bureaucratic, must be inflexible, is bound to jeopardise the freedom of research and scholarship and by setting highly detailed plans in legal concrete cannot take account of the distinctive nature of higher education.
There is another facet of the DES paper on contract funding which concerns me greatly; namely, its uncritical enthusiasm for performance indicators. I have no particular objection to the 39 indicators that the Vice-Chancellors' Committee has been bamboozled into listing as more or less immediately feasible. They are all to do with such mundane matters as the university's telephone bill expressed as a percentage of its total running costs. If that sort of thing keeps the Government happy, so be it.
However, the DES paper seems to be much more interested, not surprisingly, in performance indicators in relation to the primary purposes of the university; namely, teaching and research. I quote from the DES paper. Listen to the English. It is concerned with,
"how these indicators might be used to assess institutions' delivery of provision contracted for with public funds".
It sounds to me like a supermarket manager dealing with his clients.
There are performance indicators of a sort for teaching and research and anyone who wants to know about them can find out from the report by a joint committee of the University Grants Committee and the vice-chancellors. They list a dozen or more but one should ponder the innumerable caveats which they list against each of them—and I could add a lot more. That does not mean that indicators are useless. Used with care and a full understanding of their considerable limitations, they have their points. For example, they can be used to correct the almost inevitable but unfair bias in favour of small departments, but used mechanically and with little understanding, as they often are, they can be a very seriously misleading guide to making funding decisions.
It may seem a little far fetched to equate universities with the armed services, but having been in the army for six years during the Second World War I recognise that there are similarities. Any army engaged in a war never knows what will succeed and what will go wrong. It must be constantly at the ready to change its plans.
I wonder what would have happened if detailed contract funding had been in place for all the different elements of the navy, army and air force when the Argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands. No one would have reached there for months, if not years, and when they finally arrived there would have been the wrong mix of troops with the wrong equipment, since the Argentinian forces and defences would have been greatly strengthened in the interim. In short, the Falklands War, conducted by contract, would surely have been a walking shambles rather than the swift, remarkable victory that it was. The time-scale of military operations may be a good deal shorter than the time-scale of academic operations, but the principles are the same.
What should be done about contract funding? I feel profoundly that it should be dropped and the Croham recommendation of funding by block grants put in its place. It seems strange that the Government should commission a report by a distinguished committee and chaired by someone as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and then immediately ignore its advice. I look forward with keen interest to the Government's explanation as to why that happened. I also hope to hear the Government's view of the DES document on contract funding. Do they really believe in it? If so, how do they square it with the Secretary of State's professed intentions of liberality?
Lastly and somewhat reluctantly, because it could only be second best, I should like to hear the Government's views on a proposal put to me by an
142
academic friend; namely, that there should be drawn up by mutual agreement between the Universities Funding Council and the Vice-Chancellors Committee a procedural memorandum of some sort setting out in detail how contract funding should work so as best to minimise its many defects; the resulting document to be laid before both Houses. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Adrian: I do not intend to speak for any length of time but I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swann. Of course it is a probing amendment, though I have no doubt it will be called a wrecking amendment. Indeed, if it were passed it would wreck. However, it is very uncertain what it would wreck because at the moment we are so much in the dark about the intentions of the Secretary of State with regard to the Universities Funding Council and what it will set up by way of a funding mechanism for universities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, we first heard of contracts in the White Paper Meeting the Challenge. If I recall correctly, during our debate the idea of contracts met a great deal of criticism, not least from the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Blake. Both were distinctly critical of the idea. This amendment is designed to elicit a response and to try to obtain an account of the current thinking of the Department of Education and Science on contracts. As we have noted, there is no mention of contract on the face of the Bill and the DES paper which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, mentioned was vague on the issue, to say the least.
At the same time that the paper was published, there was another consultative document from the Department of Education and Science dated May 1987 called The Changes in Structure and National Planning for Higher Education—Universities Funding Council. Paragraph 26 ends with the sentence:
"The Government will make firm proposals in the light of responses to the consultative paper"—
that is, the paper on contract funding mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swann—
"and finalising the detail of a new system of contracting will be one of the first tasks of the UFC and the PCFC".
It is interesting to note that later on that document states at paragraph 40:
"It is proposed that the statutory framework"—
which I suppose is what we are discussing at the moment—
"should be based on the recommended provision set out in Appendix 7 to the Croham Report a copy of which is attached".
The relevant part states:
"To pay recurrent and capital grants to universities, to earmark grants for particular purposes, and to attach conditions to the payment of grant".
There is no mention of contract, as has already been pointed out.
If only as a matter of consideration to this Committee, it is important that we are told what is intended. The Universities Funding Council is to be appointed by, and will be subject to conditions devised by, the Secretary of State. Can we be told whether any thought has been given to general guidance on contract for the UFC? We learnt a year

143
ago that it was one of the first tasks of the UFC to devise the finishing details of those proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, we would very much like to know more about what is proposed in terms of contract funding.
The Earl of Halsbury: I support my noble friend Lord Swann. I wish to issue a warning to the Government, speaking as a student of organisation of pathology. If one has this system of contract funding, the first thing that the UFC will do is to appoint a rather expensive contracts manager who will be a lawyer. In self-defence the universities will each employ a contracts manager who will be a lawyer. The lawyers will happily spend time scoring points off one another. None will give way without instructions from their principals. Their principals will not know what they are talking about and everything will grind to a standstill.
Lord Butterworth: I am attracted to the idea that the vice-chancellors' committee and the officers of the Universities Funding Council should work out ground rules for a contract so that all parties can have confidence in it. I intervene only to say that it is not quite true that Croham made no reference to contract. I wish to quote one short paragraph from Croham—paragraph 5.16:
"Both the grant letter issued by the UGC at the end of the distribution exercise and the university's academic and financial plans as submitted, amended as necessary by negotiation during the process, should be public documents. Taken together, they represent the 'contract' on the basis of which public funding is provided".
For the sake of completeness, I should add that the word "contract" is in inverted commas.
Therefore detailed ground rules will be necessary. It will be admitted on all sides that the new UFC should be more effective in monitoring the performance of universities. After all, universities make proposals in their plans as a result of which they attract public money. There ought to be a means of monitoring to see that they deliver the goods. They should be accountable after the event for the use to which they have put public funds. If that is what the contract means, many people will be in favour of it. What it must not do is to go so far as to interfere in what has been called the distinctive characteristics and freedom of higher education.
Lord Annan: I have great sympathy with the movers of the amendment. When I first heard that there was to be a contract between the UFC and the individual universities I was not unduly alarmed. In some ways I was rather heartened. It has always been my contention that our university system is too rigid and too much geared to a series of arrangements such as the famous two A-level entry. I should like to see much greater diversity in our universities; in some cases open access to a university; in some cases a university that specialises in continuing education. We need to introduce all kinds of variations into our system of higher education.
Therefore, being optimistic as I normally am, I thought that this gave great opportunities to the UFC, which could now carry on a dialogue with the university and say, "We see your future in this way.
144
We wonder whether you will agree to move in this direction. If you will, we should like to help by making a contract with you on those lines". I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not in her place. I was hoping that the Minister might say whether she had perused the document. It is most terrifying.
One asks how it can be so much at variation with the reassurances the Secretary of State has given to universities on this matter, but one knows what happens. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said in the debate on Croham, this is what happens when Treasury control is exercised to the full. The Treasury says to the department, "Department, if you want these additional funds you must make out a case". The department then has to go to individual universities and say, "You must make out your case".
These regulations are the perfect example of the way in which the Treasury puts screws on the department, the department puts screws on the UFC and the UFC puts screws on the universities. These are not merely screws. Enormous wrenches are being put on the universities now. I am deeply worried. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will make representations to the Secretary of State about the alarm this document has caused.
I do not know how to bring this into the debate on the UFC but it seems odd that the Government, who have been so conspicuously successful and determined to privatise many quangos and other institutions, and to liberate them from bureaucratic control, and who generally say that if we are to progress along those lines, especially in respect of relations between universities and industry, we can do so only if we have much greater freedom of action, have come up with this bureaucratic construction of a university funding council with contracts.
I wished to ask the noble and learned Lord whether in fact any consideration has been given to a scheme which is of course the very opposite of a university funding council. Under it, universities would be given a grant to cover their research, with the rest of the money which would normally go to a university by way of grant being given to students in the form of a maintenance grant to cover fees so that the students—the consumers of higher education— actually had the freedom to pick and choose which university they attend. They would get an average fee which would of course be the average for all universities. It would be much lower than the fees presently charged by Oxford and Cambridge; on the other hand, it might be a little more than some universities would care to charge. If one has this provision one has greater freedom of choice and one has exactly the type of pattern which the Government have been preaching to all of us to follow. I am not necessarily advocating this proposal but, faced with the type of bureaucratic control which is obviously in the minds of the department and its chiefs, I ask whether one should not think of another much more radical alternative in the way of university funding.
Earl Russell: I should like to express my entire agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. They have spoken on behalf of a large and deeply

145
concerned body of academic feeling of which I beg the Government to take account if they want any effective working partnership to continue.
Lord Beloff: I must say that I am, like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, extremely worried after having read the DES document to which he referred. It was the understanding of many of us that our anxieties about excessive control by the funding councils had been met by the amendments moved at Report stage in another place. Moreover, one thought that the Secretary of State was now convinced of the necessity to preserve within the scheme of public funding— which obviously has its limitations—the effective autonomy of the universities. One thought that contract might merely be a way of saying that if public money is given to an institution there is clearly some reciprocal duty on the part of that institution to perform the functions for which the money is received. No one could possibly object to that requirement. Indeed, it has even been suggested that the present system under the UGC consists of an implied series of contracts.
However, when one looks at the document referred to and sees that what is contemplated—at least in some parts of the Department of Education and Science—about the nature of the funding and the nature of contracts, it seems to me that the hopes which were raised among many of us by the Secretary of State on Report in another place have now been dissipated.
If we are to recover confidence in the Government's handling of the financing of universities, it is essential—I hope that the noble and learned Lord may be able to reassure us this evening—that, before we reach the next stage of the Bill, the Government come forward and explain that this proposal is, as it were, a piece of bureaucratic flannel which we need not take seriously, and that there will be, on the face of the Bill, a clear expression of their view that it is the Government's determination that under the new funding system universities are to be at least as autonomous as they have been hitherto. Otherwise I fear that the shock in the university community will be very great indeed.
Lord Flowers: At the risk of rubbing it in a bit, I support what the noble Lords who put their names to the amendment have said. It is a question of the level at which a contract is drawn up; that is to say, the extent to which it is aggregated or disaggregated. After all, the contract could be a block grant to a whole institution to produce so many students at such and such an average price each for a given subject at a given level. That is very much like the present UGC block grant system. The UGC gives us block grant. It says that we can do what we like with it, with rather broad conditions imposed, but those broad conditions include an indication of the number of students that we are expected to produce in major subject areas. Alternatively, it could be—this is perhaps rather extreme—a collection of contracts to educate individual students, or for individual courses, or individual research projects or some combination of all those, which would of course bind us hand and foot.
146
I should have rejected the latter possibility altogether as being out of character for the funding of the universities, or out of character for the Government for that matter, had it not been for the DES document on contract funding that has been referred to so many times in discussions about the Bill in this place. In spite of the fact that it will not enter the Bill, we must have some clarification of what is meant by contract funding before the Bill is passed or we shall not know what we are letting oursleves in for.
The Lord Chancellor: The principal power in the Bill relating to this matter is contained in Clause 115(6):
"The Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, to the governing body of any university in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them for the purposes of any activities eligible for funding under this section."
As happens at present, payments may be made by the UGC on behalf of the Secretary of State, subject to conditions. It is my understanding of what the Government propose that the basic arrangements should be built upon existing arrangements between the UGC and individual universities. The idea is that with the UFC, just as with the present practice of the UGC and the National Advisory Board, an academic plan would be submitted by the university in question which it would be the intention of both parties—the university and the UFC—should be the basis of the expenditure. The recipient should receive the money and should adhere to that plan as the basis for the development of the institution and the use of the money.
What I think has caused concern is the amount of detail that was raised in the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, first referred, which I understand to be a document issued in May 1987; that is before the amendments which were moved at Report stage in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Certainly the Secretary of State's intention is that the nature of the conditions should not be of the very detailed kind that the noble Lord, Lord Swann, read from the contracts for research which he used as the basis of his illustrations at Second Reading.
The sort of conditions which would be required in the situation with which we are dealing now—that is to say the funding of the universities—would be those which one would think appropriate for ensuring that the money was used in accordance with the plan which had been submitted. It would not, for example, be proper for a university to get money for a specific purpose from the Universities Funding Council and use it for some entirely different purpose. I assume that Members of the Committee who have spoken agree that that would not be right. It would be entirely proper that the conditions which had been submitted would be the conditions under which the money would be used. Otherwise the whole thing would be a sham.
It may well be that the arrangement can be built upon. That is for the Universities Funding Council. But it is certainly not the intention of my right honourable friend that there should be a vast array of

147
what has been described as unnecessary bureaucratic detail in these conditions. On the other hand it would be right that the conditions should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Universities Funding Council to see precisely what was in issue and then to monitor so far as was reasonable that the money was used for the purposes stated.
That is the intention of my right honourable friend, and the Bill is entirely consistent with that. I defer to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in this matter. Lawyers may waste people's time but I do not intend to waste the Committee's time, particularly at this late hour. I think an arrangement under which the university received from the Universities Funding Council a sum of money under conditions about how it should be used would be a contract which would have legal consequences. It would not be the intention of my right honourable friend that that sort of contract would be enforced in the sense of forcing the university to do what was required. But it would be the understanding that the money would be used for the purposes that were stated in the university's plan. The idea would be that it would be a rolling plan, not cast in concrete or anything of that sort. It would be a rolling plan which would have to be updated according to the period of examination, quinquennial, triennial or whatever the Universities Funding Council thought was the appropriate time.
Lord Flowers: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is aware of the extent to which the bureaucratic detail demanded of universities over the past, let us say, five years has grown exponentially. We are therefore very much afeared that whatever the Secretary of State may intend—and I am sure he intends what the noble and learned Lord has said—will simply be dismissed by the bureaucrats who are demanding more and more detail of us every month. I am also afraid that under a contract system we shall be totally overwhelmed by detail and shall be totally controlled by it.
12 midnight
The Lord Chancellor: I do not know the precise extent of the growth in the detail that has been required and would not from my own experience be able to vouch that it was exponential over the past five years. But I think I am entitled to point to the fact that my right honourable friend intends to appoint a Universities Funding Council made up of persons, as I tried to describe earlier, with a good deal of experience of life as well as of university life. They will be responsible for the administration of the system. I believe the Committee can have reasonable confidence that men of experience in business do not wish to waste money on detail for detail's sake.
Therefore, the stong lay element in the Universities Funding Council as well as the academic element—there is after all a fairly strong academic element in the University Grants Committee—will be a considerable assurance against the seeking of unnecessary detail. It is not the Secretary of State who will be dealing with this aspect of the matter. These are arrangements between the Universities Funding Council and the universities. One of the purposes of the Bill is to set these on a statutory basis
148
with the Universities Funding Council as a distinct statutory body between the Secretary of State and the universities having responsibility for running the system of making payments, as I read from Clause 115, with power to add conditions to these payments.
The responsibility for the shape of the conditions would lie with the funding council but I have sought to describe as best I can what the Secretary of State has in mind. It is also fair to say that one of the matters put forward in this document that has been referred to—Option A—is very like what I have tried to describe. It adds other matters in language which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, I am sure, could have improved on greatly if he had written it.
But, essentially, Option A is very like what I have described. That is the intention of the Secretary of State. I hope that with that answer the probe has at least achieved its purpose.
Lord Swann: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response. It has certainly helped my thinking and no doubt that of others as we approach Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254ZA not moved.]
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 254ZAA:
Page 113, line 9, at end insert (", provided any term or condition so imposed does not unreasonably constrain that university in exercising its judgment as to the best use of its resources in pursuit of the objectives embodied in its Academic Plan.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dainton who is abroad at the moment. The object of the amendment is to prevent the Universities Funding Council attaching such detailed conditions to a payment it makes to the university that the autonomy of that university is seriously infringed and its room for manoeuvre absurdly constrained. The possibility that this would happen seems more likely in view of Schedule 6. I do not know that the provision at page 189, line 36 of the Bill which empowers the UFC to "enter into contracts" is going to be as disciplined as we might expect from the assurances given us by the noble and learned Lord in the context of the previous amendment.
The principal arguments for this view are the detailed centralist control inherent in the Bill which makes universities mere instruments of the UFC and the removal from the university of any real control over the internal allocation of its resources. This could only demoralise the administrative and the academic staff and diminish their motivation for new initiatives which are the only real forces of innovation in teaching and research. The UFC can never have the degree of knowledge, local or national, which would entitle it to a valid opinion at the level of detail where work is being conducted by Nobel Prize winners.
The Lord Chancellor: I yield to none in my respect for the work of Nobel Prize winners. However, I believe that the amendment which the noble Earl has

149
put forward will certainly provide work for lawyers in that he will set up a standard of unreasonable constraint. I sought to explain the matter earlier on the basis that the conditions would be intended to secure the performance of the academic plan. It is difficult to say by reference to what standard reasonableness should be judged in such a context.
I perfectly understand the thought lying behind the amendment. However, I believe that the amendment would not be an appropriate way in which to constrain the Universities Funding Council in the circumstances which I have described. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: Naturally I accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord as regards the law. I should not presume to embark on a discussion of legalities with him. As regards his assurances, we are only in the Committee stage of the Bill. The hour is late. Therefore, while reserving the right to return to the matter later, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 254ZAB:
Page 113, line 9, at end insert ("Provided always that in determining payments to be made under this subsection to any University the Council shall not make reductions in such payments by reason of funds available to that University from sources other than public funds.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is obvious. It is to put into the Bill what I believe to be the declared intention of the Secretary of State. In his speech to the CVCP in October, he noted that there was a belief that the Government encourage private funding of universities in order to spare the public purse. He continued:
"That is not so. We have repeatedly said that we will not abate public support if universities succeed in raising more private funds".
The amendment makes that undertaking explicit on the face of the Bill. I believe that its appearance there will greatly encourage the already effective efforts of universities to raise more funds from industry and from private sources. It would also greatly encourage those who control potential sources of non-public funds and remove their apprehensions that contributions from them, however generous, will in the end only relieve the public purse rather than securing additional resources for the university in question. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Government have made clear, as the noble Lord has said, that they are seeking to encourage higher education institutions to be enterprising in attracting funds from sources other than the UGC now and the UFC in the future. A diversified funding base is one of the best safeguards of institutional autonomy. Some university interests assert that the Government encourage private funding solely in order to spare the public purse. That is not so. We have consistently made clear, and I confirm now, that our annual settlement of overall public support is entirely independent of university success in raising more private funds, taking the matter as a whole.
150
The present amendment seeks to build into the relationship between the UFC and the universities the same principle which the Government adopt at the level of the university system as a whole. I have much sympathy with that. Universities would clearly be discouraged from increasing their private funding, as would the benefactors if the Universities Funding Council abated its funding accordingly.
Having said that, there are some pitfalls in that particular legislative approach to the problem. There is a strong case for the Universities Funding Council to take into account the level of funds which universities receive from other sources in ways other than the ones which concern the Committee and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in moving the Amendment. Indeed, the UGC does that now in its selective approach to the distribution of the research element of its grant and has the Government's full support in doing so. One of the criteria it uses to support research is the success of the research in attracting income from other sources.
Lord Adrian: I believe that that is an increase in the funding which goes with successful generation of funds rather than a reduction in the payments, which is what my amendment seeks to prevent.
The Lord Chancellor: I am just about to deal with that very point. The total amount that the Government pay out is not affected by private funding. That is the fundamental point. If private funding to university X is high and the research grant to university X is higher, as a result a university which has not been so successful in attracting research money from outside will receive less out of the total. Theefore there is an implied reduction.
That makes it a little difficult to go along with the amendment as it stands. From the reaction of the noble Lord and others I think that that is a proper exercise of the judgment. If the nature of research has attracted substantial private funding from outside, that is a very good indication that the research merits support with public funding as well. The total amount is unaffected and therefore, as I say, the consequence may be a reduction for universities which have not been so successful.
Success is rewarded. That is the point. Success in taking in other funds does not lead to a reduction in public funding. Lack of success may per contra have that effect. I think that the amendment as drafted would also catch that. The result is that more is required. I have studied the matter, and the noble Lord may think it right to study it at leisure to see whether the situation is as I have said.
There is another problem about which the noble Lord will know more than I do. That relates to the rather special universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Because of those universities' collegiate structure the funds which are paid by the University Grants Committee to the universities at the moment are reduced to some extent by either the moneys or the services rendered by the colleges. Those are not public funds but, as they come through the colleges, are private funds. Therefore there are also difficulties in that respect. I think that the present system so far as concerns Oxford and Cambridge is generally

151
recognised to be a fair one, but it might fall foul of the amendment.
Perhaps I may summarise by saying that I doubt whether it would be easy to put the proposal in the legislation in a way which is absolutely fair in all circumstances. I should like to assert as strongly as I can that the Government will make their view crystal clear to the funding councils that, like the universities, the Government and the funding councils will want to see a vital and effective education sector. To reinforce that message the funding councils will be fully aware of the highly undesirable effect on future donations if they were seen to be acting contrary to the spirit of the amendment. I hope that at least at this stage that will give some reassurance to the noble Lord. Certainly the points that I have made may be points which he would like to consider in relation to the legislative drafting.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am greatly interested in the reply of the noble and learned Lord, but must admit that I am rather puzzled by it, although possibly that may be because of the lateness of the hour. It seems to me that the amendment deals with particular universities, that is to say, it deals with universities one at a time; but part of the reply at any rate seemed to deal with universities as a whole. I am not sure that those two ideas are quite concurrent one with the other. It may be that I have not properly understood the matter.
However, I thought I understood from the noble and learned Lord's reply that he was sympathetic to the general notion which underlies the amendment. I should like to hear him say before he sits down—or perhaps later this evening—that he will consider the amendment as it stands and not the amendment as he replied to it, and look into the possibility of coming back with an amendment from the Government which would deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend, who has I think responded sympathetically to this amendment, whether perhaps he could look at the drafting of it. We all recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has raised an extremely important point. I share the view of the Government that universities will have to raise private money and continue to do so for so far as one can see. That is an inevitable fact of life and is something to be welcomed.
It is perfectly clear that those who will embark upon the great campaign of raising more money will need to be able to assure those whom they approach that what is behind this amendment will in fact happen. As the noble and learned Lord will know far better than I, it is the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who indeed has stated it on more than one occasion, that private money will not be taken into account in the way that this amendment seeks to prevent. Nevertheless, what is said in this Chamber and reported in Hansard does not have the force of law and it is important that we should have something written into the Bill.
152
I take the two very important points made by my noble and learned friend about where this amendment fails. It may well be that it is incorrectly drafted and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will want to look at it again. Because my noble and learned friend has given it a sympathetic response, I ask him whether the Government will look at this point and between now and the next stage see whether something could be found to give the reassurance that the Government and the Committee want to put the matter right.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: Perhaps I may reinforce the remarks of the noble Baroness. The noble and learned Lord approached this matter with general sympathy. He raised two technical objections to the amendment, one of which I found slightly difficult to follow, but I am very happy to accept his view that there may be drafting deficiencies in it.
He recognised the principle. I hope that he also recognises the importance of having something in a statute as opposed to a declaration recorded in Hansard, to which the noble Baroness has just referred. Governments and Secretaries of State can change. I think that it is very important to have something in a statute. Just as we are prepared at this stage to accept that there may be technical deficiencies in this amendment, will he not accept that it cannot be beyond the wit of the government draftsmen to find a formula which can be put into the Bill in order to give expression to the general sympathy that he has expressed? Will he please endeavour to do that before we come to a later stage?
Earl Bathurst: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and also the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, whether the principles of this amendment will apply also to other colleges, such as technical colleges, and other higher educational establishments, as well as to universities.
Lord Adrian: I should certainly hope so. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the support that has been given to this amendment, and indeed for the sympathy with which the noble and learned Lord has received it.
I accept entirely that there may be technical difficulties with the amendment. I shall read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should be immensely grateful if the Government were prepared to bring forward at a later stage an amendment that would overcome those difficulties and express the sentiments that I attempted to express. I shall also consider the possibility of bringing forward another amendment later which meets the point that the noble and learned Lord has made. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 254A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 254ZZA.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 113, line 13, leave out ("in such manner as he may from time to time determine,").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend and myself. There are a good many passages in this Bill which caused me a considerable sense of shock when I first read them. There are very few that caused me more shock than the words here. It is something which in all ages rulers have tried to acquire: to have control over the flow of advice so that they do not receive unwelcome and unsolicited advice. There is equally a very long tradition of trying to ensure that rulers who want this do not succeed in getting it.
A number of Members of the Committee who have talked to us on the subject of Christian culture could well have looked in this context at the remarks made by Aristotle and St. Thomas. Aquinas on the subject of tyranny. This is one of the definitions of tyranny: to be able in this way to control the flow of advice; to be able to control unsolicited or unwelcome advice. There is a great deal of truth in the principle that in a multitude of counsellors there is safety.
If our university system is to continue it is essential that somebody should be capable of alerting the Secretary of State to the damage which has been done, is being done and if things continue will be done before it is too late. This matter has already arisen on the subject of the National Curriculum Council. The Committee has already been divided on this almost identical point. This is not an accidental oversight of drafting. This is at the very heart of the thinking that produced this Bill. It seems to me that we are looking here at an example of the arrogance of power.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish very briefly to ask a question on this. As I understand it, Clause 115(7) provides that the council shall have power,
"to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine"
which seems rather objectionable—
"with such information … as they think fit".
Does this mean that it has the power to give him no information at all, and no matter in what manner he may from time to time determine, if the council thinks fit, it can say, "It is very nice to hear from you but we do not intend to give you that information."?
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I should answer the second point first. This is a provision which gives the council power to provide the Secretary of State with information. In other words, it gives it an initiative. It is not dealing with whether the Secretary of State can ask the council for information. It is the initiative of the council that is here in question.
The amendment is directed to leaving out the phrase,
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine".
That phrase does not in any sense limit the flow of information. It deals only with the manner in which the information may be given. So I do not accept for a moment that it limits the flow of information in any sense.
154
The Government fully recognise the importance of having bodies that can make disinterested assessments of the financial position of those they fund. There is not the slightest doubt that the Government must have advice and information in reaching decisions on the levels of public funding for higher education. Nor has there ever been any doubt that the funding councils should advise on this, or that the Government will actively seek such a dialogue, as indeed they do now. In fact, we believe it to be implicit on the Bill as introduced that such a dialogue would take place, but, recognising the concerns expressed, amended the Bill in another place to give the councils an explicit power to advise.
But in our view there is a perfectly respectable case for saying that funding council advice should be conveyed in a manner to be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State. Without that caveat they would not be in the kind of relationship with the Secretary of State which the nature of their responsibilities suggest as being wise.
The UFC and the PCFC need to go hand in hand with the Government, with a mutual confidence between them and the Government, if the partnership is to be a successful one. There will obviously be occasions when communications between the councils and the Government should be confidential and others when they should be public. Under the clause this would be considered by the Government and the councils as circumstances demanded. That simply provides in statute for what already happens with the UGC.
When the Government brought forward their amendment in another place, it was suggested in an article in the press that they had broken the commitment that my right honourable friend had given to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Sir Mark Richmond, chairman of the committee, wrote of that:
"I do not agree with your report that Mr. Baker has back-tracked on his commitment to empower the Funding Councils for higher education to give advice to the Government. The wording of his amendment, while less all-embracing than the Vice-Chancellors' Committee might have chosen, makes clear that the Secretary of State will not have the power to determine whether, or when, or on what topics (including finance) the Councils give advice. He will determine only in 'what manner', i.e. whether publicly or privately, this is done. There can be advantages in giving advice in private; it can be blunter. Nor do I believe that any chairmen of the Funding Councils worth their salt will be muzzled".
In my submission, these are wise words and they were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, at the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
The funding councils will be independent bodies. Their members will not be merely agents of the Secretary of State and I anticipate no difficulties nor any limitation on the flow of information if the clause is left as it is. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able in the circumstances to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Annan: Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that this phrase,
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine",
is to be found in many statutes of colleges? It is the normal phrase which is used when one person—the Master or Provost of a college—has to have

155
authority to get something done. It is a normal legal phrase.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, I believe that it is quite a normal phrase, and what I say is that it is a very appropriate phrase in the circumstances of this provision.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is not this the opposite of what the noble and learned Lord said? It is not a matter of the master—in this case the Secretary of State—wanting to get things done. It is a matter of the council having the power to give him something in such manner as he thinks fit. While I am on my feet, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that,
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine",
means nothing more than in private or in public, in which case nobody would object very greatly?
The Lord Chancellor: It means that among other things. For example, it could be verbally or in writing. It could be at a meeting, although the precise manner may not be as restricted as that. However, private or public would be one of the possible options.
Lord Peston: I am less than happy about this matter. As the noble and learned Lord said, I believed that this was a matter of public versus private. That makes a difficulty for me because I believe that such things should generally happen in public. Let us assume that, instead of providing:
"in such manner as he may from time to time determine",
it provided for:
"in such manner as he or they"—
"they" being the council—
"from time to time determine".
In a sense that would provide the partnership referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I do not doubt that on occasion there should be some private conversation on such matters, although I do not like it. However, I believe that the essence of the matter is that it should be public. Even more important, the council should be in a position to give the Secretary of State advice which he finds unpleasant, as I argued in relation to another amendment. It should be in a position to give the Secretary of State advice that he does not want. That is exactly what the issue is about. I fail to be reassured because the paragraph as written suggests the opposite of that.
I may have misunderstood, but on my reading the paragraph refers to advice relating to activities eligible for funding; it does not refer to advice for funding. Therefore this is about the academic aspects of the matter rather than the funding aspects. I believe that it should give him advice on activities eligible for funding but it should be made abundantly clear that it is independently able to give that advice whether or not it is asked for. That seems to me to be the essence of the issue. I speak not as a lawyer but as a lay person and I do not read the paragraph as in any way guaranteeing that position. If I were on the funding council I would not feel that I was in a position to do that, and that is the nature of the problem.
The Lord Chancellor: That is an important point and in answer to the noble Lord I should like to say that the council has power:
"to provide the Secretary of State, in such manner as he may from time to time determine, with such information and advice relating to activities eligible for funding under this sectionas they think fit".
In other words, it decides what advice is to be given. The only thing that the Secretary of State has power to do is to determine the manner in which the advice is given. Therefore the nature of the advice is theirs. He may not like to hear it but he must. The only thing he can determine is the way in which he must hear it. That is definitely so and it is not a matter for a lawyer but of reading the words.
Earl Russell: Sadly I find it difficult to follow that reassurance. For me the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has spoken very clearly. I agree that a dialogue is needed but on this occasion I find it hard to be convinced that one party controlling the terms and forms of the dialogue can entirely be trusted. The noble and learned Lord has spoken assuming a situation of trust to exist. Members on this side of the Committee have been telling him all night that that situation no longer exists. I wish to press the amendment.
12.34 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 254A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dorman of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Grimond, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Howie of Troon, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Hives, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cox, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Swann, L.

Ferrers, E,

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.40 a.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved amendment No. 254ZZA
Page 113, line 13, after ("he") insert ("or the Council").
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dainton, who is the architect of it. The clause upon which we have just voted having withstood all dangers, I am now free not to abolish it but to extend it by writing into the Bill the assurance that the noble and learned Lord has given us about a two-way flow.
In doing so I should like to pray in aid a note which I have received from my noble friend Lord Dainton, who, as I told the Committee, is abroad. He writes in his capacity as an ex-chairman of the University Grants Committee as follows:
"My experience and that of predecessors in the UGC which pertains to this relationship leads me to the conclusion that the UFC will know much more about the universities than the Secretary of State as advised by his DES officials and therefore, the UFC will be aware of problems and opportunities about which the Secretary of State needs advice or information long before he and his officials are aware. As this section is at present drafted it would prevent the UFC from proffering advice and information and the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Council to do so. Again in my experience the need for two way traffic between the UGC and the Secretary of State was absolutely essential to the effective operation of the UGC as a part of the machinery of government. A similar relationship should exist between the statutory body and the parent department. As chairman of two other statutory bodies (the British Library Board and the National Radiological Protection Board) this was also my experience".
I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that a determination is required and it seems right that that should be a determination by the Secretary of State. I do not see that it could be an alternative to the council in the way in which this clause proceeds. As I said on the earlier amendment, Sir Mark Richmond appeared to believe, from the quotation that I read from him, that this was a reasonable arrangement. I hope that the noble Earl will feel that someone has to determine the manner, and where it has to be someone the Secretary of State would be the appropriate person.
The Earl of Halsbury: The point that my noble friend Lord Dainton makes in the note that I prayed in aid is that the council had become aware of situations where the Secretary of State needs advice before he himself becomes aware of them because of the council's greater knowledge of what is going on. Therefore, to write into the Bill its right of advising him spontaneously seems good sense.
The Lord Chancellor: There may be some misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and myself and possibly also the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The Universities Funding Council will have the right to take the initiative. The only question is on the manner in which the communication should be done. That could be determined by the Secretary of State through a much more general determination than in relation to particular pieces of information.
For example, it might be quite right for him to say that he would expect the UFC to tell him by
158
confidential letter in the first instance. If the council thought it right that it should be published, it would draw that to his attention and he would have the right to make that determination. The initiative for information going to the Secretary of State could well be with the council, without the necessity of putting a double determination. Where a determination is called for, only one authority can do that.
The Earl of Halsbury: The hour is late and I think it would be wrong to take up more time in sorting out what may possibly be a misunderstanding between my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 254AA:
Page 113, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) to present to Parliament an Annual Survey of its own activities, including a financial statement, and a triennial report on University development").
The noble Earl said: I hope that I may be a little less controversial this time. The amendment is one on which I hope to enjoy the support of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, as it is in words, as he will no doubt recognise, directly from the report of the Croham Committee. I refer to Recommendation No. 26.
The Croham Committee said that essential to proper discussion of university matters is the free flow of data, especially to this Chamber and to another place. Since I arrived in this place I have discovered two things about the state of debate on this subject. They are both matters on which I shall find it very difficult to convince my colleagues. First, I have found that there exists in this place a depth of good will towards universities that most of my colleagues believed had long ago disappeared. That is a very pleasant finding.
On the other hand, it is a somewhat dismaying fact, and one that many of my colleagues are equally unwilling to accept when I go back and tell it to them, that there is a degree of ignorance, both in public and in private conversation, about the extent of financial hardship now being suffered in the universities. This has surprised me very much. We do not have a sufficiently informed public debate on this subject. It is a mistake that universities should not allow to happen again, and, if this Chamber is concerned about the standards of its debates it should not allow it to happen again either.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dwelt on the importance of private advice. I have nothing to say against that but it is important that information should also be available in public which can be the basis of debate and can help to form the climate of opinion within which policy may be made. As this recommendation of the Croham Committee was before the Government when they drafted the Bill, and as the Government constantly speak so warmly of the Croham Report, I should be interested to know why this provision is not already in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly agree that Parliament will want to know what the UFC is doing. I would expect the decisions of the council to be announced rather as the UGC decisions are announced at the present time. It is provided that the UFC will report formally to Parliament by accounts on the use of the funds at its disposal. The necessary provision is made for this in paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 6, under which both the council's statement of accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report on them will be required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. To require anything more than this seems at best superfluous and at worst the kind of time-wasting distraction that none of us would like to see.
The difficulty of a really accurate and full report coming out timelessly is illustrated, for example, by the experience of the UGC survey for the academic year 1985–1986, which was published towards the end of 1987—some two years after the developments it described. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have read the document. I am sure some have; but I am equally confident at least one of two may not have done so.
However, the situation is that the accounts of the UFC are to be laid before Parliament, with the proper examination and report on them which one would expect. I should have thought that that was the best form of report to Parliament from the UFC, coupled with the intimations which it will make, as at present, of its decisions. Of course, such matters are subject to the Public Accounts Committee, and the accounting officer of the UFC will be available to be questioned by that committee of another place. The one aspect that will not be missing is information about the activities of the Universities Funding Council.
I hope that in the light of that explanation, especially the fact that annual accounts must be laid before Parliament properly authenticated, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am extremely sorry to hear the proper informing of Parliament described as a time-wasting distraction. With respect, the noble and learned Lord has not entirely taken on board the purport of the amendment. It is not merely a matter of informing this Chamber or another place of what individual decisions the UFC has taken. It is not only a matter of ensuring that the accounts are open and above board.
When the Croham Committee spoke of a triennial report on university development, I am sure—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth will confirm this—it was thinking of a much wider concept. The phrase, to me at least, suggests a report trying to indicate whether the system is working; where its strengths are; where its weaknesses are; where the shoe pinches; where there is scope for contraction; and where there is scope for expansion. Such matters need to be placed before Parliament if it is to conduct an informed debate.
I shall, for the time being, most reluctantly withdraw my amendment, but I do not regard the reply I have received as a satisfactory one. I hope that
160
when we return to the Bill on Report something rather more forthcoming may be available. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 254AB:
Page 113, line 17, leave out from ("provide") to ("may") in line 19 and insert ("on such terms as may be agreed, such advisory services as the Department of Education for Northern Ireland or the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 115(7)(c) of the Bill already provides for the UFC to advise the Department of Education for Northern Ireland on the funding of universities in the Province, in the same way as the UGC does now. This amendment expands that paragraph so as to make a similar provision for the separate relationship between the UGC and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland to continue on the establishment of the UFC. Given the aim of clarifying responsibilities, we feel that this too should be covered by legislation rather than being left as a non-statutory provision.
Therefore, this essentially technical amendment helpfully further clarifies the UFC's advisory function in respect of Northern Ireland. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 254B:
Page 133, line 27, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: The only reason I rise at this terrible time in the morning to move the amendment is to make a brief plea to the Government that if and when the Bill is enacted they will make some effort to reduce the amount of administration and stress under which the authorities in universities have been suffering, in my experience, for the past three or four years. It is extremely wearying to be trying constantly to make money go further than it should and, at the same time, to be deluged with demands for returns, and to have to sit on innumerable committees, and so on.
In my view, should this state of affairs continue, the Government will find great difficulty in encouraging people of high calibre to become vice-chancellor or principal of universities. On behalf of universities, I merely draw that fact to the Government's attention in the hope that they will show some sympathy for the plight of the universities.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps the best thing I can say is that my right honourable friend has no intention of unreasonably pressing for information. The information that he would like given to him is information that it would be reasonable to require. I do not believe that it is necessary to express that point in the way it is in the amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it is necessary either. As I said earlier, it is not easy to lay down a legal standard of reasonableness in this situation. The Secretary of State is very reasonable.
Lord Grimond: The noble Lord does not feel it necessary to press the amendment to a Division. He

161
will gladly withdraw it, although I thought that the glimmer of hope was rather thin.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 254C to 256 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 115, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: This is in some senses an exploratory Motion. On Second Reading I said that I was not at all clear why the Government wished this clause to be in the Bill. I cannot say that I am any clearer now than I was then. So far as I can see the UGC system, as far as anything does these days, was working reasonably well. It seemed to be a case of the good old American maxim, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it".
We have heard such a variety of justifications for Clause 115 that I grow, like my noble friend Lady Seear, more confused as the debate goes on. It is legitimate to ask what sort of outcry there would be on the Conservative Benches if at some future date a government drawn from these Benches should enact that because of the high quality of British universities every British boardroom should contain an academic majority. Such a proposal might be sharply resisted.
We are not resisting such a proposal. The universities are taking the line that they have nothing to hide and that there is no reason why friends should not be made of people who are capable of being properly informed, but that if something which is obviously a gesture of hostility is being brought our way, before letting it go through we want to receive some explanation as to why it is being done.
I do not know what I shall do on this Motion. What I do will depend heavily on the reply that I receive. I shall listen to it with a great deal of interest.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of Clause 115 is to define the powers of the UFC, having established the UFC. At present the universities are funded by the Secretary of State by means of the UGC, with no statutory backing whatsoever. Large sums of public money are disbursed annually to universities and it is proper that those arrangements should be put on a statutory basis.
Clause 115 is for the purpose of putting these arrangements on a statutory basis. There is a parallel provision in Clause 116 for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. That in a way is more of an innovation than Clause 115. When it is appropriate to make arrangements for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, it would seem very strange not to make appropriate arrangements for the universities' funding also. The Universities Funding Council is a statutory body set up by Parliament to provide the appropriate machinery for public funding of the universities in a way that is open, accountable to Parliament as an independent statutory body, giving an account of itself by means of its accounts to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee, with proper audited accounts and so on.
It is right, surely, in the interests of the independence of the universities that there should be
162
a proper statutory body whose powers and functions are scrutinised by Parliament and eventually given by Parliament to stand between the Secretary of State and the universities. The universities surely deserve as much.
1 a.m.
Earl Russell: Before the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor sits down, will he tell us that there are no other purposes in setting up the Universities Funding Council?
The Lord Chancellor: There are no other purposes in setting up the Universities Funding Council than to create a universities funding council with statutory powers, accountable to Parliament. That is the reason for it, as I understand it. It is to make efficient arrangements along the lines suggested by the Croham Committee, which studied the situation in the universities. After all, the University Grants Committee has been running a long time. The amount of money now going through it is very large indeed. It seems right that there should be proper arrangements and that is the reason for these provisions.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for that assurance, which I welcome. I shall press the matter no further at this time.
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 256A not moved.]
Clause 116 [Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 257 to 261 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 114, line 8, leave out ("facilities and the carrying on of other activities by such institutions") and insert ("any facilities and the carrying on of any other activities by such institutions which the governing bodies of those institutions consider it necessary or expedient to provide or carry on for the purpose of or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 114, line 9, at end insert—
("educational research, including those non-advanced courses in the Inner London polytechnics which are of national character and repute and whose funding support may be in question after the dissolution of the ILEA under this Act;").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Onslow. The polytechnics in inner London face a particular difficulty in relation to their non-advanced work, much of which is of a national rather than a local character. After the proposed dissolution of ILEA, it will fall to the individual boroughs in which the polytechnics are located to support this work. This seems inappropriate to its character. Indeed, many of the courses traditionally recruit from the nation as a whole. An individual borough might therefore justifiably feel reluctant to provide support. This amendment proposes that provision should be made for the new funding council to give national funding for a limited number of such courses, as appropriate. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment raises the important question of the future of certain nationally significant lower level courses of further education currently provided in polytechnics and colleges transferring to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector. The Government recognise that this is a matter of concern both within the ILEA polytechnics and more widely.
The amendment would have the effect of explicitly including such courses provided now in inner London polytechnics among the activities eligible for funding by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The amendment is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. Clause 116(5) already provides that the provision of education should be among the activities to be eligible for PCFC funding. That is drawn quite widely enough to include the courses of further education referred to in this amendment.
What will determine whether the PCFC in fact supports such courses is whether the council itself is funded to do so. The Government's view is that funding responsibility for further education within the PCFC sector should rest with the local education authorities' continuing strategic responsibility for the local provision of further education restated by Clause 104. It is thus to ILEA and, following its abolition, to its successor authorities that the inner London polytechnics and colleges within the PCFC sector will need primarily to look to contract for their further education provision. The Government, however, recognise that there is a category of specialist further education courses provided in a few centres only and recruiting from all over the country which will fit less easily into local authority strategy for local provision.
The Government hope that local authorities will nevertheless recognise a responsibility to fund these courses as effectively trustees for the nation. Where they do they will be able to take advantage of well established arrangements to recover the costs of students from outside their areas from the students' home authorities.
This is the best arrangement. The Government are currently consulting the local authority associations and the heads of transferring polytechnics and colleges about this matter. We should expect to announce conclusions about it shortly.
I hope that, against a background of these consultations and the fact that further education is already under the terms of the Bill eligible for PCFC funding, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that clarification which I am sure will help to allay the anxieties of those concerned. With that grateful appreciation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 262A to 263ZA not moved.]
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [The Funding Councils: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 115, line 6, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the appropriate Council").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with some others and I should like with permission to just say a few brief words on these amendments.
It is with great regret that one comes to this matter which we think is fundamental at such a late hour. It is concerned with the powers of the Secretary of State and how he exercises them. Essentially all we wish to do at this stage is to make the point that we remain extremely unhappy about the powers of the Secretary of State in this connection which do not seem to be limited in ways that they should be. Therefore I would draw the attention of the Committee and particularly of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Amendment No. 263CB, which states that,
"no such order shall be made".
This is simply a word of warning for the record. We do not expect to debate this matter at this hour but we believe that at some point we must debate it in detail before the Bill gets a long way further. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I note what the noble Lord says and I hope that perhaps we may be able to reassure him eventually. There is a fair amount to say about these amendments grouped together and certainly I shall listen to anything that the noble Lord has to say in due course. I understand that tonight may not be the most convenient time.
Lord Peston: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263B to 264 not moved.]
Clause 117 agreed to.
Lord Perry of Walton Lord Perry of Walton moved Amendment No. 264A:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Councils etc. with regard to institutions of higher education.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of—

(a) the Universities Funding Council in respect of the universities;

(b) the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in respect of higher education corporations;

(c) the Secretary of State in respect of institutions of higher education funded directly by the Department of Education and Science,

to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring that the institutions are enabled to satisfy the requirements of this section.
(2) Each institution of higher education shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this section if it—

(a) provides courses of study leading to first degrees at academically acceptable standards together with such other qualifications as may be agreed;

(b) provides facilities for its staff to maintain academically acceptable standards of scholarship and research;

(c) provides opportunities for continuing education and training in the subjects of its curriculum at the higher education level to meet the needs of local society and industry;

(d) maintains freedom for its staff to teach and publish without interference.").

The noble Lord said: This is an attempt at a very general amendment. I was not very happy with the wording that I produced. The past five hours have

165
made me even more unhappy. On the other hand, I think it is important to say a few words about the amendment.
There is very little in this Bill to indicate what the funding councils are expected to do. There is a great deal in the Croham Report, in the White Paper and in many other government documents, but in the Bill all that is said in Clauses 15 and 16 in relation to the powers and functions of the funding councils—I paraphrase it—is that they are responsible for administering funds to support activities eligible for funding, and the eligible activities are defined simply as the provision of education and the undertaking of research. That is a very loose description of what the funding council should do. There is no indication of the kind of education required, the standard or its level. There is no indication of the standard of research.
It is very difficult to spell out such things in statutes. But, as I have said, the present wording is so loose as to be almost meaningless. I think that that is one of the causes of the fears which have been widely expressed in the academic and research world. There are many who have little trust in the Government's commitment to high standards of scholarship and research. There are also worries that any future government may interpret the Act in any way they choose.
Up to now there has been no statutory requirement on government in relation to higher education. However, the UGC and the NAB are not statutory bodies and the funding councils are. Should that not mean that the duties of the new statutory bodies should be defined by statute in a tighter way than the present clauses provide? That is the purpose of the amendment. It is modelled on Clause 1 of the Bill and lays upon the funding councils duties to fund the institutions so as to ensure that they can fulfil four functions. The first two are similar to the functions already incorporated in Clauses 115 and 116. The only significant difference is that, under the amendment, teaching, scholarship and research would have to be funded to,
"academically acceptable standards".
That is also a vague and imprecise term. However, it is no more vague and imprecise than the present wording and it would allow argument to be brought from both home and abroad as to what is academically acceptable.
The third function relates to continuing education, which is the subject of another amendment. The fourth function is my own rather inadequate attempt to ensure that academic freedom is maintained without actually defining it. I am no parliamentary draftsman. No doubt any competent draftsman would drive a coach and horses through my amendment. My purpose in moving it is to persuade the Government to produce an alternative which will accomplish, at least in part, what I hope will appeal to the Committee as a reasonable proposal; namely, that Parliament and not just the Government should have something to say in the Act about what the new funding council should do. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendments and I shall address particularly that part of the amendment which deals with continuing education. Like the noble Lord, Lord Perry, I expressed my disappointment at the Second Reading of the Bill that continuing education did not seem to feature to any considerable degree. The value of the two amendments before us is that they place continuing education as a central objective of higher education in this country. They give continuing education a statutory basis.
The second amendment also requires the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate provision is available and that a new council is established for that purpose. On a number of occasions we have debated the importance of continuing education. We have debated it on the basis both of economic and demographic factors. We have had several excellent reports on the subject, including the reports from the UGC and the NAB. The fact remains that little has been done and continuing education is still regarded as the Cinderella of our higher education system, particularly in the university sector.
What little progress has been made in expanding continuing education has been achieved despite Government and public funding policy for continuing education. I think that there are a number of disincentives to universities to embark upon a comprehensive programme of continuing education. If one looks, for instance, at the provision of part-time courses in universities, one finds that, although the funding for full-time equivalent is the same for part-time degree students as for full-time degree students, there is nevertheless a financial disincentive because it is more expensive to educate part-time students. It is more expensive for the institution to provide for part-time students than for full-time students. Therefore universities do not make such provision.
Having said that, so far as concerns the country as a whole, it is economical to provide part-time education because statutory grants are not provided for students in part-time education. That raises a quite different problem, and a problem particularly for women. But the fact remains that at the moment, for the nation as a whole, it is more economic to provide part-time education.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the provision of the pick-up programmes has been the Government's major contribution to continuing education. Yet if we examine what is happening under the pick-up scheme we find that there is a plethora of short-term projects, short-term funding and short-term jobs. There is no opportunity for universities to plan targets for continuing education on a long-term basis. Therefore again there is a disincentive for the universities in this field.
While, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has said, the wording may not be perfect, I hope that the Government will accept the principle behind the two amendments, which is to provide the necessary framework for making continuing education one of the major objectives in our higher education system.
The Lord Chancellor: On behalf of the Government I sympathise with the sentiments behind the

167
amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. At the heart of the amendments lies the noble Lord's commitment to continuing education. Perhaps I should say his continuing commitment to continuing education, to which he has already made very important contributions, for example, as Vice-Chancellor of the Open University for I think as long as 11 years and most recently as chairman of the Standing Committee on Continuing Education set up jointly by the UGC and the National Advisory Board. I know that it provides valuable advice to institutions and more widely.
Having said that, I have to emphasise, first of all, that there is a good deal that I could say so far as concerns the amendment, which seeks to set standards. Perhaps for tonight I should merely say that the way it is phrased suggests that the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council would have the duty of deciding what are academically acceptable standards of scholarship and research. In a sense, that appears to me to run counter to the idea of the freedom of the universities and colleges to decide what their standards ought to be.
I think I am right in saying that all the institutions that would be funded—certainly all the universities—will have the purposes of the university stated in their founding documents. It is from that that the standard is set. Therefore it is sufficient that the funding council should have power to fund such an institution on conditions, because it is then to be supposed that the money will be applied to the purposes of the institution. Those purposes will be to reach what the institution decides are academically acceptable standards.
So far as concerns continuing education, even at the higher education level, for example, the spectrum of provision for students returning to education after a period of employment or time spent otherwise could not be much wider, ranging from short vocational courses that are often provided on a local basis as a result of collaboration between individual institutions and individual companies to conventional full-time or part-time degrees provided nationally for postgraduate courses or research.
Given that range of provision, how is it possible to disentangle continuing higher education from the rest of higher education, which would be necessary if the UFC and the PCFC were to fund the latter and the continuing Education Commission the former? I simply do not believe that the institution could operate or be expected to operate in a way that would allow that. The proper method of providing for continuing education is as part of these provisions, which are broader than continuing education but which include it.
The noble Baroness referred to imperfections in the present arrangements for continuing education, but the Government believe that the best interests of continuing education are served by retaining diverse arrangements which arise from the diverse needs for continuing education and the diverse circumstances in which it would be required. Our higher education institutions already have suitable statements of
168
purpose which effectively cover all that lies behind these amendments. One of the strengths of our higher education is that it is only partly overseen and can expect to be more productive because it is not too tightly controlled.
I think that the sentiment that has run through much of our discussion tonight and also the Second Reading debate is that of freedom for the universities and institutions of higher education so that they may respond responsibly without statutory impositions to the needs that are expressed to them. That is the philosophy behind the Bill and I hope that, with the needs of continuing education very much in their minds, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will see that as the best way forward. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Perry of Walton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. Before withdrawing the amendments I should like to make one point on each of them. First, the fear that is rampant in many quarters in the academic and research worlds is not that the funding councils will define acceptable academic standards for the universities but that they will not fund the universities at a level that the universities decide is academically adequate or that other people will so decide.
I said that the wording I used was probably very bad and that one could drive a coach and horses through it, but I should like to feel that the Government will come back with better wording that covers the points that I have been trying to make.
In relation to continuing education, the idea behind my amendment was that the funding council should be responsible at least in part for creating the commission, and that it would work in parallel with the funding councils and give statutory authority to the non-statutory standing committee that I have had the privilege of chairing for the past few years. I am quite sure that in the new situation a similar committee is very badly needed. That could be created without a statutory authority, but it would be very much more effective, and have much more power to its elbow, if it were so created under the statute.
At the moment I am happy to withdraw both amendments but I should like to retain the right to come back later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264B to 264D not moved.]
Clauses 118 to 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Schemes for financing locally funded further and higher education]:
[Amendments Nos. 264E to 264G not moved.]
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Preparation and imposition of further and higher education funding schemes]:
[Amendment No. 264H not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Replacement and variation of further and higher education funding schemes]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 264J:
Page 121, line 1. leave out ("Subsection") and insert ("Subsection (4) and").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 264K. Amendment No. 264J relates to the duty of local education authorities to consult about any changes to schemes. As Clause 123 is drafted, the duty contained in Clause 122, which requires that the local education authority must consult the governing bodies of all colleges when drawing up a scheme, would also apply whenever the local education authority subsequently wanted to make a minor change to the scheme. In some cases this would be excessive. The proposed change might be wholly trivial or technical. It would not make sense to require a full-scale consultation exercise with all colleges before the change could be made.
The effect of this amendment is therefore to disapply the requirement to consult governing bodies about minor variations to schemes. This does not of course prevent a local education authority from carrying out whatever consultation it sees fit about such changes; but that will be a matter for its judgment. The duty to consult governing bodies about all variations to schemes will remain.
The further amendment concerns the arrangements for notifying my right honourable friend of minor changes to schemes. At present Clause 123 provides that where a local education authority wants to make a minor change to its scheme, it can do so without getting the Secretary of State's approval. But it has to send brief particulars of the change to the Secretary of State; and if the Secretary of State judges it necessary he may ask for full particulars of the change; and it will be for him to determine whether any proposed change does in fact count as minor or not.
These amendments will increase the ease with which any necessary changes can be made to schemes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 264K:
Page 121, line 12, after ("State") insert ("before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which he receives notification under subsection (7) above of the authority's proposal,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Further and higher education funding schemes: determination of budget share]:
[Amendment No. 264L not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clauses 126 to 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Delegation of powers as to appointment and dismissal of staff]:
[Amendments Nos. 264M and 264N not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 126, line 17, leave out ("teaching and non-teaching").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 265 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 266 and 267 which are designed to clarify the powers which governing bodies have to determine what staff are needed for the purposes of each college.
The delegation of powers over staffing matters from local education authorities to governing bodies is an essential part of the delegation package. Without that financial delegation would have little meaning. We want governing bodies to be able to manage colleges. The staff, both teaching and non-teaching, are by far the most important resource of any college. The power to manage must therefore include the power to manage the staff. This principle is already clear in Clause 130, and we feel that we should put beyond doubt exactly what key powers we expect governing bodies to have in this area. Similar amendments were added last week dealing with the appointment of non-teaching staff in schools with financial delegation.
Amendment No. 266 specifies what discretion the governing body should have over the duties, hours of work, grading and remuneration of staff. As I said, it is a key part of delegation that governing bodies should be able to manage staffing matters effectively. These amendments help to clarify the allocation responsibilities in this area and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 265A:
Page 126, line 19, after (institution") insert ("having regard to any guidance issued by the authority as to the appropriate level of its complement").
The noble Lord said: Very briefly I should like to reiterate a point that I made earlier. This and the related amendments grouped with it give us considerable concern about the employment of staff and employing practices. They are down essentially to get a degree of clarification, but they require fuller treatment than we could make available at this hour. Therefore I simply give notice on behalf of myself and my friends that we think this is a rather important part of the Bill and we shall wish to scrutinise it further on Report. I shall therefore not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 265A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 265B not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 126, line 20 after ("authority") insert—
("(ii) to determine the duties to be performed by members of the staff (including, in the case of part-time staff, their hours of work) and the grading (according to the scale of grades currently applicable in relation to employment with the authority) of both full-time and part-time posts at the institution; and

171
(iii) to exercise any discretion of the authority with respect to the remuneration to be paid to any person appointed by the authority in accordance with paragraph (b) below.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 266A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert ("on such terms, in the case of each appointment, as to give effect, so far as relates to any matter which by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii) above falls to be decided by the governing body, to any decisions of the governing body in relation to any such matters which are applicable in relation to that appointment.
(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a)(iii) above, the authority are to be regarded as having a discretion with respect to the remuneration to be paid to a person appointed to a post at any such institution if any provisions regulating the rates of remuneration or allowances payable to persons in the authority's employment either—

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

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 267A to 267D not moved.]
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 131 and 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Provision required in instrument and articles of government]:
[Amendments Nos. 267E to 268ZB not moved.]
Clause 133 agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Variation of trust deeds, etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 268ZC:
Page 134, line 43, leave out from ("institution") to end of line 46 and insert ("becomes an institution within the PCFC funding sector or a grant-aided institution, have effect as if the event referred to were the institution's ceasing to be a publicly funded institution.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a tidying-up amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 268ZD:
Page 135, line 7, at end insert—
("(5A) In that subsection "publicly funded institution" means an institution which is an institution of any one or more of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(a) an institution maintained or assisted by a local education authority;

(b) an institution within PCFC funding sector; and

(c) a grant-aided institution.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 138 and 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 268ZE:
Page 136, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("excluding sections 115 and 117").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee long. This is a purely technical amendment introduced for purposes of clarification. It concerns the application of Schedule 7, which determines the full-time equivalent in relevant
172
numbers of institutions which accept part-time students. I understand that this schedule was deemed necessary in order to determine the funding arrangements at polytechnics and colleges and further and higher education institutions maintained by local authorities. The schedule was not intended to apply to universities or to the operations of the Universities Funding Council. I have with me a copy of a letter from a senior official of the Department of Education and Science to the Master of Birkbeck College making that point quite explicitly.
Unfortunately, the schedule uses more than once the phrase "any educational institution", and the interpretation clause, Clause 140, uses the phrase "any institution". The result is that it appears to apply to universities after all. The difficulty is easily resolved by making it clear that Schedule 7 does not apply to institutions which in future will be funded by the Universities Funding Council. That is the sole purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that there is some misunderstanding about the significance of the mode of attendance weightings in Schedule 7 to the Bill. I should like to try to put the true position on record.
Schedule 7 has an important but very limited role. The formula it contains for calculating full-time equivalent student numbers is used in the Bill for just two purposes: first, to determine which institutions qualify for the PCFC-funded sector; and, secondly, to determine which LEA-maintained colleges are required to receive financial delegation. Those provisions are activated by the numbers of full-time equivalent students, so clearly the Bill must spell out somewhere what is meant by the term full-time equivalent enrolment numbers where it is used in Part II of the Bill.
That is the purpose of Schedule 7 and it has no effect beyond that. The schedule certainly has no influence on decisions about the provision and funding of full-time and part-time courses in any particular university or college. There is nothing in Clauses 115 or 117—or in Schedule 6—which imposes an obligation on the UFC to exercise its powers by reference to full-time equivalent enrolment numbers as defined in Schedule 7.
It is a duty of that kind that would bring Schedule 7 into the UFC' s ambit, if that were the intention. Consequently, I see no need for the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that no amendment is required to produce that effect. I know that it is a late hour at which to ask him to do so, and maybe we both should look at the matter again. However, it is my understanding that the issue does not come into the obligations of the UFC and that the concern is misplaced.
Lord Flowers: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the assurance that Schedule 7 does not apply to universities and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 140 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before two o'clock.