Lords Sitting of 17 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.

Hazardous Waste: Importation
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking or intend to take to control the importation of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, at present the import of special waste is controlled through a consignment note raised when the shipment is landed in the United Kingdom. It is intended to lay regulations in Parliament before the Summer Recess to implement the EC Directive on the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste which will strengthen these provisions.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that forthcoming reply and ask him to accept from me that there is widespread concern about this matter. There have been allegations that our regulations are among the slackest in Western Europe. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will pursue this matter with the utmost urgency. Perhaps I may have his assurance that it will be so dealt with.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl and the House that our standards are not the slackest in Europe. We take great care, and it is up to the waste disposal authority to ensure that the standards are maintained and implemented in accordance with the legislation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the authority is subject to the planning laws of this country and to the activities of local planning authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right, in that when an application is made to dispose of waste by landfill, then there is the planning aspect to be taken into account.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how in 1981 we imported 40,000 tonnes of toxic waste, and yet in 1986 to 1987 this has risen to 400,000 tonnes? Can the Minister explain why some countries find it preferable and cheaper to export their waste to this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the import of special waste in 1986 was 3.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom special waste arising. That is 53,000 tonnes which was imported. It is a specialist industry. We
178
have a great deal of experience and are exporting a specialist and knowledgeable way of handling it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, are the figures which the Minister is giving us exclusive or inclusive of nuclear waste?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, exclusive.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are now reports of imported hazardous waste going to landfill with co-disposal? Is the noble Earl also aware that a committee of this House strongly recommended that imported hazardous waste should not go to landfill? Further, is he aware that that waste will now have to be monitored for at least 25 years by local authorities at the expense of the ratepayer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if there are allegations that imported waste is going straight to landfill without being treated, and if any of your Lordships bring such allegations to my attention, that is something I shall look into.

Construction Industry: Apprentice Training
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the Construction Industry Training Board to report on the training of apprentices for the industry.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Ministers received a report last week on the board's action plan on skill shortages which included news that in the last financial year it had recruited 22,000 first year YTS trainees (the majority of whom will be apprentices) under its own managing agency, exceeding the target agreed with Ministers last year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am grateful for that reply as are other people involved in the building industry, both in the public and private sectors? However, he must be aware of the number of bodies involved in the building industry which have expressed deep concern about the future provision of skilled men in the industry, and that there may not be sufficient to carry out the necessary redevelopment programmes in our cities. May I ask the Minister whether the Government will keep the matter under review, to prevent any slip backwards in what looks like a very welcome progression towards the objectives which we so desire?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on skill shortages, evidence suggests that the shortages are concentrated in certain occupations and areas of the country. For example in London and the South East the CITB is researching particular problems of attracting youngsters into construction and will be reporting this summer.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us who have experience of these matters happen to know that the CITB is an example of what a training board should be about? Its work in the past has been quite dramatic and brilliant. Can the Minister tell me how close are the links between the CITB and the Manpower Services Commission? What sort of co-operation is there, and what plans are there to extend what the CITB is doing across the country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the CITB is one of half a dozen or so industry training boards and the main driving force behind the CITB are the employers in the industry concerned. However, the Government are playing their part by providing some £150 million towards the costs of the YTS scheme to which I have referred.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the accident rates in the construction industry are unacceptably high? Does he not also agree that adequate training could make some contribution towards diminishing those statistics? Can he give the House an assurance that health and safety training will have a special place in training in this industry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree, of course, that the industry is no place for untrained cowboys. That is why the role of the CITB is so important. I welcome the favourable comments that have been made about the board's activities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when his ministerial colleague, Mr. David Trippier, met members of the Federation of Master Builders earlier this year, he warmly applauded their idea that apprentices should be apprenticed to the industry and not to individual companies? Will the Minister comment on that? Further, will the Minister acknowledge that many of the skilled employees in the construction industry are now self-employed? What is the Minister doing to encourage larger companies to assist in the training of more skilled workpeople?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the main impetus behind the training needed for this industry, as it is for others, comes from the employers themselves through the medium of this training board. Clearly their activities have not been without success—witness the encouraging figures I was able to report earlier.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister must be aware that doubts have been expressed about the training schemes under the CITB and YTS which are of only two years' duration. Those involved in the industry have expressed the view that, in order to produce a finished product that period is on the short side. They feel that three years would be more in keeping with producing a skilled operative. Will the Minister keep that situation under review and, if necessary, make a change when time and resources allow?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is, of course, important that whatever training is provided is
180
relevant to the needs of the industry concerned. The length of training is not the only factor to be taken into account. It is also important that the young people concerned acquire the right skills.

The Independent Living Fund
2.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in setting up the Independent Living Fund to help severely disabled people deal with problems arising from the operation of the Social Security Act 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the fund's eligibility criteria were announced on 31st March. The trust deed is in the final stages of preparation and will be sent to the Charity Commissioners for registration imminently. We hope that the fund will be formally constituted within a few weeks. An announcement will of course be made when that has been achieved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that this is a very unsatisfactory situation? The Government have been warned virtually since 1985, when they first produced the Green Paper on social security reform, of the problems of the severely disabled, and in February last they finally announced the proposal for the Independent Living Fund. It was supposed to have been in action since 11th April, but here we are in May and we still do not know when this fund is to start operating. Will the Minister tell the House whether the severely disabled people who would have been eligible for grants from 11th April—and who, incidentally, will receive a lot less in benefit under the new Act than they would have done before 11th April, and are relying on this fund to make up the difference—
Noble Lords: Order! Too long!
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether those disabled persons are being helped and, if so, how?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not accept that this is an unsatisfactory situation. The Government recognised that after 11th April there would be a small number of newly severely disabled people who would fit into the categories and who would not receive the same pro rata amount of benefit from the social security changes as they would have done had they become disabled before that date.
The interim arrangements for the fund might interest the noble Lord. The number of application forms sent out to named individuals was 102, and the number of completed application forms so far returned is 48. A number of social worker visits to the applicants have been arranged, and two reports have been received from them. That is the information as of last night. Moreover, we have now authorised the first payments under the interim arrangements, which will be back-dated to 11th April.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a very responsible and heavy task for the Disablement Income Group, which I helped to found in the mid-1960s? While the group is to be congratulated on having accepted it, is my noble friend satisfied that it has the framework of organisation to deal with applications without assistance, and also set up any appeal system that may be necessary?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I of course pay great tribute to my noble friend for his involvement in setting up the Disablement Income Group. However, I have to say that the scheme will not be run by it. The trust will be totally independent. The DIG's role is to be involved in setting up the trust, and we are extremely grateful to that organisation for its advice in so doing. There will of course be DIG-nominated trustees, but the day-to-day administration will be carried out by the trust fund's executive arm.
As regards appeals, I have no doubt that although the day-to-day management will be carried out by the executive arm the trustees will not only want to review but will need to review some of the applications. Certainly they will need to review the interim awards, which, as I said, have commenced.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that various groups such as the Disabled Drivers Association, with which I am associated, and the Disablement Income Group believe that much help could be forthcoming from a source which is not immediately recognisable and which may not be within their writ; namely, the Health Visitors Association? That organisation is extremely well-informed about these matters and can give much advice arising from their professional activities as nurses. Will it be possible for the Minister to consult Mrs. Shirley Goodwin, the general secretary of the HVA, who would be only too pleased, I am sure, to help in any way that she can?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, naturally I shall consider this. We held informal discussions with a number of organisations, including the Disablement Income Group, when we were thinking about this scheme and about how the problem might best be resolved. During the course of these discussions DIG offered to assist in setting up the fund and we were delighted to accept its offer.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, has the Minister seen the very complicated and formidable form which would-be applicants have to fill in if they succeed in discovering the existence of this fund? It is not surprising that fewer than half have been received. Is not such a complicated form in itself a deterrent, and could not the trustees be encouraged to think of something a little simpler?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I accept that with all social security and allied benefit application forms there is a vast range of questions that are sometimes rather complicated to answer. There is a well-tried procedure for help with filling out such forms from social security offices. As regards publicising the fund, the 102 people to whom I referred have clearly been able to make contact with
182
the interim set-up. It may help the noble Lord if I say that in the first instance people should apply by letter to Room 520, New Court, Carey Street, London WC2, where officials of the department will assess them, with the help of professional advice from social workers.
Lord Banks: My Lords, is it correct that the Independent Living Fund is a temporary measure? If that is so, how long do the Government envisage that the temporary period will last? What do they have in mind to replace it on a permanent basis?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since we have only recently set the fund up, it is a little early to talk about replacement. However, I confirm that it is temporary and we anticipate that its time limit will be between three and five years.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, in view of the slowness that we all appreciate we have to suffer from the lawyers, there will be back pay for people whose payments are delayed? Can he also tell the House a little more about the status of the trustees? I know that he cannot name them yet, but will there be an honorarium for them'? Can the Minister also say something further about the executive arm to which he referred? Will it be comprised of civil servants, and how will they be recruited and paid? I ask these questions because there is a genuine interest on all sides of the House in the success of this fund.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, the payments will be back-dated to the appropriate time. As regards the case to which I have just referred, that occurred on 11th April, but if someone becomes disabled on 13th May it will be necessary to backdate until then. I can certainly confirm that this will be done. With regard to the arrangements for the trustees, that will be a matter for them when they are appointed.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is true, as has been reported, that, if a severely disabled person employs someone living in for the sole purpose of enabling the disabled person to live independently and if that employee subsequently has to pay the community charge, the fund will regard such an arrangement as a legitimate ground for a claim? If that is true, will he assure the House that adequate funds will be made available for that laudable purpose?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a rather hypothetical question and it will depend upon the precise details of each case. As I have understood the noble Lord's question, there is no earthly reason why application to the fund should not be made in such a case. Whether that fits in with their criteria will be for the trustees to decide.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to give a date when he expects the Independent Living Fund to be in operation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. With the best will in the world, and knowing the speed of lawyers and the Charity Commission, though I expect them to action this with as much speed as conceivably possible, I am unable to give a date.

Council House Sales: Receipts
2.55 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total of capital receipts by local authorities from the sale of dwellings in the latest financial year, and how much of this they were allowed to spend on building new rented dwellings.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer. The latest estimate of English local authorities' capital receipts from sale of dwellings is £1·6 billion in 1987–88; 20 per cent. of this, and 20 per cent. of unused receipts from earlier years, can be spent on capital expenditure, including building new rented dwellings. In addition, 30 per cent. of most other capital receipts from the latest year and earlier years, together with borrowing and any revenue financing, can also be used to finance capital expenditure. In 1988–89 local authorities are forecast to be able to spend £2·1 billion of housing receipts from this and earlier years, compared to the £1·9 billion they are forecast to generate this year.
Lord Jay: My Lords, what good reason can there be for preventing local authorities spending if they wish all their capital receipts on building new houses to rent, which everyone agrees are acutely needed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, under the present system the local authorities will benefit, rather than using the method which the noble Lord suggests. I am sure that the House is aware from earlier answers, that it is central to our economic strategy that total spending by local authorities, like other kinds of public spending, should be kept within planned levels.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the remainder of the capital receipts was made available for local authorities to get on with the job of building more houses and renovating those that have deteriorated because of lack of financial resources, that may well prevent the Government having to set up the Housing Action Trust, which they intend to do? It may be very expensive to run and it is merely replacing the local authority function with something else which will be an unelected body.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the renovation of houses because that is equally as important as the building of new ones. As I said in my earlier answer, there is very little difference between what local authorities could spend this year from the money they generated in comparison with the existing system. In fact, they are rather better off.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that it costs about £11,000 a year to house people in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is often
184
squalid and unsatisfactory? Would it not be far better to allow the local authorities to spend the money which should be at their disposal? It would cost much less—perhaps £5,000 to £7,000—than the £11,000 which is being currently spent to house people in bed and breakfast accommodation. Is it not a fact that the Government are guilty of bad housekeeping in a big way?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. However, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we have provided additional resources totalling £53 million for specific allocations for homelessness over the past six months.
Lord Walston: Can the noble Earl tell us what happens to the remaining 80 per cent. which is not allowed to be spent by local authorities? Is it in fact spent by the Government, loaned by the Government to someone else who then spends it or is it simply put under the bed so that the money will not increase inflationary pressure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, some of the receipts can be spent by the local authorities in the same year on other matters. However, as time progresses local authorities can spend 20 per cent. of the balance which they have not yet spent from previous years.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the 20 per cent. restriction each year is applied uniformly across the country when in fact in London homelessness is much greater and housing and land costs are also much greater, whereas the sales of council houses and flats are fewer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lord, it is for that, among other reasons, that of the moneys we have made available in the special allocation for homelessness, out of the £25 million that we announced in December, £13·6 million will be specifically for London. I do not have a figure for the additional £28 million which was announced on 24th March, but I shall let the right reverend Prelate know as soon as a decision is made.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt know that many noble Lords strongly support the Government's policy of enabling councils to sell their property to sitting tenants. However, is it not economics gone stark raving mad when, having agreed that policy, the Government then will not allow the councils to build more housing for rent for those people who need it? It is absolutely barmy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord understands that local authority expenditure is taken into account in public expenditure overall. Therefore there is a need to exercise the restraints presently in existence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following the points just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, do not the noble Earl and the Government realise that restricting the number of houses that local authorities can build merely puts pressure on the housing

185
market? That is one of the reasons why the house price spiral has now got right out of hand and threatens to be a danger to the Government's credit policy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no; that is not the case. The noble Lord's reasoning can be faulted. He has also ignored the fact that there is renovation as well as new building.

Business of the House
3 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 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour. During the adjournment the Third Reading of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988 will be taken.

Environment and Safety Information Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Petition: Education in Inner London
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Petition from parents, students, governors, head teachers, principals and staff of schools, colleges, youth clubs and other institutions of the Inner London Education Authority. The Petition prays that this House will seek a full review of provision of education in inner London before any alteration is made to the existing unitary arrangements.
Petition presented.

Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Education Reform Bill
3.5 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 141 [Abolition of ILEA.]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 269 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 269A.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 136, line 19, leave out ("On 1st April 1990") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order provide that on a date to be appointed")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 269 standing in my name, that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and also the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 270A, 271 and 272.
On Second Reading concern was expressed from all sides of the Chamber that the proposals for the abolition of the ILEA were hasty and ill thought-out. Their late introduction into the Bill, at Committee stage in another place, meant that they were denied the consultation and public scrutiny accorded to other chapters of the Bill. Further, the subject of abolition did not figure in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The Government's original idea of permitting boroughs to opt out of ILEA, while retaining a reserve power to abolish it once eight boroughs had tried to do so, was an unsatisfactory compromise. But then to be bounced straight into total abolition by two senior former Ministers, addressing a public largely outside London, merely turned infirmity of purpose into abandonment of any rational policy towards the multiple educational problems of inner London. The vast majority of Members who signed the Early Day Motion in another place were not London MPs either.
In those circumstances it is small wonder that the parents, who had not been consulted, should have organised their own ballot which delivered an absolute majority of 51·6 per cent. of those entitled to vote; and a majority of 94·3 per cent. of votes cast against the proposal. Vigorous attempts have been made to discredit the vote, largely on the grounds that it was financed in part by the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities. However, it was the parents themselves who found by far the greater part of the money. I understand that a large amount of the ALA's contribution is likely to be repaid. Given that the Secretary of State, when approached, did not offer any money—despite the Government's proper attachment to ballotting for many purposes—it seems to me that the method of fund raising chosen was perfectly legitimate.
I can only say that I am an ILEA parent; that I voted in the ballot; that the question was designed by the Electoral Reform Society, not by ILEA; that I received no political propaganda, Labour or otherwise, and that the outcome strikes me as near to a genuine expression of a majority opinion as one

187
could reasonably hope to obtain in the absence of statutory support.
Before I turn to the amendment itself, there are a few points I should like to stress with all the power at my command. We do not seek either to whitewash ILEA or to maintain it intact at any cost in its present form. Like most large bodies, ILEA has strengths and weaknesses. One of the latter is excessive bureaucracy. There was also a period when the politicians were totally dominated by the unions and unable, or unwilling, to redeploy teachers or manage a budget in a responsible way. Further, there were the poor exam results, although it is only fair to make some allowance for socio-economic factors in that regard. Then there were the fringe organisations, funded by ILEA, which, frankly, did the authority no good and which I am sure will be referred to in the debate this afternoon.
However, having said that, we must preserve some sense of balance and not allow policy to be dictated by the Evening Standard, the Daily Mail or, indeed, by the flurry of pamphleteering to which most of us have been subjected in the past few days.
Over the past year or so there have been distinct signs that ILEA has, none too soon, begun to put its house in order. As an ILEA parent—although I have some reservations on teaching, especially on the subject of history which I have mentioned in this place before—I have nothing but praise for ILEA's courageous and successful policy of racial integration. For example, my own son is far more at home with the multi-racial community in which he will live his life than he would have been had he gone to a prominent public school. He accepts that fact himself and indeed is proud of it; that is a plus.
Then there are other strengths and centres of excellence. I refer especially to music; to special needs education; to learning and resources branch; to further education; to the careers and youth services and to adult education. All of those aspects, according to virtually all informed opinion, will be seriously curtailed by the Bill in its present form. Nevertheless, important though all those specialities are, what should concern us most of all is the effect on the generality of children of primary and secondary-school age.
The crucial question is surely: can the boroughs cope within the time allowed and with the Government's apparent financial assumptions? I mean not just some of the boroughs, but all the boroughs. Here a whole cacophony of voices is raised, with some Conservative MPs taking completely different sides. The Member for Battersea, Mr. John Bowis, who is an abolitionist with a vengeance, has written a lively pamphlet which I am sure some noble Lords have received. It is called "ILEA, the Closing Chapter". Unfortunately, he spoils his own case by referring to children flooding into ILEA:
"from Brent and Haringey and similar boroughs run by extreme Left regimes where the parents have obviously felt that even ILEA is a better fate for their children than the awful prospect of schools in their own borough".
Again, unfortunately, most inner London boroughs are much more like Brent and Haringey than, say,
188
Croydon, or Harrow. London parents are very well aware of that, as is evidenced by the vote to which I have referred.
Diametrically on the opposite side to Mr. Bowis is Mr. Gerald Bowden, the Conservative Member for Dulwich, who told the House of Commons on 28th March that Southwark's services and finances were in such a mess that it would be utterly irresponsible to require Southwark to take on the education of children within the borough. We can all, I am sure, think of other boroughs to which much the same applies. I am aware that Westminster and Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea are keen to become LEAs in their own right and might cope well enough for their own children. But there is also a distinct possibility that they will raise barriers against children from other boroughs. Westminster's prospectus refers to the need to look at such questions as:
"Whether to slow down the inflow of people from outside Westminster".
This looks suspiciously like incipient protectionism and thus a diminution of the choice conferred by the present high degree of cross-boundary movement.
Then there are very serious worries about the level of funding of education in inner London as a whole which seems set to decrease by some 40 per cent. over the four-year transitional period, if the Government have their way and if the poll tax is not to rise to intolerable levels.
ILEA may have overspent on administration and been weak on redeployment. By better management it might perhaps have cut its costs by 10 or 15 per cent. But to suggest that efficient and equitable education could be delivered for 40 per cent. less than at present is frankly to enter Cloud-cuckoo-land. It is hardly surprising therefore that there are mounting fears that the standards, whose improvement is one of the main stated purposes of the Bill, will not be improved. Rather the opposite. This is the fear expressed by the education officers and by the head teachers and other professional bodies.
If their views are discounted as biased, coming as they do from education interests or within the educational establishment, let us turn instead to the Conservative Education Association which says:
"We are reluctantly drawn to the conclusion that, taking the educational service in London as a whole, standards … will fall as a result of Government policy. While standards in parts of the service may rise in some areas, this will be at the cost of standards falling elsewhere and to a greater extent".
To meet these mounting concerns, there are a number of projects in the air, among them a unitary authority for certain services, particularly those which are natural candidates for cross-boundary treatment, such as orchestras and careers, special needs and adult education. There is also the idea of groupings of adjacent or contiguous boroughs which have a high percentage of cross-border traffic.
Some of these suggestions may commend themselves to noble Lords. But rather than try ourselves to design, on the hoof, between the Committee and the final stages of the Bill, and with the same haste of which we accuse the Government, some kind of slimline ILEA or other residuary body or bodies, to protect our own favoured specialities, my co-sponsors of this amendment and I believe that

189
it would be far better to follow the course outlined in our amendments.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. I repeat that I am speaking not only to Amendment No. 269 but also to Amendments Nos. 270A, 271 and 272 which all hang together. We do not seek to delete the abolition clause but to make it subject to the safeguard that a proper assessment is carried out of the best future structure and organisation of education for inner London. This is therefore not just another internal review of ILEA but a requirement for a rational survey of the options, in view of the battle of pamphlets to which I have already referred.
Amendment No. 269 is the paving amendment; Amendment No. 270 sets up a panel of assessors. I wish to point out here, in case any noble Lord should be worried about damaging and demoralising delays and indecision, that the report must be delivered at the latest by 1st April 1989. That is only a month or so after the boroughs have been told to submit their plans and a full year before the abolition date proposed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 271 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint the panel, including the chairman, but requires the consultation by the panel with all interested parties which has been so noticeably lacking from this chapter of the Bill. In effect it restores the consultation process, but within the strict time limit that I have mentioned. If the Secretary of State decides not to activate the abolition clause, Amendment No. 272 empowers him to propose any alternative arrangements that he sees fit. In either case, he must submit his decision to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the combined effect of these four linked amendments.
I do not think that this is an unduly protracted or cumbersome procedure. There is a strict time limit built into it, and I cannot stress that too strongly. We also want an early decision on the future pattern of education at all levels in inner London. But we want it to be taken in a way that will confer greater legitimacy on it than the Bill will achieve, and that secures the support not only of three or four boroughs but of a large majority of inner Londoners. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: Within the diocese of Southwark there are 63 Church schools lying within the five boroughs of the Inner London Education Authority. When the question of opting-out was proposed originally both for schools and for boroughs and then subsequently it was decided to abolish ILEA itself, the views of parents, staff and governors of Church schools were sought. The vast majority of those consulted were and are entirely opposed to the abolition of ILEA. Never have I received so many letters, petitions and the like from church councils, school governors, PTAs and many individuals.
The reasons for this are not far to seek and do not imply, as has already been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, a blanket approval for everything ILEA has done, nor for some of the views
190
expressed from time to time by ILEA councils and others.
Let me enumerate these reasons briefly because they lie at the back of much that we shall be talking about this afternoon. I think that fundamental is the fact that there has been a unitary authority for 120 years; never has that been challenged by any report so far to any significant extent. There has been a good, wide-ranging inspectorate; training facilities for teachers; generous resources for library equipment; extra help for schools where many children do not speak English as a first language; an excellent child guidance service; a very good adult education service, often described as "second to none"; one of the best nursery class ratios in the country; sports and music facilities; a very good youth service; and of course, on the whole, very good staff/pupil ratios, both at secondary and primary levels. Often overlooked is the fact that there is quite a lot of help for special needs. For instance, known to me personally are teachers in mental hospitals, teachers for bodies like the Rainer Foundation, which do very special and important work with disturbed and untrained youngsters.
With all that in mind, it is not surprising that this has cost more than the provision of education has cost in some of the outer London boroughs. Let us take Bexley which provides nursery education, I believe, for just over 1 per cent. of the child population; or indeed Merton, a small borough in the diocese where the ratio of teachers to pupils is much less good and where by and large there is less support to schools and teachers over a whole range of activities.
In outer London boroughs there is a higher proportion of children who go to independent schools which certainly eases the burden on the ratepayer and often reduces potential parental concern and interest. But that is not to say that ILEA has been as cost efficient as it could have been. It is very difficult to weigh the socio-economic factors, and I am certainly not in a position to do that accurately, but there are particular problems about working in inner London which cannot be overlooked; for instance, the cost of repairs to school buildings and the fact that it is difficult to attract good teachers to work there. It is now extremely difficult to attract head teachers, even, because of the cost of housing and other factors. All this has certainly had its effect.
It is not generally realised yet that ILEA is already rate-capped, and it is generally expected that by 1990 the costs of ILEA will not be much different per pupil from those of the average outer London borough. What difference this will then make to the service to be provided no one can yet tell. The immediate effect is to accentuate the decline in morale and the flight of teachers from the capital.
Strictly speaking—and this is why I want to make this point—it is not necessary to abolish ILEA simply in order to reduce costs. That is a process which is already well under way; and that, of course, was one of the reasons given for its abolition. The case must therefore rest on other grounds; notably, of course, the desire to improve standards at secondary level

191
and to break up another large institution which has at times been politically difficult, even irresponsible.
But what will be the consequences of the abolition and of doing it in such haste? I stress the size of the task. It is often said that the GLC has gone and that people ask who has noticed its departure. I see one or two nods on my right. Indeed that may be true, but the difference is enormous. Take, for instance, one borough in the diocese—the London borough of Southwark. Its budget will double, and that is about average for all the London boroughs known to me. Education accounts for around 50 per cent. or a little more of their budgets. This compares with a total extra cost of about 20 per cent. which was imposed on the boroughs when the GLC went, and much of that was for fairly routine services which it was not difficult for them to take on board and provide.
Further, we are talking mainly about rate-capped boroughs, although not all of them are rate-capped. When they become education authorities they will be faced with huge new tasks. As has already been pointed out, some of them are not finding it too easy to cope with those they already have. They will also be asked to take on a whole range of cross-borough services which are supposed to be picked up by the boroughs according to location or shared on a voluntary basis. That is a tricky recipe at the best of times for getting a thing well done. All that is to be set out in a development plan and outlined by October and then set down in more firm terms by February.
The draft guidance gives relatively little help. It indicates what has to be done and it certainly raises the questions, but it is for these reasons and many others that there is enormous anxiety. I want to stress to the Committee that there is enormous anxiety about how this transfer of responsibility will happen and how it will be managed. As somebody said to me, we are looking into an abyss. The National Association of Head Teachers wrote recently:
"The financial effects of all the legislation now going through Parliament—education, poll tax and housing—could be disastrous for the provision of services in inner London".
I am sure that the association did not write that lightheartedly.
At the same time I recognise that the Government's mind has been made up and clearly expressed in another place. We have to face that fact. Although outright opposition to abolition is what most of my correspondents have requested, often in the strongest terms, it is clear that what we are actually faced with is the need to find a way to protect the many good things which ILEA does so well and at least some of the undoubted benefits of treating inner London as one area with particular needs which have been met so well by the unitary nature of London education over the past 120 years. This amendment, standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, will go some way to relieve that anxiety because it will give a breathing space in which to address the issues more adequately than certainly the draft guidance does.
I suspect that some of the civil servants at the DES are (dare I say it?) extremely worried about the implementation of this part of the Bill. To pass this
192
amendment will not only give expression to that profound unease which now exists but will give a little time in which to work out how certain services can be sustained, how we are going to make sure that sufficient finance is available, how best to co-operate between boroughs, and whether there are ways of providing a more unitary approach for particular needs.
Yet having said that, I cannot escape a parallel unease about the danger of delay. I suppose that if I were a careful politician (which I am not) I would hesitate to say that kind of thing publicly. But I have to say it out of a deep concern about the future of children's education in London. Already it is clear that administrative staff in ILEA and teachers in schools are leaving. They are the people who have shown tremendous commitment to London's children. But they seem to be saying that they have had enough. So I am fearful of delay even though the delay proposed by this amendment is very short.
Therefore I should like to ask the Minister whether she can give us some firm and specific indications that positive steps can and will be taken to preserve, for instance, the first-class cross-borough services such as adult education and special schools, and many others, in order that what has been built up over the years—and it takes time to do it—will not be allowed to fall apart as it were almost overnight. Can the Minister indicate an awareness of the scale of this reorganisation? It is enormous. There are the particular difficulties of inner London and of the authorities that will have to cope with those difficulties. How will the department help those authorities that are already in difficulty to provide an adequate service?
Without such assurances, and whatever the reasons why those difficulties exist, I cannot do other than vote for this amendment as a means of expressing this very deep unease which has been shown to me by so many people over the past few months—and, of course, we shall hear much more about it this afternoon.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: No doubt the three signatories to this amendment each has his own reasons for supporting it. My own reasons are slightly different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken. Speaking for myself, I face the abolition of ILEA with considerable equanimity. But the point that I wish to try to emphasise, and which came out from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is that this amendment is entirely favourable to the Government. In no way does it challenge their resolve to abolish ILEA. It recognises that in another place the Government were forced to move rather more speedily towards that objective than they had in mind when they first drafted the Bill. The amendment is drafted to give the Government the opportunity to make that detailed assessment of the capacities of the boroughs to take on their new responsibilities. After all, they will be doubling their staff and not far from doubling their budgets. It also enables the boroughs to discover just how many ILEA sites they will be

193
taking over and how many cross-borough activities and facilities exist.
Last week, a group of Cross-Bench Peers had the pleasure of meeting the leaders of the three Conservative boroughs in London—Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. The representatives of the boroughs said to us that the boroughs and ILEA could sort out those problems by themselves and that they would co-operate regardless of political persuasion. However, they made one proviso. I could not help thinking, as I listened to them, that the proviso was the same as that which crossed Macbeth's mind when he was pondering Duncan's murder:
"If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly".
They said, "If you give ILEA the impression, however faint, that there is a chance that it will be reprieved, then it will refuse to co-operate and the transfer of power will be painful and prolonged". There is a lot in that.
I have no doubt that those words will be hanging on the lips of the Minister at the moment when she comes to reply. However, before she counters with it, I must ask whether she or anyone in the Government knows the full extent of cross-borough services which ILEA offers. Does she know all the institutions, some of them in the private sector, to which ILEA gives a subvention in return for teaching? Does she know all the sites which the ILEA owns? What will happen to those sites when they are transferred to the boroughs and become saleable assets—very tempting assets to councils well endowed with entrepreneurial ambitions?
It is not Macbeth but rather Lady Macbeth who comes to mind when I look at the Minister. Will she say to herself at the carve-up, as Lady Macbeth did when she was sleepwalking:
"Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him"?
Does she know the extraordinary extent of those activities? I forbear to read out the whole list. However, there are an incredible number of schools which are involved in cross-borough activities. There are many activities, such as hospital tuition units and special education inspectorates. How are all those activities to be fitted in? Do we believe that, when the boroughs get together, they can provide the same services? What will happen, for example, to a well-known private art school, the City and Guilds in South London, when ILEA subventions are withdrawn?
As I said, the amendment is designed to help the Government and reassure those who are the recipients of ILEA largesse that whatever they do, their activities will get fair consideration and will not be simply brushed aside because they do not fit into the budget and activites of a borough. I know that the Government have that in mind.
The morale of many teachers in adult education and special education schools must surely be in the minds of the Government as well. So is the state of mind of ILEA administrators. Many of them are dedicated people who have given good service to
194
London. It may be that some of the activities of ILEA should be curtailed and culled. I think that an independent inquiry would give a better answer than that which will come out of horse-trading between the boroughs.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I have been puzzled by the behaviour of the Government. I well understand their desire to stand firm on opting out. It is quite right that there should be no surrender on the matter of compulsory subjects in the curriculum. However, the doggedness that has been extended to every single word and phrase in the Bill has been remarkable.
Why are the Government so inflexible? Are they worried that people will doubt their virility, or (since I see the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, sitting there, and she may accuse me of a sexist remark) are they worried that people will doubt their steely femininity? Last night, at a very late hour, Peers from every side of the Committee were arguing in favour of a proposal that two students rather than one should be members of higher education bodies. Peers were astonished at the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—such a reasonable man—stonewalled again and again. In the end, all that he could say was that he might bring the matter to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I put it to the Minister that the amendment is comparable to Amendment No. 241A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, last night.
What is the situation which we are discussing? It is this. The Government found themselve forced to take precipitate action during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. That happens in the best-regulated families. Here we have a chance not to go back on the basic decision but rather to sort out the consequences of that decision. I speak for myself when I say that I do not put as much store as some of my fellow signatories to the amendment on the part of the amendment which deals with the assessors. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the spirit of the amendment and put forward a proposal for an independent inquiry. I hope that she will not declare that the amendment is an illegitimate baby. If she does, I shall make the time-honoured excuse of the nurse in "Midshipman Easy":
"It was only a very little one".
I implore the Minister not to smother this very little amendment.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps it will be helpful to the Committee if I intervene at this stage. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will speak at the end of the debate on this group of amendments. He will then respond to many specific points which have been raised in the course of our discussions. However, I believe that it will be useful at this point for me to remind the Committee of some of the background to the Government's proposals and say something about their implications and what action has been taken. I hope that that will go some way towards meeting the appeal made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Annan.

195
The Government have put forward their proposals for two reasons. The first is out of concern over the educational standards achieved by ILEA in important aspects of its provision. The second is the fact that ILEA's persistently high levels of expenditure place an unacceptable burden on the local people who have to fund the service.
Let me be quite clear. I do not want to belittle the real achievements of ILEA. For example, HMI has expressed a high opinion of aspects of further education and adult education. I might add that if that provision had not been good, there would have been something terribly amiss, given the fact that it costs the ratepayer so much—more than three times the cost of the provision made by any other LEA in the case of adult education. But for the moment I want to concentrate on the schools, which are after all the area of education of most concern to parents and employers. If a child's years of compulsory schooling—and perhaps especially the last few years—are unsatisfactory, that is a loss that it is hard to regain.
The evidence from HMI is that ILEA's nursery provision is good; that its primary schools are no more than middling, and that its secondary schools, taken as a whole, are poor. The figures are well known: HMI has found that 40 per cent. of classes in secondary schools are unsatisfactory or poor. So despite all the money spent, children in inner London are likely to suffer a declining standard of education as they go through the school system. At the heart of that system, the point at which the effectiveness of the whole system is judged, are the secondary schools; and it is here that ILEA has simply been failing the children of inner London.
I want to concentrate on the positive way in which we can build an improved service in inner London, retaining what is good from what exists at present. But I fear that I have to emphasise to the Committee the urgency of the Government's case. I think that it is particularly important to remember that in relation to the amendments which affect the time-scale.
In the final year of compulsory education the level of absenteeism, for whatever reason, is almost 30 per cent. across ILEA as a whole. In some schools it is much worse. More than 20 per cent. of young people in inner London leave school without any qualifications whatsoever. Barely 15 per cent. of school-leavers achieve the equivalent of five or more O-levels. Those results, I fear, underline the figure in the recent Gallup Poll, which showed that 54 per cent. of inner London parents would send their children to independent schools if they could afford it. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the standards achieved by ILEA.
We are told on the one hand that those weaknesses are endemic in inner London and that even the simple prevention of further deterioration requires continued high expenditure. On the other hand we are told that the weaknesses can be removed given a little more time. But ILEA has been reprieved time and again, and yet no improvement has come about. It is now more than seven years since my noble friend Lord Carlisle demanded that the authority set its house in order. Since then there have been reports,
196
inquiries and guidance galore. But in the classroom, which is what matters, all too little has changed.
Turning now to the question of ILEA's costs, we shall no doubt be told, and we have been told, about the costs of the Metropolitan Police or the fact that education in London has historically always been more expensive than elsewhere. Such statements may offer excuses but they do not provide reasons. However one looks at it, ILEA's expenditure is vastly out of line compared with other inner city authorities having to make provision to meet similar types of problem.
One could perhaps understand some disparity between inner London's costs and those of the rest of the country. But teaching staff costs for metropolitan districts average about £530 a child, for the outer London boroughs £590 and for ILEA £730. For primary support staff the comparable figures are £110, £130 and for ILEA £230. For secondary schools support staff costs, the figures are £120, £160 and for ILEA £370. For central administration and inspection the figures per head of population are £.13, £17 and for ILEA £36. Those figures shed an interesting light on the notion of economies of scale, about which the defenders of ILEA are so vocal.
ILEA has repeatedly failed to improve either its educational or its financial performance. Other metropolitan districts and the outer London boroughs have shown what can be achieved, both educationally and financially, by a smaller authority. Even some of the outer London boroughs which have achieved a certain notoriety for one reason or another manage to perform better than ILEA.
Of course to break with an organisation which has grown up over a long period of time is inevitably painful. It would be wrong to minimise the difficulties. But on its record there is no evidence whatsoever that the retention of ILEA will improve the educational prospects of young people in inner London or ease the financial burden on local people. If we timidly shirk our responsibility at this point we shall be failing hundreds of thousands of young people in inner London. That is not something which can be lightly contemplated.
I should like now to remind the Committee of the action that has been taken so far. As soon as the policy now embodied in the Bill was announced, we set up an Inner London Unit within the Department of Education to help boroughs plan the transfer. My right honourable friend has held preliminary discussions with virtually all the boroughs, and DES officials have had very detailed meetings with some of them.
Three weeks ago the DES issued draft guidance to the boroughs (to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred) on the development plans that they will have to publish by the end of next February, setting out in some detail the way in which they propose to take on education responsibilities. That draft is intended to form the basis of full discussions with all the boroughs and with ILEA—and indeed with other interested parties, including the Churches—over the next few months, so that a final and more comprehensive version may be issued as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The

197
draft received the accolade of criticism from ILEA itself for being simultaneously too detailed and insufficiently detailed. I suspect that means that, for a preliminary draft, we have got it about right. But we are listening to the comments and we can improve the draft with the co-operation of all those concerned with educational provision in inner London.
I should like to remind the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has already done, that at least three boroughs—Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea—are now well advanced in their planning to become local education authorities in April 1990. They have held public meetings, consultation with schools and colleges, issued consultative documents and policy statements, appointed advisers and in some cases education officers designate, and have begun to draw up in outline their development plans. Many Members of the Committee will have seen the helpful leaflet published last week by Wandsworth. That sets out clearly the progress it has made and demolishes any of the arguments of those who believe that the boroughs are not capable of their new responsibilities.
Tower Hamlets, under Liberal control, and the City of London are catching up fast with the Conservative boroughs. What others have done, the Labour-controlled boroughs can do also. They have as long to prepare for their new responsibilities as the outer London boroughs following the London Government Act 1963. They are, however, awaiting a signal from your Lordships that they will indeed receive those new responsibilities. It is vital in the interest of the pupils, students and staff of inner London that that signal is given clearly today to remove any lingering doubts and uncertainty, which can only be damaging.
There is of course no dispute that full discussion, careful planning and review are needed in relation to many aspects of provision before the detailed arrangements can be settled. That is indeed why we issued the draft guidance a few weeks ago and why the Government have made available a specific grant of £13 million over the next two years to help the boroughs prepare for their new responsibilities. That money will be used to appoint consultants, to make preliminary appointments to the education department, to consult local people, to draw up the development plan and in short to set in hand the wide range of action necessary as a preliminary to becoming a local education authority.
That action by the Government is in line with the advice of the Controller of the Audit Commission, who has pointed out the need for the boroughs to put their new management structures in place as quickly as possible and to take advice from outside help, including external consultants, in doing so. I take encouragement from his words:
"There is a refreshing breeze of reality blowing through London's town halls but there is an enormous amount of hard work ahead if London is once again to have local administration of which it can be proud".
As I have said on other occasions, I very much hope that Members opposite will use their best endeavours in their contacts with local councils in
198
inner London to impress on them the need to take this task seriously.
I said earlier that I wanted to demonstrate that the problems which some Members of the Committee have foreseen and raised questions on in relation to particular aspects of ILEA's provision can be resolved. We are making progress in the following respects.
Many within this Chamber and beyond have praised the quality of much of ILEA's adult education. The Government accept that the adult education service makes a valuable contribution in inner London. We believe however that there is no reason why the bulk of adult education should not be effectively organised on a borough basis. That is what happens in every other metropolitan area of the country, and there is really no reason why, in inner London, what is essentially a very local service, responding to local needs, should not be locally organised. That may mean some rejigging of the boundaries of adult education institutes, and discussions will plainly need to be held about that, but there need be no major upheaval. This argument comes across strongly in the Wandsworth leaflet, to which I have referred.
However, where inner London is different from other areas is in having several high quality adult education institutions which carry out a high proportion of advanced work and which have a national reputation. Three of the most important of these—Morley College, the Working Men's College and the Mary Ward Centre—are independent establishments, two of which receive at present a significant proportion of their funding in grant from ILEA. The City Lit, though a maintained institution, is often linked with the other three. Each of these colleges makes a vitally important contribution to adult education in London—and indeed, much more widely. We accept that the future of these colleges must be safeguarded beyond doubt. After 1990, the assisted colleges will of course be able to realise their independence more fully. They will be able to revise their system of fees in a way that ILEA has prevented them from doing and they will be free to seek private sponsorship. The department will be encouraging them to look at those possibilities.
Plainly, any changes cannot be made overnight, and my right honourable friend will therefore be prepared to direct the London Residuary Body to pay grants to the colleges as necessary to maintain an effective level of funding. By the time the London Residuary Body itself has been wound up, we would expect the colleges to be much closer to being self-financing. However I want to make it quite clear that, to the extent necessary, the Government will be prepared to continue to provide financial support to these institutions to ensure that they can maintain their present high standards. Such support will of course be dependent on evidence that the colleges have genuinely made every effort to increase their income from other sources.
The City Lit, as a maintained college, is in a different situation. But its record is no less distinguished than that of the assisted colleges. We have been reminded that it houses the Centre for the Deaf. The Government believe that central funding

199
will be required for the City Lit also. Its main premises are located in Camden, and we shall be discussing with that borough what arrangements would be best. But it may be that it would be appropriate for responsibility for the City Lit also to pass to the LRB while arrangements are made for it to be treated on a par with the assisted colleges to which I have referred.
All this means that the future of adult education in inner London—both the mainstream work in the adult education institutes and the more specialised work in the assisted colleges—is secure. The Government stand squarely behind the colleges. There are of course many details to sort out, and we look forward to doing so at an early date in joint discussion with all the inner London boroughs.
There has also been a strong campaign in support of ILEA's provision for the musically gifted. The Government accept that ILEA's provision has in many respects been of a high standard, and particularly that the Centre for Young Musicians based in Pimlico School and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra have a deservedly high reputation. The generality of instrumental tuition will, under our proposals, become the responsibility of the boroughs in inner London, as indeed it is in outer London and elsewhere. However, in order to maintain the high standards which depend upon bringing together large numbers of gifted young people, we believe that co-ordination, particularly of the arrangements for tuition of more advanced pupils, is required.
I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that the department has held discussions with representatives of Westminster City Council, which is, of course, likely to become responsible for Pimlico School and therefore for the Centre for Young Musicians. Westminster has expressed a strong interest in taking a lead borough responsibility for organising such provision across inner London. We shall be discussing further the detailed arrangements with Westminister, and other boroughs will be invited to join in determining how best to ensure that the quality and scope of existing provision is maintained and indeed enhanced. In essence we envisage a central team of music advisers liaising with the music advisers in other boroughs to help maintain the CYM and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. Other councils may also have specific contributions to make to these arrangements, and we hope that they will. The involvement of one or more of the London music colleges, for example, would not only safeguard existing standards, but could provide an exciting opening for further developments.
We envisage that most of the costs of such an arrangement will be met by the boroughs, but the Government would be prepared to consider some topping up finance if necessary. We now look forward to exploring these arrangements in more detail.
Another area to which much reference has been made in the circumstances of inner London is the contribution made by the voluntary organisations, and particularly those concerned with youth work.
200
We entirely accept the importance of that contribution. I myself have held a series of meetings with representatives of many of the main youth bodies to consider jointly with them the best way forward in the context of the Government's proposals. Of course, at the moment the great majority of this work is carried out at a very local level anyway, and it will be entirely appropriate for local organisations to look to their local council for support. The Government's proposals will make possible closer co-operation between education departments responsible for the youth service and other departments and agencies in the boroughs with related concerns. One of the effects of such interagency co-operation in authorities in other parts of the country has been to raise the level of local concern with the needs of young people and to broaden the financial base of youth work, especially in the inner cities. This would be a timely new development in inner London. The Committee will also be aware of the very significant contribution by central government—the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and the Home Office—to local voluntary work. Grants from the DES alone currently amount to over £16 million across the country as a whole.
We recognise also that the headquarters organisations of some of the inner London voluntary bodies play an important role in co-ordinating provision across the capital. In recognition of that contribution, the Government propose to make available additional interim funding of £500,000 a year for three years from 1990 for distribution to these bodies. That would allow the voluntary organisations time to assess the scope for raising more money from the boroughs and from the private sector. I believe that this announcement will therefore be widely welcomed and will meet many of the concerns that have been expressed over the difficulties during the transitional period.
We have recognised also that the Horniman and Geffrye Museums are a valuable asset to London, and indeed to the country as a whole. I see that later this evening we shall be discussing an amendment dealing specifically with the museums. The Government accept that it would not be reasonable to ask the boroughs in which these museums are located to bear the cost of maintaining them, except perhaps in relation to their specifically educational functions. Equally, however, it would not be appropriate for them simply to be submerged and lose their identity in one of their larger neighbours, such as the V&A or the Museum of London.
We therefore propose to ensure that both are established as independent trustee bodies, encouraged so far as possible to secure maximum possible support from the private sector, but with an assurance of government support initially through the London Residuary Body and subsequently from the Museums and Galleries Commission. The precise details of the way in which these arrangements will be carried out will of course need to be the subject of discussion with the museums themselves; it might be, for example, that it would be sensible for them on a temporary basis to pass on to the LRB while the

201
necessary trusts were drawn up. We shall have to see about that.
What I have said will make it quite clear, however, that the museums have a secure future as independent institutions with an assurance of support from central government grant. I am sure that the many Members of the Committee who have been concerned about the Horniman and Geffrye Museums will welcome that.
I have spoken at some length. Even so, I doubt whether I have fully fulfilled the Lady Macbeth quotation. However, I hope that what I have said will have provided some measure of reassurance that the Government's proposals and timescales are necessary and practicable, and that important aspects of provision about which we are all concerned will be safeguarded for the benefit of the people of inner London and, indeed, of the whole country.
4 p.m.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her one question? I should simply like to put it as a question and perhaps the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will answer it in due course. But it is germane to this amendment.
The noble Baroness referred to the urgency of the Government's case. We have asked on many occasions what happened educationally between the original publication of the Bill and the sudden decision that it was a matter of absolute urgency to abolish ILEA. What happened educationally to cause the Government to come to that decision?
Baroness Hooper: The Government, as a listening government, listened to the many comments on this subject that were made.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Goodman: Before the noble Baroness sits down, there is one item of information that I seek which is probably easier to give than the answer to the last question. Can she tell us what cost would be involved in acceding to the delay sought by this amendment?
Baroness Hooper: All the procedures would be delayed and slowed down. Everything would grind to a halt. It is very difficult to estimate such factors at this moment of time. However, we believe that the need to settle the doubts and uncertainties that have arisen in inner London, perhaps in particular with teachers, means that there is an urgency about this case and that it is important that we get on with the job.
Lord Goodman: The noble Baroness will recognise that that is an argument and not an answer.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may first welcome the assurances which have been given by the Minister. I have heard what she has said with encouragement—and I mean that. However, I still have grave reservations about the procedure. I
202
should like to develop them and then to return to some of the points.
Perhaps I may first remind Members of the Committee that the debate today is about education. It is about people. It is about those who teach and those who learn. Of course one cannot have education without politics, finance and administration, but we must always remember that they must be subservient to the overall objective of education; that is, to enable people to fulfil their potential in the right way for them. Seven of the 10 districts about which we are talking today are seven of the 10 most depressed districts in our country. We are not talking about any area in England or Wales: we are talking about London, which has very particular problems of its own.
Reference has been made to the abolition of the GLC. It is not quite accurate to say that its passing was unnoticed. I know that only too well through the withdrawal of funding for many voluntary organisations as a result of the abolition of the GLC, and the problems which we face because of the absence of any one statutory authority to which the voluntary agencies can relate. Frankly, the idea that voluntary co-operation will suffice is simply not true to facts. I am not sure whether I have ever quoted the 39 Articles of Religion to your Lordships' Committee before.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): Do not start now!
The Lord Bishop of London: I shall start now because it is rather an important quotation. As I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will remember immediately, one of the articles speaks about the infection which "doth remain … in them that are regenerated". That is a very salutary point to have in mind because it reminds us that any system, any government, has to be operated by fallible people like you and me. Therefore, to rely wholly on voluntary co-operation often does not produce the required results.
We are talking about people. At this very moment I am thinking of the children in the primary school that I was visiting last week—where, I may add, the worship was very distinctly Christian. I am also thinking of the children of a wide range of ages in the adventure playground that I was visiting the week before last in one of our areas where it is almost the only provision that is made in which they can exercise and find leisure, and so on.
I am thinking of teachers whom I have met who are deeply worried at the moment. I am thinking of people who are involved in the whole education process. I am thinking of people I know in schools who are concerned not only about the matters that the Minister has mentioned but, for example, the education welfare service. I am thinking of one school which has a large proportion of families in need of counselling and care. In a school of 500 pupils there are seven girls on the risk register for physical or sexual abuse, 21 who have made the initial report of abuse as yet uncorroborated, 14 manifesting severe emotional difficulties, eight known to have one or other parent who is alcoholic, and seven under stress

203
because of mental illness at home. They need the education welfare service. The teachers want to be assured that this will continue to be provided and will not simply be subject to the chance of whether they happen to be in this or that borough.
I simply give Members of the Committee one or two examples of the kind of problems about which we are talking today.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. On the education welfare service, his information and mine vary slightly. I am in touch with a school in one of the worst boroughs in London which has not had a visit from an education welfare officer since last year, and which has a high delinquency and truancy rate.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says, but I can assure her that this school uses the service a great deal—perhaps too much at the expense of others. But certainly it is used, if not perhaps as widely as it should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in proposing the amendment, mentioned the great state of uncertainty that exists at the moment. Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter to the papers recently which said that in the case of four primary schools in the East End, one head left for Somerset, one is leaving for Kent and a third is teaching, and our own Church primary head has contracted a very severe illness. Of the nine schools in our area, six are without a head teacher, or will be by the summer. This indicates the situation that we face at the moment.
When we look to the future it is insecure. I tried very hard to work out what the effect will be of the community charge, of the housing Bill, and, coupled with this, of the devolution to the boroughs, in terms of the expenditure available to the boroughs for education. Frankly, I find it impossible to work out the answer. I do not know how the boroughs will plan if they have to take on these great additional responsibilities.
This is the main point of what I want to say. The noble Baroness stressed that the Government's concern was with the schools. But her answers about other things—and we are very glad to hear them—do not touch the schools. That is where attention is needed. What is the answer? We do not know. The Minister may say that there is no evidence that to continue ILEA in its present form will improve standards. But there is no evidence to show that devolution to the boroughs will improve standards either. We just do not know.
We have had plenty of reviews. I have read them, some of them with partial affection, which is a phrase of which we are reminded in our prayers here in the House. So far as I am aware, nobody has actually sat down in an impartial way and looked at all these reviews. Much of the evidence is there. Much of it needs checking. It needs a dispassionate look to decide what is the best way for education in London.
204
This amendment does not attempt to remove Clause 141 of the Bill. What it says is that we need to be quite certain of the way we are going, and we cannot be certain of that with something which is, as it were, brought in on the way. Much testing still needs to be done. We need a single authoritative survey using much of the existing material.
I do not believe that this need cause very much delay. Boroughs which want to go ahead and which are going ahead now can still go ahead with their development plans. They can put them in evidence to the review. There is no reason why they should not do that. This would presumably help them if they are good plans and will help the review in coming to its conclusion. We have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, set the date very clearly, and with a competent chairman they could get down to work quickly.
I do not believe that my amendment need cause any delay. Rather by the date set in the Bill as it stands a competent, authoritative, dispassionate review from a non-political standpoint could be achieved and that is what is urgently necessary. What needs to be dealt with on a unitary basis and what does not? As I said, I do not believe that we have any evidence that the proposals before us will actually improve standards. What we need is more evidence to encourage us to think that a particular way will do so. As I said, I do not believe that this amendment will cause delay. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is an amendment which will enable us to make a responsible decision. Meanwhile there is nothing to hold back the movement that is going on.
I should just like for a moment to mention one or two points that I made earlier about schools. I do not want to delay things, because those schools that I mentioned want an answer. They want to know where they are going. They want to know what the future holds in hand. The adventure playground that I visited is solely dependent at the moment upon ILEA, which has a valuable site which it is willing to hold and make available to this admirable institution which has two paid workers but is otherwise maintained by voluntary help. There are day and residential centres which do invaluable work for those living in London who are able to go out and get their horizons enlarged. It is not an expensive way. It is a very sensible way. The future of some of those activities would be in jeopardy.
I have not attempted to say that we should not abolish ILEA. I have not even attempted to say that one solution is a reformed ILEA. What I have said is that to come to this decision we need more evidence. At the moment the Government have made certain assertions without any evidence to back them up, and particularly in the realm of schools that needs looking at, because it may well be that to retain ILEA would not improve standards in schools. But what evidence is there that devolving ILEA to all the boroughs—and it is all the boroughs, not just the few—would raise standards generally? These are some of the points we have to bear in mind and I ask the Committee to vote for this amendment, which does not delay, which gives us the evidence and which enables us to act in a responsible way.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The right reverend Prelate seemed in the closing passages of his speech to realise the basic weakness of the amendment which he was supporting. He tried to evade the self-evident fact that if this amendment were to be put into the Bill it must inevitably produce considerable delay in the implementation of the Bill's provisions in respect of ILEA.
If the right reverend Prelate really understood the way in which local government worked, he would realise that once an inquiry of this sort was going to be set up with the authority of Parliament, inevitably the local authorities which are at the moment taking steps, and indeed incurring expenditure, in order to prepare themselves for taking over these responsibilities would feel bound to halt those preparations. They would feel it quite wrong to use their ratepayers' money in order to prepare for undertaking a task which they certainly would not be able to undertake for some time and might as the result of these proceedings never have to undertake.
As a result the right reverend Prelate must face the fact that if this amendment were to be accepted the major local authorities concerned, several of whom, as was admitted earlier in this debate, are taking energetic steps to prepare themselves for the very serious tasks which will be imposed upon them in taking over from ILEA, would halt their preparations and there would be delay and discouragement.
What about the employees of ILEA itself? We have heard this afternoon of the breakdown in morale, of the flight—that is the word used—of teachers from ILEA. If the whole matter is to be plunged again into uncertainty, if everybody concerned is supposed to wait until the five wise men proposed in one of these amendments have come to conclusions, their conclusions have been debated, as they would have to be in both Houses of Parliament, and the Government have finally come to a decision, it is quite evident that crippling uncertainty would continue for many years to come.
Therefore I beg the right reverend Prelate not to try to convince himself, as he was evidently trying to do, that adoption of these proposals would cause no delay. I think that the Committee, whatever view Members take of the merits of the issue, must face the clearly established fact that the effect—and I believe in some quarters the intention—of this amendment is to delay the whole operation. If it be thought that a delay is right and necessary, one can understand that point of view. But I think it is better, and it is treating your Lordships' Chamber better, to accept that openly and to say "Yes, we want to delay the coming into effect of changes which some of us do not like".
Indeed I have been impressed on previous occasions by the innate conservatism of Members opposite and their intense antagonism to change. One understands that and in many ways I rather admire it. But it must be faced that what we are concerned with is not just making some arrangements for a further intellectual assessment of some of the precise provisions of the Bill. What we
206
are faced with is an attempt to delay this part of it coming into operation with a view to its never coming into operation. The Committee will then want to consider whether there has not been, and will not be anyhow, ample opportunity to go into—
Earl Russell: May I—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, not for the moment—the details of the Bill and of the necessary steps. Believe me, I fully realise how complex and how difficult they are. The Committee will want to consider whether there has not already been, and will not be before 1990, time to examine these matters. If the noble Earl wishes to intervene now I shall be happy to let him.
He obviously does not. I am much obliged. I shall give way to the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of London: I did not intend to intervene, but I really must resist the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made that the purpose of the amendment, so far as I am concerned, is to prevent it ever happening. That is not true. This is not a move to stop ILEA being reformed, being broken up. This is why I do not believe it involves delay. I do not accept the noble Lord's logic on that point. If the amendment were to give the retention of ILEA as one of the options, then I believe his arguments would hold. That is not what the amendment says. That is why I cannot accept his logic on this point. It is not intended, so far as I am concerned, to say that this is a way of stopping ILEA ever being abolished.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am infinitely obliged to the right reverend Prelate for that brief intervention. One accepts the sincerity of what he said, but I can only remind him of the rule of law that a sane man is deemed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. The natural consequence of acceptance of the amendment inevitably, as anyone with any knowledge of public administration knows perfectly well, is a substantial delay in the operation of Clause 141 and the abolition of ILEA. Of course I accept that the right reverend Prelate does not want that, though I rather doubt whether some noble Lords opposite share that high-minded view. But I beg of him to understand that it is the inevitable consequence. Therefore if he presses it that is what he will do. That is what he is seeking to achieve. The result would be the continuance of ILEA for a considerable time with all the successor authorities being forced to abandon the preparations that they are at present so vigorously making.
I do not know whether the Committee really feel that that would be a happy or a satisfactory outcome. I do not want to go at any length into the merits, although the idea that education is a local service, locally administered, is one which is applied throughout the rest of the country. I cannot see why the inner London boroughs should be denied the opportunity and this right, and why parents and voters in those inner London boroughs should not have the same advantage of local administration of this vital service as is given everywhere else throughout the country. Therefore I suggest to the

207
Committee that, given that consideration—given the accepted fact that ILEA's educational standards, particularly in the secondary schools, are very low in the national league table, that its costs (for whatever reason one might like to suggest) are very much higher, about double the national average—the case for a change here is overwhelming. It is an issue that the Committee ought not to seek to duck under the excuse of some further examination.
I commend to ILEA the words which Oliver Cromwell delivered to the Rump Parliament on 22nd January 1654:
"It is not fit you should sit here any longer—you shall now give place to better men".
He added, and I add them for the benefit of the right reverend Prelate, these pungent words:
"You have no more religion than my horse".
Lord Stewart of Fulham: It seems to me that the reason we now have an amendment asking that a look be taken at what is proposed for ILEA and that we consider it at this stage is because the Government in their handling of this matter so far have rushed ahead without ever looking before they leapt. The noble Baroness said that the reason for the sudden change from what was originally proposed to a proposal for the outright abolition of ILEA was due to a surge of opinion demanding it. She knows very well that there was no such thing. There has never been any surge of opinion demanding the abolition of ILEA. Over and over again the issue has been before the citizens and parents of inner London and they have repeatedly shown their dislike of abolishing ILEA.
I believe that we ought to consider this point. If we really believe that the local education authority under which one lives is bad educationally and is expensive, what does one do? One votes, surely, for its political opponents who assure one that they could do it better.
One does not usually regard the abolishing of the authority itself as a remedy. I notice, for example, that the Sunday Times recently carried an article recommending the abolition of this House. A number of criticisms were made of the composition of the House of Lords. A number of criticisms were made, too, about the way it does its business. One was left wondering—since many of these criticisms had some force in them—why had the Sunday Times never noticed this before? The reason given was that recently this Chamber had been in the habit of being vexatious to the Conservative Government, and the Sunday Times, following the Government's attitude towards London, is that if any part of the political structure is offensive to the Conservative Party it ought to be abolished. That is the history of London government ever since the old LCC was destroyed.
The noble Baroness offered to us various cures for some of the problems that the Government's haste has created. The trouble was that they were all very partial, ill-thought-out cures: such as for the Horniman and Geffrye Museums. There was a reference to private generosity, to a certain amount of money that would be available from the
208
Government, to something that the London Residuary Body might do; but at the end of the day nobody was certain who would be running those museums or in whose responsibility they would be. Surely, if the Government are so anxious to get on with the job quickly, why did they not give some thought to that matter earlier? They ought never to have begun on the proposal to abolish ILEA without considering such problems as I have envisaged concerning the Horniman and Geffrye Museums and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. Yet on every one of those we have only partial suggestions. We are suggesting now that we might have a further look to see what is involved in abolishing ILEA, with these cultural but important appendages of ILEA, cultural additions to its main work which are of great importance and are famous worldwide.
There is also the advantage that London has from the fact that the population is so dense. If I may be forgiven, I repeat here briefly and summarise an argument I put forward at Second Reading. In London there is the special feature of a large population in a comparatively small area. The advantage of a large population to an education authority is that there might be enough of the quite exceptional cases of the deaf, the autistic, the blind and so on to make it worth while to build up a really good service to deal with them.
This is a difficult problem for smaller authorities. If every authority were to have the population of London, most would be far too big on the map to be possible. The great advantage of London is that having the large population enables one to provide really good specialist services for special needs without the stretch on the map being so great as to be administratively unworkable. That was why the LCC, and ILEA after it, were extremely good authorities, and why it would have been impossible, despite determined attempts, to get the parents to vote against their continued existence. Exceptionally good services have catered for exceptional needs.
I recently received a letter from a lady whose child was stricken with meningitis when it was a baby. It survived, but is subject to epileptic fits. It is now, thanks to ILEA, in the junior department of a school, while previously it was in the nursery department; it is able to live a normal life and even to engage in swimming lessons, of which it is particularly fond. The mother says, "I cannot be too grateful to ILEA for what it has done for my child". She wants to know what happens next. The running of a nursery school is not a statutory business. The borough in which she lives is a poor one. There is no certainty that the school that has done so much for her child and for other children in the past will continue to exist.
The Government have not so far come forward with anything like an adequate explanation of what will happen. We are told that the boroughs will "get together". Of course they can get together and talk about it indefinitely. It still will not solve the problem of what one does with a school that, of its nature, must cater for children from all over London if it is to do its job properly, when apparently it has to be put into the area of one local authority only. This and a host of similar problems are left unanswered in the Bill as we now have it.

209
It may cause some delay if the problem is considered a little further. It is worth a small delay to get right some of the answers to these questions. We do not want to leave Londoners with the provision for the deaf, blind, autistic and handicapped all awry and misshapen. We do not want to leave London stripped of its cultural distinctions like the Horniman and Geffrye Museums. We do not want bodies like Morley College, the City Lit and the Mary Ward Centre to be handled, according to what we have heard from the Minister, in a way that yet again is a mixture of private generosity—something from the Government, something from the London Residuary Body, but no one to say exactly, or even in convincing outline, how it will work. We surely do not want to do that merely to save whatever time is needed to carry out the amendment.
I make no secret of the fact—many others think this, too—that I think the whole idea of abolishing ILEA is wrong, just as I thought the abolition of the LCC was wrong from the start. It is not surprising that no one mourned all that much for the GLC: it was a Tory creation, created because a Tory Government hoped that it would vote Tory and, when it did not, it was left almost without any friends. Before that there was the London County Council, whose administration, particularly of education, was well known the world over. We are now reaping part of the retribution of the wanton destruction of that body.
I hope that we shall not repeat the error. As I say, although I and, I believe, many others object to the abolition of ILEA, I recognise that the weight of opinion in the two Houses may in the end be against us. Even if that is so, it is not a reason for going ahead with so many practical, important questions unsolved, sketchily described and neglected as if they were of no great importance. It is to avoid that that I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Baroness Young: The issue before the Committee is whether there should be a delay in implementing this part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made absolutely clear the great dangers of that move.
Perhaps I may say that the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Southwark, are—I do not impugn their motive about this—being disingenuous if they really believe that putting off a decision about this matter until next April means that a decision would be taken then. We would be in the same position then as we are today, with all the other matters that would follow from it, and there would be a considerable delay. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has so obligingly reminded us that he does not want to see the abolition of ILEA in any event, and would of course gladly vote for the delay, because that is what he thinks it would mean.
I think that the Committee should be under no illusions about this at all: of course the delay would have disastrous consequences. It has been pointed out to me by many people in the inner London boroughs to whom I have spoken about the matter, that delay would not stop the anxieties in the education world; rather, it would increase them. Good staff, good administrators and good teachers
210
would leave, and difficult decisions would be taken either in "stronger" boroughs or, indeed, in "weaker" boroughs. Indeed, a kind of planning blight would descend on the whole authority and no decisions of any consequence would be taken at all, with all the consequences that that would have for children.
Noble Lords who have spoken have made much of what will happen, but one must not forget what the present situation is. It is a very serious one, with low standards and criticisms of secondary schools. As my noble friend Baroness Hooper properly pointed out, children are leaving school without any qualifications, totally ill-equipped to face the world of work. Against that background we have to see whether or not we can do better.
One question that can justifiably be put to boroughs is how they think they might improve matters. I shall take two issues which seem to me to be helpful. The first is for them to try to deal with the truancy levels, which are now running at 30 per cent. across London secondary schools, with some even higher.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to the educational welfare services. These will of course continue. One of the advantages of the boroughs is that, in their way, they are becoming all-purpose authorities: they have social services as well. They are therefore in a position to effect a much closer link between education and social services where this is required. The second point is for them to recruit and to keep good teachers.
One problem was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark; that is, the difficulty of getting teachers and the cost of housing. The London boroughs are of course housing authorities. They would therefore be in a position to find some housing for teachers more easily than ILEA. To speak from my own experience, when I was in a local authority—it was an old county borough that was an education and housing authority—we used to provide council houses for key staff at least on a temporary basis until they found something else. This is the kind of thing that a well organised authority ought to be able to do. That would be a positive measure. Nor has real evidence been produced that the poorer authorities would be incapable of running their education authorities. The poor London boroughs that run their own education at present seem to manage perfectly well.
One must remember that the authorities will be subject to the national curriculum, to the procedures of testing and assessment and to all the other matters that have been debated in the course of the Bill. However, if we compare ILEA with authorities such as Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham—all of which have the enormous inner city problems of ethnic minorities, many languages and so on—we find that they manage to produce better results with less money. I believe that one needs to ask oneself why London is so expensive and has such bad results when others do better.
A further criticism has been on the whole question of cross-borough services; many people have referred to it. It is not unknown in local education authorities

211
for children from one authority to be educated in another and to use the services of another authority. To hear the arguments put forward, anyone would think that that is something unique to London. It happens in an enormous number of places and is happening all over the country today. Indeed, the 1980 Education Act made that easier and simpler and I have no reason to believe that it will not continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, talked of a cultural
collapse with the ending of ILEA. My noble friend Lady Hooper has rightly pointed out that the Government have very much in mind those organisations which will continue and I have no doubt that we shall hear more on that front. However, we were threatened with cultural collapse with the end of the GLC and we have not yet experienced it, so once again I have no doubt that this is an acute fear which is being stirred up to make everybody's flesh creep—certainly the parents'—which is not very helpful in the situation.
The last point I should like to make is that I believe it would be most unfortunate if it was thought that those who were against this amendment and who believe that the education of London's children will be better provided when it is devolved to the boroughs, as is the case in every other part of the country, are somehow politically motivated and not interested in the education of the children. I believe that everybody taking part in this debate wants to see the education of the children improved. The results in London's secondary schools are not a kindness to the children involved. There is a duty to maintain those services which are good and to improve those which are falling well below the acceptable standards. This has been introduced because of the importance of raising those standards and giving the inner city children in London similar opportunities to those children elsewhere.
If there is a Division on this amendment, which in a sense is a wrecking amendment for this part of the Bill, I hope that the Committee will reject it because further delay will not improve education. It will simply delay it, prolong the anxiety and mean that nothing good will be done for a long period of time to come.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Goodman: I hope that I shall be acquitted of any of the sinister and ulterior motives attributed to the Benches on my right. I have no wish to prevent this Bill from passing. I feel strongly that some portions of it are desirable. However, I have one particular motive for being here today. I represent one interest which I believe is greatly endangered and, with respect, I have to contradict what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said when he suggested that arrangements were advanced and well advanced in many areas. In respect of the matters with which I am concerned I have authentic and incontrovertible proof that they are not advanced.
I am here as president of the London Union of Youth Clubs and also as the chairman of one particular youth club which was inspired and originated by my Oxford College. No arrangements
212
at all exist for that very vital service which may seem to be a peripheral one. However, it is a service which involves hundreds of young people. It concerns keeping them off the streets and whether or not they grow into civilised, law abiding human beings or into louts who end up in our prison population. That it has no significant arrangements made on its behalf is extremely serious.
I would not wish to vote either for or against this amendment if the noble Baroness or anyone else from the Government were able to assure me that something satisfactory and realistic will be carried out. Guidelines were published which were almost an insult. They did not give the slightest indication of where to go for the money or what comparisons should be made among the different councils. The youth club movement is not a political one. In my youth club I would venture to suggest that one of the trustees sits on the Government Benches and all the other trustees, if they vote at all, vote Conservative. I am equally convinced that the staff of that club are not nihilists, Maoists or communists. They are people who have given a great deal of time and thought to maintaining this vital service.
I say that guidelines have been published, but they are absolutely useless. I am prepared to submit them to anyone on the Government Benches and they can see that there is no guidance at all as to what sum of money will be available to replace the money needed to maintain the club.
In the club of which I speak a great amount of money has been raised by volunteers. We have built a roof garden and an annexe. The other day we had a splendid Royal visit to a children's centre which has been established to enable disabled children between the ages of four and eight to come to play two or four hours a week. It is that sort of project which is endangered by—I can almost say—the mad haste with which the arrangements are being made.
I do not have the least wish to prevent this measure from passing. As I say, it is sensible to recognise, even if one is as large as I am, that a steamroller will destroy you. I am satisfied that the steamroller which can be organised by the Government will be able to cope, even with me. However, I appeal to the Government for something to be announced because otherwise I shall have to vote for this amendment. I have no more wish to vote for this amendment than any other amendment. However unless this organisation is protected, I shall be failing in my duty to a body for which I have worked for years and for which many people have worked for longer.
Baroness Seear: I shall refrain from making a long speech but there are questions I wish to ask the noble Baroness and I shall limit myself to asking questions. If it is so urgent that these measures should be carried out because the state of ILEA is so bad, why—and we have had no answer to this—was it not in the manifesto and in the original Bill? The noble Baroness tells us that they are a listening Government. They have listened to Messrs. Heseltine and Tebbit but not listened to the parents of London. Those parents had their own ballot which the Government refused to
support and which resulted in

213
an overwhelming majority for the retention of ILEA. If I may say so, the Government have very partial hearing.
Secondly, what is going to happen to the financing of the schools in the poorer boroughs when ILEA has been disbanded? We have said all along that we wish to raise the level of education in this country. We need to raise it particularly for the non-academic children, and there are a great many of them in the boroughs of Southwark, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets. Can we have a clear statement from the noble Baroness as to where the money is coming from when ILEA is not there—and nor will be the money that the ratepayers of Chelsea, Westminster, and so on, have previously put into the kitty which has gone to the poorer boroughs? How will that be replaced? Without that money there will be sink schools. The teachers will leave. We have talked about teachers leaving and they will leave a great deal quicker than they have in the past unless there is adequate financing.
Thirdly, as president of Morley College I was delighted to hear the compliments given to that college and to its sister organisation mentioned by the noble Baroness. However, she went on to say that after a period of time no doubt those colleges would be able to raise a large amount of their finance from the private sector, from earning their keep and standing on their own feet. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that at present one third of the students at Morley College are reduced fee-paying students because they are either old age pensioners, unemployed or people who are not in a position to pay. Unless considerable sums of money can be raised the whole character of the college will change. It is the essence of the work of the college that London-wide it is providing both high standards in such matters as music and art but also is determined to meet community needs for people in great need and difficulty who urgently need the advantages of adult education for a whole variety of reasons which I shall not go into.
Does the noble Baroness really believe that those colleges will be able to maintain themselves by putting up their fees—which is what she means—and raising money from trusts and foundations? Of course they will endeavour to do that. However, that does not begin to answer the problem. I should like to have satisfactory answers to those questions from the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he is to reply to this debate.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The case for the speedy abolition of ILEA is overwhelming and I do not want to dwell on it further this afternoon. It is well known to everyone.
The only thing that ILEA is good at is bogus propaganda in trying to extend its own life. For example, I refer to its ludicrous parents' poll. That was conducted at public expense in ILEA schools, backed by massive ILEA propaganda. A weird weightage of voting was given according to the number of children that parents had at an ILEA school. ILEA then claimed that 93 per cent. of the
214
parents in the poll were in favour of ILEA. In fact, only 72,500 out of ILEA's 475,000 parents voted at all.
Recently the Committee passed an amendment to the effect that when a school wishes to opt out of control of its local authority there must be a majority of all those who could have voted; not just a simple majority of those who voted. 1LEA's self-preservation poll hardly satisfies that standard. A much better guide is the Gallup poll published in the Daily Telegraph on Monday. That said that 63 per cent. of all Londoners are not at all worried about the abolition of ILEA. It is true that 47 per cent. expressed concern (that is, of inner Londoners, not Londoners in general) but 49 per cent. were not worried. It is surprising that after all the propaganda put out by ILEA the majority, even of inner Londoners, do not back its continuance.
The bogus polls conducted by ILEA are reminiscent of the bogus polls conducted by the GLC when we were told of all the ghastly horrors that would occur if that magnificent ornament of public government were to be abolished. The GLC has vanished. There is no clamour to bring it back. Everyone is getting on very nicely without it. It will be the same when ILEA has gone into the dustbin of history.
The 13 new local education authorities could not do a worse job than ILEA. They have every chance of doing a much better one. The Government propose to give the new authorities two years to make plans for running the schools within their areas. One can do an awful lot in two years. It is half the length of the First World War. The Government are right to speed up the process of abolition. Even some of the movers of this amendment assume that ILEA must go. A dying authority is useless and it can have very nasty death throes.
I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Annan said that if the deed were to be done it should be done quickly. He then moved an amendment allowing for a very long delay before the deed occurred—perhaps not at all.
Lord Annan: Will the noble Lord give way? I said "three months".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: That is not so. Once this amazing panel of assessors has been set up and it starts consulting everyone, the hands of the Secretary of State will be tied. He can do nothing about making new arrangements until he knows what the panel is proposing to him. Even then he has to decide whether or not he agrees that the panel has produced a good solution. There will then be another debate on all that. That may please all the education experts but it will do no good for children and their futures. It will just be a collection of experts advising and telling other experts what to do—and they would never agree, in any case.
I am a new Member of this Chamber. My understanding of our role is that we are to improve Bills sent to us by the other place, not to emasculate them. No doubt the general level of intelligence in this Chamber is higher than that in the other place.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: At least we have agreement on that. Members of the other place were elected, we were not. In making alterations to central parts of legislation passed by a majority in another place we run the risk of serious danger. We may say that we pass a major amendment only to give the Government and the other place the opportunity to reconsider the matter, but in practice we are holding up significant legislation which has been passed in the other place.
If ever there were another Labour Government, Labour Peers and the Labour Party would resent this practice very much. They would revise their policy of abolising your Lordships' House. Already a leading article in last week's Sunday Times advocated just that. Even a Conservative Government may not remain indefinitely tolerant.
That is not the only reason I am opposing the amendment. The speedy abolition of ILEA is essential for the better education of the children of inner London. We are compelling them to have a continually bad education the longer we delay it. It would be foolish of us to behave as though this were a great constitutional issue which puts the nation in danger and only this Committee can save it by passing the amendment. The nation is not in danger. What is in danger is the education of the children of inner London. The sooner that danger is removed, the better.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise because, as I explained when the original announcement was made, I was probably the person most responsible for the paternity of ILEA in its present form, but it is time that my putative child should be put an end to within the time-scale allowed by Her Majesty's Government. I give my reasons.
There is no respectable body of opinion in this country except in regard to inner London which does not want education to be based on local authorities. The question we have to ask ourselves is why inner London should be privileged to have a different system of education from the rest of the country? I should have had a great deal more respect for the amendment if its supporters had taken the line, avowedly admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that it was bad to abolish ILEA and therefore it ought not to be abolished. However, from the moment that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke it was obvious that that is not what the amendment says. If I may remind the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark it says, roughly speaking, what was said by St. Augustine of Hippo, which was:
"Domine, fac castum sed non modo"
please make me chaste, but give me a breathing space first!
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, quoted Lady Macbeth and her husband, but he should have remembered the words of Dr. Johnson:
"when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully".
The fact is that there is plenty of time to use before the abolition of this authority, which is entirely
216
unexampled throughout the rest of the country and which, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, has failed the ordinary children of London for the reasons given: partly because of its financial incompetence and partly because of the low standards of its education. It is not an answer for the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, to say, "Ah, but there are so many people with exceptional needs congregated in this highly populated area and we can make special arrangements for them", if the cost of that is to be at the expense of the ordinary school and the ordinary child.
What is ILEA? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was the only person who touched upon the truth. ILEA is the built-up area of 1888 which has about as much relevance to the educational needs of the country at the present time as the street plan of Pompei. It is a survival from the past. I preserved it not because it was a good education authority, but for reasons which I gave to the House when the announcement was made, namely, it was a question of bricks and mortar. The LCC, which is the area concerned, built its schools and, I must say because I was particularly concerned with them at the time, the polytechnics, and although they have disappeared from the Bill for reasons which have no relevance to what I am about to say, they are dealt with in Part III. But the bricks and mortar did not correspond to borough boundaries. More than 20 years have passed since then for Parliament to put this matter in order.
There is absolutely nothing in the obviously complex difficulties to which the abolition of ILEA, passed by the House of Commons, gives rise which cannot be dealt with either by trans-borough arrangements with suitable financial arrangements where the export of pupils exceeds the import and by the kind of provision which my noble friend Lady Hooper gave in her very carefully and properly prepared speech.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, defend the boys' clubs. I hope that proper provision will be made for them. On the basis of the present programme there are two years in which it can be done. The amendment is now asking us to invent a new quango of anonymous composition and therefore of unknown value, and to postpone the evil day which will therefore lead to increased uncertainty and increased delay. I can have no respect whatever for that proposition.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark: I wish to speak very briefly and I rise in response only to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I must declare a vested interest and I suspect that a number of Members of this Committee also have an interest. My first young grandchild began at a primary school in Hackney a week ago. The question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is a very demanding one and no one whom I have heard speaking from the other side opposing this amendment has come near to offering an answer to it.

217
The question to which I am referring is this. How will a very poor borough finance education on an adequate scale for its children?
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that it is no answer at all to say that Kensington and Chelsea are doing very well. The noble Baroness may wish to give the comparative figures of the ratio of the child population to the adult population in those areas. Perhaps she will also give the proportion of the children of Kensington and Chelsea who are sent to fee-paying schools by their parents, often outside the London area altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, made some play about what public opinion pollsters can do and also the statistician who attempts to produce tables in relation, for example, to the achievement in schools of children in the ILEA area. What account is taken of the relationship between school results and performance and the degree of deprivation, problem children and problem areas? There are a number of studies—I have seen at least two—which indicate very clearly that if one considers the relationship between the performance in London schools and the degree of problems faced by those schools and the children in them, compared with other parts of the country, the results are perfectly normal, at least in most areas.
I end on this point. I have always regarded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as an eminently reasonable person. It seems that he is bound to agree —
A noble Lord: Not all the time.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark: Most of the time. It seems that the noble and learned Lord must agree that, as compared with other parts of the Bill, less careful attention, preparation and thought can have been given to this part which has been added at a very late stage. The noble and learned Lord, if he is not indulging in perversity, is bound to agree that further study of this subject may be necessary. I believe that he is also bound to agree that within the terms set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, it might be possible for individual boroughs to come to some agreement on how to support and provide the specialised services, a number of which have been mentioned in Committee today.
It would seem advisable to most reasonable people that before the Bill becomes law it is clearly set out by the Government, whatever arrangements are to be the outcome, that there must be continuing and equally good provision for the handicapped of various kinds, for English literacy education for the ethnic groups—some of which takes place at Morley College—and for the continued provision of good music education, and the continued provision of services for young people. There is another need which I have not heard mentioned and to which I attach enormous importance; namely, the continued provision of good child-guidance services.
Without the undertaking by the Government that the arrangements to be made must satisfy those criteria, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord—as I say, I have always found him to have a considerable
218
element of reasonable rationality—that the amendment being moved today gives the Government the opportunity to make those kinds of commitments and to see that those undertakings are met in whatever arrangements are achieved. The amendment also gives time for these matters to be studied in the way in which they should have been studied before the clause was added to the Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I must admit to a feeling of relief that we have come to that part of the Bill which deals with the ILEA, not primarily because we are now moving to within sight of the finishing post, but more because for almost the first time I believe it is possible to feel the firm rock of solid evidence under our feet.
When the Committee discussed the national curriculum, open enrolment and grant-maintained schools, we could to some extent at least indulge our fancies as to whether the proposed changes would be for the better or worse. Proof was hard to come by—it almost always is in education—and so speculation and anecdotal evidence, the lessons of past experience and a dash of prejudice here and there, were the order of the day. But with ILEA it is rather different.
The charges are that the authority produces bad results and that it is profligate. That is what the Secretary of State said in another place and we have heard it repeated again today. What is the evidence? The evidence for the former centres on secondary examination results. I believe it is common ground that these tell only a small part of the total story, but I shall not dwell here upon the excellent nursery, adult and further education provision and satisfactory primary provision besides the many cross-boundary services to which other speakers have already drawn attention.
Let us take the case at its admitted worst. In absolute terms ILEA exam results are almost at the bottom of the national league but anyone who has wrestled with performance indicators in education or in any other field, will know that this kind of raw statistic is meaningless. For example, does one close down a terminal cancer ward because the outcomes are uniformly bad? Before one judges an outcome one has to look at an input. In education this is not an easy exercise because there are so many variables. However it has been done. When allowance is made for the multiple disadvantages under which inner London suffers, the verdict is that ILEA's performance, compared with others, is middling; neither particularly good, nor bad.
Of course we know from other research—conducted, be it noted, by ILEA's own research and statistics branch whose future is now in jeopardy—that schools can make a difference, however dire the social need may be. The authority's performance could be up near the top of the league; however, by the same token, it could equally well be at the bottom. Do we have any other evidence—reliable evidence, not hearsay—about the state of ILEA's secondary education? As it happens, we do; and we have already heard about it. The verdict of the senior chief HMI in a recent report confirms the story told by the examination results: standards are patchy across the

219
authority. However, "undistinguished" might perhaps be a good word with which to sum up his overall view of the situation because I do not think it is accurate to quote him as calling it "poor".
The situation is nothing to be proud of; much work remains to be done, and it is being done. However, it is a long way from the out-and-out condemnation on which the abolition case appears to rest. Are the 40-odd LEAs, which are placed below inner London in the league table I referred to, to be shaken up as well? It seems not.
Further, what about profligacy? Inner London spends about £2,600 per secondary pupil per annum, as against an LEA average of between £1,500 to £1,600. How can one accurately judge whether that is about right for the problems that London has to face—the unusually sharp fluctuations in pupil numbers and social structure in recent years; the greatly increasing incidence of first languages other than English (now about one in four); whether £2,600 is too much and whether—the possibility has to be considered—it may even be too little?
Perhaps the best that can be done in this connection is to look at what other inner London services spend in relation to the national average, as it is the essence of London which concerns us and not what happens in Liverpool or Leeds where, although things are not easy, they are different. As we have seen, educational spending is something over one and a half times the average. What are the comparable figures for the police? They are about twice the average. What about social services? They are three times the average. What happens when one looks at the unit costs of services provided by the inner London boroughs who are to take over the running of education? They are higher in relation to those of the outer London boroughs than ILEA's education costs are in relation to those same boroughs. Therefore it begins to look as though ILEA may not be quite as spendthrift in its inner city context as has been said. Further, it may be that future economies may not necessarily be looked for from the boroughs under the proposed new dispensation.
I cannot resist one further observation. When one looks at the cost of some of the independent day schools one is talking of a figure in the region of £3,000 plus. For example, I believe the fees for St. Paul's School for Girls are over £3,400 per annum. Of course I know that fees and unit costs are not exactly the same, but I should be surprised if there were that much difference between the two. However, I have not heard the Government tell independent schools that they are spending too much. I cannot for the life of me see why £3,400 is all right for a girl attending St. Paul's School, but is far too much for a girl attending an ILEA school.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: If the noble Lord will allow me to say a word, I should like to point out that my daughter attended St. Paul's School and it did not cost anything like £3,400.
A noble Lord: That was 60 years ago!
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Without knowing how long ago that was, it is difficult for me to reply to the noble Lord.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It was more recent than that—two years.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: However, the difference is still an extremely large one. The figure is one which was recently given to me and I have no reason to think that it is incorrect. Of course prices in the independent schools have gone up, even in the past two years. However, be that as it may, the difference is a great one. It is the LEA average of under £1,600 which is perhaps the one which is out of step in this connection.
I have tried to keep to hard facts and figures. I know that the statistical comparisons are not perfect—they never are—but they have been published before and I am not aware that they have been seriously challenged. In my mind it all adds up to the fact that the case for the dismemberment of the ILEA is so weak that it could only be justified if the administrative arguments against a large unitary authority were overwhelming. However, as we know, that is just what the experts have never argued.
There are many aspects about ILEA which could be improved—there are no two ways about that. I remember as a 10 year-old a report which went up on the school noticeboard about the first football match in which I ever played. It said, "Baldwin was adequate". As I sped to look the word up in the dictionary I was pretty excited: I have never liked that word since. It could perhaps be the right word for ILEA in so far as one can categorise so diverse an enterprise.
I do not believe that anyone is saying that ILEA is above reproach, not even the chairman of the London Parents' Ballot Campaign, who writes of its "occasional wayward notions". Similarly, no one is excusing the examples of waste and inefficiency. However, thoroughly bad ILEA is demonstrably not; and the evidence does not suggest that overall it is profligate. Of course I could continue about the odds against anything better being provided by the individual boroughs, for all their enthusiasm, and about the great value of the central services, but I shall leave that subject to other speakers.
My main reason for speaking on the issue, as an educationalist, is to re-emphasise the quite firm evidence that we have about the authority's performance in what is acknowledged to be its worst area; to suggest that in the light of this the case for abolition has not begun to be made out; to note with dismay that the Government solution appears, once again, to be to change the system which looks good politically but which usually leaves the real issues untouched and to express my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that his amendment now offers the best way forward.
Lord Bellwin: It is hard to get a word in in these long debates but I must say that the feeling of déjà vu is rather mind-boggling. This is almost exactly where I came in on the GLC debate. Here we have it all again: the panoply; the propaganda; the campaigns, and so on. We even had a Petition arriving on the day of the debate; the whole thing is there in place and, of

221
course, the spending of the money on such campaigns is at the poor ratepayers' expense. What a picture it paints, and what a shambles! I am glad of the opportunity—
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord has suggested that the campaign is at the ratepayers' expense. Surely, so far as the London Parents' Ballot is concerned, that is not the case. The London Parents' Ballot Campaign was paid for by that organisation itself and not by the local authority.
Lord Beltwin: If the noble Lord will look at the actual spending of ILEA and then add to it the spending of individual boroughs who support their case—plus other spending as well—I think he will agree that the figure is at least significant. Happily, the outcome will be the same as that which applied to the GLC. However, we must ensure that we do not have the same type of delay which, as those who have spoken before me have clearly indicated—especially on this side of the Committee—would, frankly, have a devasting effect. That has to be said.
When we contemplate life after ILEA in relation to inner London, I should have thought, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Baldwin, said, that we can feel most relieved. The fact of the matter is that if one takes any statistics on their own you can argue about them; if you take the totality of spending and say that it is four times more expensive in administrative terms than anywhere else in the country, you can argue the point. However, it is only when one starts to put those concepts together that one obtains the type of picture which has led to us wanting to see done that which must be done.
The fact is that the case is overwhelming. The over-spending and under-achievement is something which cannot be left to go on any longer. We can argue as to how good or how bad it is; some people say that it is 93rd out of 96 education authorities. We can say that perhaps it is the 83rd, but that is still quite awful by all standards.
Attention has been drawn to the poor backgrounds of people concerned, with the children coming from poor homes and so on. If there were no others in that situation then perhaps one could argue the case. I accept that Leeds should not be brought in here because that authority always does these things so much better under whatever system is operated there. But there are other areas. In another capacity I have had the opportunity to see those areas where the conditions are quite awful, and one would not want to say how much better or worse they are than some areas in London. Yet the education results are not by any means as awful.
On that point, if the Committee will allow a strictly personal note, up to the age of 10 I attended a primary school where the average size of classes was 44. I do not think we ever had less than 44 in the class and one could say of almost all those children that they came from what would be described today as poor backgrounds. Almost all of them came from the ethnic minorities. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, knows exactly what I mean when I say that.
222
Yet the teaching was good, the head master was strict, but he was highly respected. The parents were concerned about what the children were doing in school. One thing was not there and noble Lords may or may not consider this significant: on none of the school noticeboards or walls was there any notice pertaining to anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-heterosexism or anti-anything else, come to that.
The results of the school in educational terms, with all the background and all the deprivation, could only be described as outstanding. I shall name the school because I would love to see it on the record. It was the Lovell Road School, Leeds. I am very proud of having at one time been a pupil there.
I have no fears as to what life will be like afterwards. It is true that the boroughs will do things differently. Some will be better, some will be worse. This is always the case in local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hart, who, I note, is not in her place, asked, where will the money come from for the boroughs? Of course, as always, it will come from the same place as the money for all the other education authorities in the country—from central government grants, through the rate support grant. The poorer boroughs will receive much more than the better off boroughs. That is always the way.
I shall not say a great deal today because many others have spoken, and who knows how many more may wish to speak! But the more carefully I have looked into the case made out by the anti-abolitionists, the more appalled I have become. One cannot explain away the fact that one out of eight head teachers in 1986 and another 76 by May 1987 had left the service of ILEA. That cannot be explained away. We can take heed of what the general secretary of a head teachers' association said:
"The fact is that the job has become almost impossible. They (the head teachers) are continually harassed by threats of tribunals, of allegations of racism, sexism and so on".
How can teachers go about their business of teaching and educating the children in such a festering atmosphere? When it has all gone and it is all finished, it is all just a bad dream, the teachers will be free from any of the fear of harassment of this kind. Then we shall see a real opportunity for the children of London.
In my view postponement is not an option. I just do not think we can delay any longer. What is being called for by the amendment is the kind of vacillation that we had in the 'seventies. Look at the mess that got us into with just about everything! The low educational standards and high spending—it has to be said, so let us say it now—are a scandal. The financial cost in wasted millions is unjustifiable. The human cost in wasted opportunities is unforgivable. I think that uncertainty is the worst option of all. I hope that we shall reject this amendment, and I gladly support those who will do so.
Baroness Blackstone: I know what happened to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, since he left his school, but I do not know what happened to the other 43 pupils. I am sure that everybody in this Committee will agree that almost all parents would prefer their children not to be educated in a class with 44 children. Almost all

223
parents will be aware of the enormous difficulties that teachers would experience in a class as large as that. We have made some progress since then and certainly the Inner London Education Authority has made a great deal of progress since then. I do not believe that those reminiscences are appropriate to 1988.
I had not intended to speak on this amendment but one or two points have been made which I feel I must answer. As many members of the Committee know, I speak as a former chief officer in the Inner London Education Authority. I hope that the Committee will not think that makes me parti pris. I do not care whether the Inner London Education Authority as such survives. There are various forms of organisation which could provide education in inner London. What I care passionately about is that the quality of education for children in our capital city should be of the highest possible order, and that the range of opportunities for students and young people should be as great as they possibly can be. It is for that reason that I am on my feet rather than because I want to defend every single aspect of what the Inner London Education Authority has done in the past.
I should like to pick up the issue which a number of noble Lords on the opposite Benches have raised. One is the question of whether delay will be undesirable. I agree that a delay of many months would not be helpful to people in inner London. However, we are faced today with new clauses which were inserted in this Bill half way through its passage in another place. Surely it is reasonable in those circumstances to suggest that we should not rush with undue haste down a route about which many of us have great doubts. Moreover, I must take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This is not a wrecking amendment and I think it is very unfair to the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Annan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, to suggest that it is. If at the end of the day, after a review which should be short and should be done as fast as possible, it is decided, or the Government are advised by their experts that the best solution for education in London is to abolish the ILEA, then so be it. It cannot be a wrecking amendment in those circumstances.
I wanted to pick up one or two of the points made by the Minister. I think she was very unfair and somewhat selective in what she said about standards in inner London. I also think she was rather unfair and selective in what she said about costs. I am however glad that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has covered those issues admirably. I am pleased that it came from him rather than from me. As a professional education officer from outside inner London he may be considered to be more objective than I could possibly be. But I fully endorse every word that he said.
There are two or three other points which I think need picking up and which have not been covered. First, I should like to say a few words about social needs in inner London. Reference has been made to the extent of urban deprivation in our capital city. I do not think anybody has adequately covered the extent to which social conditions have deteriorated in recent years. There has been a great increase in
224
unemployment among the parents of inner London school children. Housing conditions have deteriorated in many parts of the areas served by the ILEA. It is also the case that there has been a very substantial increase in the number of children and young people who do not speak English as a first language at home. The proportion of children who are qualifying for free school meals has increased.
This has all happened in the past four or five years. Therefore it is rather unfair to complain that ILEA has not adequately put its house in order when one takes into account the enormous social problems with which it is having to deal.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Somers: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that we should not rush through this Bill with undue haste. We have spent two and a half hours and more over one amendment. Does the noble Baroness think that too hasty?
Baroness Blackstone: I have nothing to reply to that intervention, which I do not think is particularly helpful. I wish briefly to mention my point about costs. It is true that ILEA has had high levels of expenditure. It is possible that in the past some savings might have been made that were not made. I accept that. However, as again the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has said, the costs of providing services in inner London are very much higher than they are in many other parts of the country. That applies to the police, to the social services and to other services. But the Government introduced new legislation not very long ago to control expenditure by local authorities where they consider that spending is too high.
Rate-capping is now operating in inner London, and, indeed, this very financial year ILEA is cutting its budget by 12 per cent. as a result of those provisions. If the Government wish to cut it further (although I would hope that they will not) they have those provisions available. The Government do not need to abolish ILEA in order to deal with the problem of high spending if that is what they perceive to be the main problem.
The Minister made a number of references to particular services and in almost every case she kept referring to the fact that whether it was adult education or whether it was the Horniman and Geffrye Museum they could rely in future on more private sector funding. I really wonder whether private industry and commerce in this country has so much spare money available that it can pay for our public services. Surely its profits should be reinvested to increase the productivity that the Government are so proud of. Surely it is out of general taxation and the raising of rates that we should pay for these services which are of communal advantage to us all.
I should just like to refer to the quite extraordinary speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. To refer to the parents' poll as bogus is I believe an insult to those parents who spent many weeks and months organising that poll as well as putting money into it. It is quite untrue that those parents were simply responding to propaganda put out by ILEA. We have heard a certain amount of

225
propaganda in this debate, some of it from the Benches opposite and some of it from the public newspapers. But to suggest that parents are unable to make up their own minds on this issue after reading the propaganda from all sides is I believe an insult and is totally and utterly out of tune with everything that the Government have said about their wish to listen to parents.
Finally, the headteachers and every other organisation in inner London concerned with education have come out strongly in favour of maintaining a unitary authority. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that the Minister should say that she has been listening. All I can say is that her listening has been extraordinarily selective.
Baroness David: The Government plan sudden and dramatic changes to, and fragmention of, the organisation and structure of the service which has provided for the social and educational needs of inner Londoners for more than 100 years. These hastily drafted changes were introduced in Committee after the Bill had been given its Second Reading in another place, and were quite unexpectedly inserted into Part III as a result of an Early Day Motion tabled by Back Benchers.
They remain on the face of the Bill despite overwhelming expressions of concern and anxiety from those who will have to live with the Government's unplanned outcome for London's education. Her Majesty's Inspector Mr. Eric Bolton has conspicuously failed to endorse the Government's proposal. Headteachers, parents, national representatives of the Churches, voluntary organisations and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry have all expressed their fears and concerns.
We on these Benches have been accused, quite wrongly, of complacency and of reluctance to acccept change. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to this again this very afternoon; but I want to take this opportunity to spell out clearly our attitude to reorganisation and change. Our attitude is very firmly based on the stated policy and the clear advice offered to education authorities by the current Secretary of State for Education. This policy and advice relates to the manner in which changes to an education service should be proposed, agreed and carried out. Therefore, I shall confine myself in this debate to the advice and policy of the Secretary of State as defined in Circular No. 3/87, which was circulated by the DES on 6th May 1987, only a year ago. The circular is entitled Providing for Quality, and lays out quite clearly the
"General considerations against which the Secretary of State judges rationalisation proposals".
First, the Secretary of State makes it quite clear that it is his policy,
"having regard to his legal obligations and the need for cost-effective reorganisation to keep an open mind as to what pattern of school organisation might best suit the needs of a particular area".
Secondly, he states unequivocally (and I quote again):
"The Government is committed to giving the fullest possible effect to parental preferences".
226
The parental preference must, however, be fairly considered by a Secretary of State whose mind is open. We have had parental preferences expressed very clearly in the ballot, but the Secretary of State does not appear to have kept an open mind.
The matter to which the Secretary of State attaches the greatest importance in Circular No.3/87 is consultation. Paragraph 9 of the circular states:
"The Secretary of State has made clear in previous guidance the importance he attaches to the adequacy of consultation on the part of all promoters."
This policy, the circular emphasises,
"has received judicial backing from recent High Court decisions which hold that parents have a legitimate expectation that they will be consulted on proposals affecting reorganisation of their children's school. The Secretary of State expects appropriate consultation to have taken place with parents, teaching and other staff, governors and other interested parties at the formative stage of the proposals, with sufficient information and time available to permit intelligent consideration of and response to the issues involved; such consultation should normally have taken place within the 12 months immediately prior to publication."
The circular goes on to encourage very careful consideration of a range of options. The Secretary of State advises:
"It may be appropriate that a range of options is explored before arriving at a specific proposal, but it is important that before a final decision is made, proposers should ensure that in the course of consultation the emerging choice is sufficiently identified to allow those being consulted to focus on it. Where an entirely new option emerges from the consultation process, the Secretary of State generally expects proposers to broaden the consultations to take account of that option."
The circular them makes a particularly telling point in the light of this Government's refusal to make public the responses to their proposals to break up ILEA. Mr. Dunn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in written answers in another place, has made plain his refusal to disclose, analyse and publish responses to the Government's consultation document, which did not even include the present proposals, or to their proposals in the Bill, on which no consultation has been permitted and representations on which have been swept under the carpet.
The circular states in paragraph 11 on page 12:
"The Secretary of State expects proposers (of change) to be able to demonstrate that they have considered the views of interested parties in their formulation of proposals. He would not expect proposals to be published in the face of overwhelming local opposition unless the proposers could show that no other form of rationalisation could meet the circumstances of the area."
The starkness of the contrast between that advice and the actions of the Secretary of State in relation to ILEA could not be greater. Not only has the same Secretary of State ignored his own advice by publishing proposals "in the face of overwhelming opposition": he has thought fit to include the proposals in legislation at a very late stage in its parliamentary progress. If that were not reckless enough, he has, without any willingness to demonstrate that he has considered the views of interested parties, proceeded to steamroller it through, ignoring throughout the anguish and outrage of parents whose votes were cast in the parents' ballot and who constitute an absolute majority. All the while, the Secretary of State has refused to show
"that no other form of rationalisation could meet the circumstances of the area".

227
The amendment tabled by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London comes none too soon to rescue inner London from such recklessness. If Members of the Committee opposite feel that in supporting the amendment of the right reverend Prelate they may in some way incur the wrath of the Secretary of State or the Minister, they may rest assured. On the Secretary of State's own advice they are reminded in paragraph 12 of Circular 3/87—
"of the desirability of consulting Diocesan Authorities at an early stage on any proposals which could have implications for voluntary schools in their area".
The considerations in the circular apply to small-scale changes, the closure of individual schools and the rationalisation of provision within authorities. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has taken great care in providing detailed advice to authorities on how most effectively to manage and to bring about change and create a climate of opinion which enables change to take place with the benefit of public confidence. Is it not ironic that in the consideration of the major changes which will affect not one school but 1,000 schools, not 3,000 pupils but 300,000 pupils, and not 90 employees but 90,000 employees, and in considering a major upheaval to the administration of the capital city, the Secretary of State appears unwilling to abide by the standards and criteria that he rightly expects those dealing with lesser changes to observe?
In her speech the Minister showed that the Government have come to realise belatedly some of the problems which will flow from the abolition of ILEA. It seems to me that that has occurred very late in the day. The key point in the arrangements which she outlined in her speech earlier today is that those arrangements deal with adult education, music and voluntary organisations, which constitute a very tiny margin of the ILEA's total provision. It is the 1,000 schools that the ILEA is concerned about. What will happen to the pupils in those schools? I ask the Committee to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: We have had a long debate on the amendments, which I believe turn on two issues. The first is whether there is any longer a justification for retaining a single authority for inner London's education service. The second point is whether the service can be transferred successfully to the inner London boroughs.
What has become clear to me during the last three hours is that, whatever else we may feel about the Inner London Education Authority, there is no question but that the situation in the secondary schools in inner London leaves a great deal to be desired. Her Majesty's inspectors have always found a great deal that is good in other parts of the education service in the capital. However, they have found 40 per cent. of classes in inner London's secondary schools to be unsatisfactory or poor. That is reflected in the fact that in the final year of
228
compulsory education the level of absenteeism across inner London's schools is almost 30 per cent. That means that on average on any given day one in three pupils is simply not there. It was also found that more than 20 per cent. of young people—
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps the Minister will give way for a moment. Does he agree that truancy is seen in every major city in all developed countries, and particularly in cities suffering from urban decay? To suggest that truancy is the fault of the Inner London Education Authority cannot be fair. Perhaps the Minister will also tell the Committee what he thinks the inner London boroughs will do to reduce the rates of truancy.
Lord Belstead: I shall come to the question of the inner London boroughs in a moment. However, the point which the noble Baroness neglects is that for some unexplained reason the level to which I have referred is over twice the average throughout the whole of the rest of the country. That includes Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and the other great conurbations. We also know that one in four of all children who leave schools at the end of their compulsory schooling in inner London do so without any qualifications. I put it to the noble Baroness that those figures are worse by a ratio of two to one than the figures for any other part of the country.
In the interests of pupils, that is not a matter which can be shrugged off. Nor can it be solved by pumping more money into the system. The fact is that the ILEA has become almost unbearably expensive. Today one only has to cross from inner London into the outer London boroughs to find that it costs nearly £1,000 per year less to educate a secondary pupil in outer London. Incidentally, the ILEA's costs per pupil are 75 per cent. higher than similar costs in Birmingham.
In addition, the very size of the Inner London Education Authority is a clue to its poor performance. Each of the authority's ten divisions deals with a workload which, in the outer London boroughs, would be appropriate for a whole authority. That is not the fault of the ILEA. However, it is an in-built problem and it means that the things which are of greatest concern to parents, such as the problems of a particular school, will not loom large among the enormous responsibilities concentrated at County Hall.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made a crucial point when he said in essence that surely it is better and more in keeping with our ideas of local democracy for people in each borough to have a decisive influence on the shape of education in their areas through the ballot box in electing their local council, and to let the boroughs run education as they do other services, including the social services. That raises an important point. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that he was thinking of people in debating the amendments—and I respect him for saying that—I must ask whether it will not be of advantage to such things as youth work, dual use of school facilities and programmes for young people in need if the boroughs become multipurpose authorities. That point was made very

229
effectively by my noble friend Baroness Young, with all her experience of local government.
It was for those reasons that the Conservative manifesto a year ago made it clear that we believed that there is no longer any justification for retaining a huge unitary authority. We intended to proceed by allowing individual boroughs to opt out. However, as the Bill proceeded through another place the Government were by no means alone in realising that in the general interest, and not least in the interests of staff, there needed to be an orderly abolition of the ILEA as whole with the boroughs assuming their education functions simultaneously. Once we had made our intention clear, our proposals to abolish the Inner London Education Authority were carefully scrutinised in the other place. Over 22 hours were spent debating the matter there, and there is no justification for claiming insufficient scrutiny. Nonetheless the Committee has before it today amendments calling for a period of delay to look further into the matter. With respect, I do not think that that is necessary, but I accept that the Government must show that they are taking every care to ensure a successful transfer to the inner London boroughs.
So we are taking the following steps. First, the boroughs are being asked to publish development plans by next February explaining how they will take on their education responsibilities. That will enable parents, teachers and others with an interest, including the Churches, to discuss the shape of the education service in their area.
Secondly, over the next two years the Government will provide a great deal of financial support to assist the boroughs in preparing to become local education authorities. We recognise that setting up the new authorities will entail a good deal of work and the Department of Education and Science will stand ready both with grant aid and advice.
Thirdly, through the new education support grant—which is a new idea introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for monitoring the quality of education and for implementing the national curriculum—each of the inner London boroughs will receive support for additional school inspectors when, as we plan, they first become local education authorities in two years' time.
In addition, we intend to table amendments to make it possible for the London Residuary Body to provide support services formerly provided by the Inner London Education Authority across the boroughs if the boroughs ask for that to be done.
That represents a great deal of forward planning and I realise that it is necessary. But it can only go ahead if the Committee gives approval to this part of the Bill today and rejects the amendment. Let us be quite clear, a great deal has been said about the amendment but my reading of it is that it would mean that everything would stop until undoubtedly towards the end of 1989. Perhaps I may remind the Committee, because it has been a very long debate, that in addition to what I have just said my noble friend Lady Hooper in her speech announced a
230
number of very important measures. Those measures will secure the long-term future of four very distinguished adult education establishments through a guarantee of central government funding. They will provide additional grants to help with the headquarters' expenses of inner London voluntary and youth organisations (and if I may, I shall return in a moment to the point about youth organisations which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman). The measures announced by my noble friend will secure the maintenance of high quality music tuition in inner London, and the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra in particular. Finally, those measures will make arrangements for the internationally famous Horniman and Geffrye Museums to become grant-aided independent trustee bodies.
I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that we are now proposing to start discussions with the museums and the inner London education authorities about the constitution of those trusts.
There was one entirely different part of the debate this afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hart of South Lanark, both raised the question of children with special needs. In effect they said that they had not heard the Government say anything about the position of schools which serve areas across borough boundaries. With their experience, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord know much better than I that virtually no authority in this country attempts to provide by itself for every kind of handicap. Authorities tend to co-operate with each other in placing pupils in the most appropriate schools and the fact that recoupment is at full costs assists this process. The inner London boroughs will be expected to maintain the existing ILEA special schools with the process of placing children and recoupment of costs as in other parts of the country.
The point which was raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in itself raises another very important point. That concerns the vital group of ILEA schools which provide residential special education outside inner London and which make a very important contribution to provision for handicapped children throughout the whole of the South East of England. So my right honourable friend will shortly invite representatives of the Inner London Education Authority, the inner and outer London boroughs, and the county authorities where the schools are located to join together in a working group to consider the future of these schools very much as was done in the 1960s at the time of the reorganisation of London boroughs.
In essence I am saying that a great deal of careful planning has started to ensure that, with the consent of Parliament, the boroughs will be able to take on their education responsibilities successfully.
With respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who said that this was being done in such haste, there will be time enough because in order to become local education authorities on 1st April 1990, the inner London boroughs will have exactly the same period of time to prepare as the outer London boroughs had to assume their many responsibilities 20 years ago.

231
However, the Government recognise that in a matter as important as this as much certainty as possible is required. So perhaps even more important than the organisational structure of the new authorities will be the capability of the individuals who will be appointed to run them. Therefore the Government intend to bring forward at Report stage in your Lordships' House two amendments designed for that purpose. First, the boroughs' development plans will have to set out clearly the management structure for their education service, subject to my right honourable friend's approval. Secondly, and I think very importantly, we intend to bring forward amendments closely paralleling those provisions which applied until 1972 in all local education authorities requiring—for a limited period only—my right honourable friend's approval for senior appointments. I hope that when your Lordships see those amendments you will feel that they will provide an additional guarantee that the new local education authorities will start life with strong management teams.
This has been a very long debate and, if I may, I shall content myself with trying to reply to two questions only. The first is the very important question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hart of South Lanark, both of whom asked whether all the boroughs will be able to cope. Both noble Baronesses suggested that there were some which would not be able to cope. As I listened to both noble Baronesses I found it surprising that they had doubts as to whether inner London boroughs would be able to provide a service which all their neighbours in outer London have run for many years.
The Government accept that a great deal of work will be necessary to prepare over the next few years. That is why I have been at pains in my speech this afternoon to point out that we are setting up a special inner London unit. That is why we are offering the boroughs a specific grant. That is why the London Residuary Body will be able to help smooth any transitional difficulties by taking on some support services if that is wanted. Let us also remember that under the new system of local government finance which the Government are putting before Parliament the revenue support grant will be paid precisely in order to meet the needs of local authorities.
If, however, the noble Baronesses are concerned at the educational attitude of some of the boroughs I would remind them not only of what I said in my last few remarks about the arrangements for approval of the senior posts in the education service, but also of the important provisions in the rest of this Bill—the national curriculum, local financial management and the availability of grant-maintained status, all measures, if I may say so, which will provide powerful—
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: I should like to reach the end of the sentence—all measures, if I may say so, which will
232
provide powerful safeguards and achieve exactly the objective which both the noble Baronesses wish to see achieved.
Baroness Seear: What I asked was whether the Minister can confirm that the poorer boroughs will be no worse off in real terms after the reorganisation than they are now.
Lord Belstead: The answer was embedded in the remarks which I have just made. Whether or not the noble Baroness likes the Local Government Finance Bill, the whole idea of revenue support grant when we come to introduce it (and I know that my noble friend Lord Caithness will have a good time explaining it to the noble Baroness) is that it will apply to the needs of the boroughs in London as it will apply to the needs of local authorities outside London. The exact details under which the revenue support grant will work have still to be worked out but I can say to the noble Baroness that I reckon that the way in which the revenue support grant work will be very much akin to the way in which the needs element of the GRE works at the present time.
The other question that I promised to answer was put in an intervention which came from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who asked where the money would come from to replace the ILEA's grants to youth clubs. Of course the youth clubs, like others elsewhere, will look to both their own local education authority and other forms of local support. The noble Lord knows that. However, in her speech my noble friend Lady Hooper referred also to the very large scale of central government support for voluntary organisations. Speaking from memory, some £16 million is devoted to voluntary organisations by my noble friend's department, the Department of Education and Science; about £30 million comes from the DHSS and £20 million comes from the Home Office. So the amount of government money that is being channelled towards the voluntary organisations is very large indeed.
My noble friend Lady Hooper also said that in addition we should be providing grants for three years from 1990 specifically to assist the headquarters organisations of London voluntary bodies in their work of co-ordination across the capital. We shall watch closely the effect of our proposals on youth work but we are confident that this essentially local service will be well provided for locally. The difficulty in which we find ourselves today is that despite all that has been said from this side of the Chamber about the very careful planning that is going into the transition of educational responsibilities in inner London, the Committee has to consider a group of amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other Members of the Committee, which would have the effect of delaying the preparations and lead to very damaging uncertainty.
Preparatory work in the London boroughs would simply grind to a halt. Inner London Education Authority staff would be left in complete uncertainty, as would parents. In the end it would be the children who suffer. If it is said that that is a price worth paying provided that we obtain a definitive report about inner London's education, with great respect

233
to the Benches opposite I beg to differ. Report after report by both central government and the Inner London Education Authority itself have had too little effect on the way in which the authority conducts its business; I do not think that Amendment No. 272, which is among this group of amendments, will provide the answer. That is the amendment which would give my right honourable friend an order-making power to make changes in the structure of inner London's education. The constitution of the ILEA has already been changed in recent years and so far as I can see that has had no discernible effect on its performance.
I feel that my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Boyd-Carpenter had every justification for saying in their speeches that the inevitable consequence of these amendments must be substantial delay in preparing for the transfer of inner London's educational responsibilities, but on the evidence I believe that a transfer of responsibility from the existing huge authority is both necessary and urgent. With approval today from the Committee the work of preparing for an orderly transfer can go ahead and we can begin to build an improved education service for inner London with a strong local basis. I ask the Committee to give that approval and not to support these amendments.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: The Minister spoke about the reforms which had been produced in an attempt to affect ILEA. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will accept that from 1960 to 1984 all but one of the relevant reports—reports from Royal Commissions and other bodies such as the one that produced the Marshall Report—advocated a unitary authority quite independently of whether or not ILEA should continue to exist. The exception was a report produced by Mr. Baker, who was then a Back-Bench MP. That report advocated devolution to the boroughs. From 1960 to 1984 all the other reports maintained that a unitary authority should be retained in some form or other.
Lord Belstead: The right reverend Prelate has asked me a question and the answer is very simple. As I observed at the beginning of the debate and as my noble friends said in their speeches, that may be the case, but we have reached the point at which in view of falling standards and increasing costs it is not in the interests of the children of the capital to go on as we are doing.
Lord Kilmarnock: We have had a long debate, as is appropriate to the subject, and so I shall certainly not make a long winding-up speech. It would be churlish not to welcome such crumbs of comfort as those offered by the noble Baroness in her speech, but I must say that they seem to be restricted to a very modest level of interim funding while the institutions concerned seek private sponsorship.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and his noble friends will be satisfied with the response on the question of museums, but no doubt the Committee will hear from them later. Again, I do
234
not know whether the provision of £500,000 a year over three years for voluntary organisations working with youth clubs will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Certainly to a layman it seems an extraordinarily small amount of money for the work involved.
In her speech the noble Baroness made great play on the words "reprieve" and "retention" in relation to ILEA. In fact, she implied that these amendments had been advanced simply as a screen for the reprieve or retention of ILEA as it currently exists. That is not the case. I tried to make that plain in my speech, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We are not against change; it is a question of what change and whether it will work.
Those who support this amendment face the problem that neither the noble Baroness nor—I must say this to him—the noble Lord the Leader of the House has addressed our central concern. The noble Baroness referred to the need to give a clear signal to the three boroughs which were contemplating opting out, and she referred approvingly to Wandsworth's leaflet. Have we come to the point of legislating by leaflet? Moreover, what signal are we sending to the other boroughs? That is what we want to know. We received no answer to our questions. It seems to me that there is no prospect of the boroughs getting adequate funding without a very high level of poll tax.
Nothing has been said on the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. London has particular problems and there is a vast difference in the problems facing the different boroughs. We have talked a great deal about the three Conservative boroughs and very little about the fate of the other boroughs. In my view no rational argument against these amendments has yet been advanced in this debate, except the argument of delay. As I said in my opening remarks, I take that matter very seriously but that is simply not what we are proposing. There is no delay implicit in these amendments beyond that which is already implied in the Bill.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord the Leader of the House mentioned everything grinding to a halt, but there is no reason whatsoever why boroughs should back-track on the development of their plans or abandon their preparations. As the noble Lord has said, they are due to submit their plans to the Secretary of State by February next year. No doubt they will also submit them to the panel of assessors that will be reporting only one month later; that is, by 1st April, which is also precisely one whole year before the abolition date. There is therefore no reason in the amendment why the abolition timetable should not be kept. The only difference between the Government's timetable and ours is that we would have a far better idea of where we are going and how to get there rather than stepping blithely and blindly into the abyss. In the circumstances I am afraid that I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
6.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 269) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 236.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Alport, L.

Hayter, L.

Amherst, E.

Henniker, L.

Annan, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Heycock, L.

Attlee, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Avebury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hunt, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Banks, L.

Hylton, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Basnett, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Birkett, L.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kennet, L.

Bramall, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Brimelow, L.

Kindersley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lawrence, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Leatherland, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Listowel, E.

Canterbury, Abp.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Caradon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Chandos, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Chitnis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cobbold, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNair, L.

Combermere, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Melchett, L.

Davies, L.

Milford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Denington, B.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mountevans, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elibank, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Ennals, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Esher, V.

Oram, L.

Ewarts-Biggs, B.

Parry, L.

Falkender, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Flowers, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Reilly, L.

Gifford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Glenamara, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grafton, D.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gregson, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Grimond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hampton, L.

Scanlon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

236

Sefton of Garston, L.

Thurso, V.

Serota, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Shackleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shaughnessy, L,

Turner of Camden, B.

Shepherd, L.

Underhill, L.

Sherfield, L.

Vernon, L.

Soper, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Walston, L.

Stallard, L.

Warnock, B.

Stedman, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strafford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Swann, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Thurlow, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Aldington, L.

De Freyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Deedes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Derwent, L.

Ampthill, L.

Digby, L.

Arran, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Dudley, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dulverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Erne, E.

Bellwin, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Benson, L.

Fisher, L.

Bessborough, E.

Forte, L.

Blatch, B.

Fortescue, E.

Boston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Freyberg, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Brentford, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Burton, L.

Goold, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gowrie, E.

Caithness, E.

Grantchester, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Camden, M.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Haddington, E.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hanson, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Clinton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harrowby, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Hartwell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Havers, L.

Colyton, L.

Henley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Holderness, L.

Cowley, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cox, B.

Hood, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Huntly, M.

Crickhowell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Croft, L.

Ironside, L.

Croham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kearton, L.

237

Killearn, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Rochdale, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Rodney, L.

Layton, L.

Rollo, L.

Lindsay, E.

Romney, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Rugby, L.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Luke, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lyell, L.

Saint Levan, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Salisbury, M.

McFadzean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seebohm, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Mancroft, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mansfield, E.

Shannon, E.

Manton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marsh, L.

Somers, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mersey, V.

Stockton, E.

Middleton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strange, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Nelson, E.

Swansea, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Newall, L.

Swinton, E.

Norfolk, D.

Terrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trafford, L.

Peel, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pennock, L.

Tryon, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Perth, E.

Vestey, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vinson, L.

Polwarth, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Porritt, L.

Watkinson, V.

Pym, L.

Weir, V.

Radnor, E.

Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rees, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Reigate, L.

Young, B.

Rennell, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 269A:
Page 136, line 19, leave out ("1990") and insert ("1992, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 269A I shall also speak to Amendment No. 270AA. This amendment tries to do something rather different from what the last one did. It postpones the decision about the abolition of ILEA until after the borough elections and there has been time for the people of London to have had a chance to say what they want to say. In this amendment we are addressing the issue of a democratic mandate for the Government's proposals. The amendment calls for a postponement of the abolition proposals until such time as the people of London have been given the
238
right to consider, debate and decide on the best way forward for their own education service.
In the speech that I made in the last debate I pointed out how little consultation there had been and how the Secretary of State did not wish to know the views of the people of London, in spite of the ballot. This amendment is in line with the Government's advice on the need to consult and (I quote again from Circular 3/87, which I quoted in my speech a short time ago) to
"adapt plans in the light of local people's views as a way both of forestalling objections and of improving the climate of opinion in which they are considered."
But the amendment is about much more than simple consultation. It is about the democratic process and the right of local people to a degree of control over the manner in which the services they pay for through their taxes, and in future through their poll taxes, are run.
Above all, it is about the issue of an electoral mandate. The Government have made much of their mandate. At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Graham reminded us of what that mandate was—and it was confused. Clearly the Conservative Party had given some thought to fighting an election campaign in inner London on the basis of abolishing ILEA and had then shied away. Quite naturally, they wanted to win the election, not stir up a hornets' nest of parental opinion against them; and the likelihood of winning on a commitment to abolish ILEA was very slim. So they fudged the manifesto commitment.
In a short paragraph on page 20 they simply hinted (the Secretary of State keeps referring it to as "signalling") that
"in the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire borough councils wish to become independent of the LEA, they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries."
What, then, are the expressed wishes of the inner London borough councils? Three wish to become LEAs—Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea. I am unaware of the position of another—Tower Hamlets. The remaining eight boroughs are on record as not wishing to take on education. Their leaders wrote a letter published in the Independent newspaper in January, the last three paragraphs of which I would cite. They state:
"As leaders of eight inner London boroughs we believe that the only way to provide a high standard of education for all children in inner London is through a single unitary education authority.
"Only an authority like the ILEA can command the resources and expertise needed to give fair and equal treatment to both children from deprived areas and those from more affluent backgrounds. Only an authority like the ILEA can provide a service which encompasses the differing demands of primary and secondary schools, further education colleges and institutes of adult education. And only an authority like the ILEA has been able to provide a comprehensive programme of assistance to such a wide range of children, from ethnic communities, children with disabilities and children who have special learning difficulties.
"We are utterly opposed to the Government's plans to abolish the ILEA. Over the next few weeks we will be making it clear to the Secretary of State that his proposals will inflict irreparable damage on the education system in London."
The Government profess to having been persuaded that individual boroughs opting out of ILEA would be administratively disastrous. I do not seek here to question that judgment. But it is to stand Aristotelian

239
logic on its head to argue, as do the Government, that because individual borough opt-out is an impracticable solution therefore all boroughs must be forced to take on education.
The amendment tabled in my name is in reality closer to the Conservative Party's manifesto than its present proposals and enables this issue to be put before the people of inner London at the next borough elections in 1990. After these elections it will be possible for the representatives of the people of inner London, on the basis of the mandate they have received, to debate the question of whether they wish to become the local education authority for their area. If a majority of inner London councils indicate that they wish to become the LEA, then it will be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether those services are likely to be more appropriately provided by councils rather than by a unitary authority. Having so decided he will be empowered to lay an order which will provide for ILEA to cease to exist and for the boroughs to take over educational responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has explained why she believes that these amendments provide an element of local decision about the structure of inner London's education service. It would not, of course, allow free local choice about the way in which education was to be run, and in that respect it differs from the proposals which the Government originally introduced into Parliament.
This amendment tries to have it both ways, and therefore is inevitably unsatisfactory, for the essential feature of this amendment is that it puts off for over two years any decision whatsoever about ILEA's future. During the next two years, teachers, parents, and administrators would have no idea whether they were planning for the next few months or for the next few years. The Government accepted that that aspect of their original proposals was unsatisfactory, and it is exposed in an even more unsatisfactory way in these amendments.
I have already explained fully to the Committee the urgent need for action to improve educational standards in inner London. The amendment will guarantee that none of these improvements took place. In this it is similar to the other delaying amendments that we have discussed, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: In saying a few words on this amendment in a sense I shall be giving part of the speech I did not give in the previous debate. I found the previous debate very unsatisfactory because we were skating round the issues. In fact one or two Members on the Government Benches more or less said that, and I was somewhat sympathetic with them. We must get into the substance of the abolition of the ILEA on the one hand and inquire about the positive case for the devolution of education to the boroughs on the other.
I should like to state some general principles and my doubts on these matters, not because I expect in
240
the immediate term to persuade noble Lords opposite, but the education of children in London will be with us for a long time, long after we have gone. It is vital that some of us say the right things about this and prepare the ground for what will be, I predict, the time when all of what is happening today will be changed.
I should perhaps say a word about the general principle of decision-making. I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggest that those of us who like to think about these matters and analyse them, should look at the evidence and raise questions such as, "Will you demonstrate to me that what you are proposing to do will work?". He pooh-poohed the idea and, in a derogatory fashion, used the word "conservative" about that. I believe in approaching problems in precisely the way I have described. If I am accused of being conservative in that regard I am perfectly happy to be so accused. I do not regard the careful approach to problems in any way as a bad thing. What I do regard as bad are emotional knee jerk reactions, saying that there is a problem that we must do something about and whatever pops into our heads is what we do.
In addition to that, there is some common ground because we agree that in some areas ILEA has serious problems. I do not doubt any of the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House about secondary education. It is simply not good enough. I entirely agree with him that it is not good enough and that something must be done about it. The reason we raise amendments of this kind and why we wish to pursue the matter further this afternoon and delay the Committee from other matters, is precisely in relation to that specific problem of secondary education and, more generally, in regard to all the activities that ILEA is engaged in. We cannot see the connection. My noble friend Lady David referred to Aristotelian logic. I refer to logic in general, and I cannot see the logic or the connection between the problems on the one hand and the solutions being proposed by the Government on the other.
I reiterate that the secondary education aspect of this matter is as dear to my heart as it is to that of any noble Lord opposite. I should like an explanation. To take the example of the London borough of Hackney, what is it that is about to happen that will improve the education of secondary school children in Hackney? The Leader of the House referred to truancy. As he will recall, yesterday some of us were seriously discussing truancy. We said that we thought it was an important problem but that we were not clear what the solution was in regard to that. I ask again, what is about to happen in Hackney that will reduce the truancy rate?
That is about secondary education in general. What concerns me more generally are the needs of London as a whole for cross-borough services. Here again, we see services being provided. Many are recognised as rather good. I believe that none of the cross-borough services is regarded as rather bad. The noble Baroness was at pains to try to reassure us that in some sense she can patch things up after all this goes on so that services continue. But she has no answer. I do not believe that the Leader of the House has an answer. I listened to the noble Lord the Leader

241
of the House and I shall read his speech even more carefully in Hansard tomorrow.
I do not believe that in any sense we were told what is likely to happen. I do not expect a degree of certainty, or to be told what will happen, but just what is likely to happen. Is it not the case, and must the Government at least not recognise, that they are placing all of this at risk? The most they were offering to us was a modicum of reassurance. But there can be no doubt whatsoever about the risks that the Government are taking. They are plunging into an area blindly, and in my view and the view of my noble friends they are plunging into it—let us leave politics to one side—because they see a problem and feel desperate that they want to solve it; so they say, "Let us go ahead and see what will happen". My view is that that is not the right way to do it.
I was interested by something that the Leader of the House said. He said that logically we could argue that even if there are costs of delay—I believe he said that—there may be benefits. I am not certain that there will be many costs of delay; but for the sake of argument let us agree that there may be. What I am really arguing is that, having raised the matter, a more cautious approach might have guaranteed us more in the way of benefits.
That seems to me to be what lies behind our attitude to this matter. It quite clearly differentiates us from noble Lords opposite, because I must admit that if we had had the inquiry and the postponement. I still believe—I hope noble Lords opposite will take my word for it—that I am capable of coming to the conclusion, having considered it more, that perhaps what the Government are doing or something similar to what the Government want to do might be best. But on the available evidence, on the analysis of the particulars so far, I am totally unpersuaded and extremely concerned.
Baroness David: Of course we are not the least satisfied with the answers we have had. I repeat yet again that the Government have no mandate for this, which has caused extreme anxiety throughout the whole of inner London. I am sure that we have all had an enormous number of letters from teachers, parents, governors and from all the people who use the many services which ILEA supplies so well. However, I shall not at this moment press the amendment, but in order to try to improve matters we shall come back with something at Report stage.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 270 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 270A and 270AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 270B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Alport Lord Alport had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 270C:
Leave out clause 141 and insert the following new clause:
(". Abolition of ILEA.
.—(1) The Inner London Education Authority and any education committee established by that Authority, together with the Inner London Education Area, shall cease to exist at a date to
242
be determined by the Secretary of State by Order in Council, a draft of which shall be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) Such Order shall not be laid before 30th June 1992.
(3) The date in subsection (1) above is in this Part referred to as the "abolition date".
(4) The Secretary of State shall before the abolition date consult the local authorities, professional teaching organisations and representatives of school governors and parent associations in the Inner London Education area with regard to making provision for the future organisation of adult and further education, special schools, museums and cultural activities and the central advisory, inspectorate and procurement services at present administered by ILEA, and may make, by Order in Council additions or amendments to Part III of this Act as may seem appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that there may be an opportunity to discuss this matter at a later stage I am not moving the amendment on this occasion.
[Amendment No. 270C not moved.]
Clause 141 agreed to.
After Clause 141: [Amendments Nos. 271 and 272 not moved.]
Clause 142 [Expenses]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 272ZA:
Page 136, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section (Organisation of further and adult education) below,"
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 272ZB. Whatever else the Government may say about these amendments, they have nothing to do with delaying the introduction of the changes that the Government wish to bring about. They are based on the assumption that the Government will have their way and that the reorganisation will take place.
As I said in the last debate, to a small extent some of us were reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said about the provision that she proposed to introduce for certain selected adult education colleges, although as I mentioned in the debate there are still questions to be asked about that because of the reference to the expectation that much of the money—though, from what she said, I do not know how much—will be raised from the private sector. Even if the provision for those colleges is entirely satisfactory—and that remains an open question—it leaves a number of colleges and a number of education activities that in our view by their nature should be cross-boundary.
To take not only the colleges referred to by the Minister but adult education institutes and colleges of further education in general, there seems little logic in arguing that this should be done on a boundary basis. In such cases, one is by definition providing for adults—people who are at least post compulsory school age who regard themselves as adults, however else others may regard them. Adults are capable of crossing borough boundaries for the studies that they wish to pursue. It is surely sensible and economic that colleges should specialise, particularly having regard to the expense of providing equipment and resources today. One college should provide Russian, another advanced computer studies, and so on. It does not make sense for them to be organised on a borough basis; they should be organised on a London-wide basis.
The Government will say that this can be done by agreement between the boroughs, as happened after the abolition of the GLC. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the changes made by the Greater London Council in terms of cash resources and the nature of the tasks to be undertaken were of a very different order from the changes to be made with the abolition of the ILEA. A London-wide plan for the most economic and effective provision of further education is needed. This will be very expensive if it is done properly. It needs to be guided and developed by people who are expert in the subject. It will become more expensive and will call for increasing expertise. This applies to adult education too.
At a time when people are being urged to retrain, those who for one reason or another have missed out on so-called normal educational development should be able to take advantage of the great variety of classes now available in colleges of further education. There is surely a case for a London-wide body to have a strategic plan for further and adult education, which will co-ordinate and assist with the financing and ensure that it is done as effectively and economically as possible. The Government cannot be so doctrinaire in their belief that every mortal thing has to be done by the local authority that they cannot see the advantages of a London-wide body for the development of this important and growing area of education.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Combermere: In appending my name to the amendment, I am in full agreement with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. However, I should declare an interest in that I am on the staff of the extra-mural department of London University. Hence, with my colleagues, I am closely involved in planning courses at university level at various adult institutes in London.
The Government have frequently expressed an interest in adult education. However, the pamphlet that I have received entitled ILEA—The Closing Chapters refers to adult education in only one sentence:
"While some aspects of ILEA education—particularly adult education and the youth service and teacher resources—are of commendable quality, the mainstream education, especially at secondary level, for pupils in inner London is not".
It is precisely this aspect of ILEA education of acknowledged quality that will be at risk. On Second Reading, several noble Lords expressed their concern in this connection. I believe that the Government have gone a little way in meeting the anxieties of those of us who are greatly concerned at the threat that hangs over adult education.
References have been made to a group of four adult education institutes that will be catered for. To follow the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, one wonders how well this has been thought out. In company with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, one wonders how realistic is the expectation that they can raise adequate funds from private finance. Adult education will continue to be at risk because the other various adult institutes spread throughout inner London will become the responsibility of 13
244
individual London boroughs. Some may well have both the resources and the interest to support adult education. However, even in the most favourable circumstances, how can one London borough mount the range of courses that one now finds in ILEA-controlled adult institutes? One may find established colleges under the control of an impoverished borough or of a borough that clearly has other educational priorities.
Adult education will be at risk because many of the colleges and institutes are in two or even three boroughs, and student enrolment is totally independent of local borough residence. Hence colleges and institutes have been able not only to offer a core curriculum of basically similar courses but also to develop specialist work of excellent quality. These opportunities for strategic planning across London boroughs give students a real second opportunity—and they come from all over London, irrespective of borough boundaries. If adult education were to be borough-based, the opportunities might be severely limited. There is not time to refer specifically to further education. My comments apply in general in this area as well.
The excellence of adult education in general has been
referred to by many noble Lords. This recognition is not just national; it is international. The quality
of this neglected area of the education spectrum has been singled out for praise by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Even the Conservative Party pamphlet on ILEA echoes it, and the Minister has underlined it. There are many areas that one could highlight in this respect. There is the provision for the unemployed and the elderly—40 per cent. of all adult students are receiving concessionary fees. There is the provision for women—70 per cent.; for the educationally disadvantaged—4l per cent. of adult students in London have no formal qualifications; and for the ethnic minorities.
Adult education would undoubtedly survive in some form if ILEA were to be abolished. A group of four institutes undoubtedly would, but one wonders about the others. In this context, I fully support the proposal for the establishment of a London further education and adult education board.
Lord Peston: As we discuss the amendment, it seems that we are illustrating precisely what I had in mind in my earlier intervention. Here we have a service fulfilling a need, meeting a demand and internationally recognised for its quality, and we place it at risk. I repeat that I can see no rationale for placing a service like this at risk. I think that it is foolhardy and wanton.
However, the Government have decided to do that. Our next responsibility therefore is at least to minimise the risk, and to start to put pressure on the Government to safeguard this very important area. I find it very odd—and again I make the Boyd-Carpenter point—that noble Lords on this side of the Committee have to refer to matters like tradition. The tradition of the cross-London education authority with respect to adult education is long standing, is greatly recognised and, for those of us whose origins are slightly poorer than average, it is a tradition in which our parents and grandparents were involved.

245
The fact that some of us have made our way in the world so that we take part in ordinary education should not cause us to forget that there still remain our fellow citizens for whom adult education is in many ways a life-saver, in particular offering them something worthwhile to do in lives which are otherwise very unsatisfying. I cannot state too strongly our concern about those matters.
Concerning the four colleges and the intervention of the noble Baroness, as always with these matters everything happened so quickly and I was not quite clear what kind of guarantee she gave. If she is about to intervene again, which I hope she is, I should like to hear, perhaps more slowly, the guarantee for these colleges and in particular whether there is a guarantee? Will the Government ensure that these colleges survive no matter what antics the individual boroughs get up to?
Related to that—and this is a good hook on which to hang this point—the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when intervening in the earlier debate asked about real resources. She asked a specific question on that subject. I have not had a chance to ask her whether she understood the answer, but I did not. I did not think that there was the faintest glimmer of an answer to the question which was
whether the same amount of resources will be available to which the answer is either, "yes", "no" or "we do not know". I was not very clear which of those was the answer.
That is of particular importance in areas such as adult education because, unless I misunderstand it, another aspect of the ILEA is specifically an education authority. The London boroughs will be boroughs and also education authorities.
From my small knowledge of local finance—and that will very rapidly become obsolete if we proceed with the changes in local finance that are envisaged—the different activities within a broader authority will compete with each other. Therefore, from now on, in no sense will education and resources for education be safeguarded within these boroughs. Perhaps I may put that as a question. Is there any sense in which the resources can be regarded as safeguarded? Is there not an evident danger that authorities which are hard-pressed and subject to all kinds of pressures to avoid spending money will rapidly decide that there are certain activities such as adult education which, compared with other pressing matters such as the homeless, will first have to bear its share of the cuts and then its disproportionate share of the cuts? There will be all kinds of arguments about raising fees. It will be said that if those people really want the education they will be willing to pay higher fees and that if the fees are raised and people do not attend the courses it is because they do not really want them. That is as much a misuse of a marketing mechanism as one would ever come across.
Those are our concerns. Our concerns are about the future and the slow death of the adult education service because it would not disappear but would gradually deteriorate. That is why the amendment of the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount is so important. I do not like quangos and I am not against
246
the Government in their 10 years of quango abolition although there now seems to be a turnaround and new quangos are appearing. However, in this case I believe that the noble Baroness is right and that something of the nature of a further adult education board might give one a little more confidence and a cross-London voice to these matters which I should like to be heard.
Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount are to be congratulated on bringing this matter to our notice. I believe that we could change the wording and refer to other services which we shall be discussing in due course so that, in a sense, this is a probing amendment for cross-London services. Speaking not only for myself but also for my noble friends, there is nothing in the area of inner London education dearer to our hearts and minds than adult education.
Lord Hylton: If this amendment is accepted I believe it will confer benefits on not only inner London but also outer London and, to some extent, the adjoining areas of the Home Counties. I say that because London still has a functioning transport system which will enable people to come in from the outside and to take advantage of what is being provided in the centre. That is surely something of which we should make use and capitalise on. On those grounds. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Young: I do not believe that there can be any disagreement between any of us in the Committee this evening about the importance of adult education. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about the invaluable opportunities it has given and will continue to give to thousands of people and, indeed, all the opportunities it gives to women and ethnic minorities. We all know the arguments about training and retraining; namely, that such training is invaluable. I hope that we shall all agree on its importance.
The question which must be addressed is one which I felt my noble friend Lady Hooper addressed in her remarks; namely: what are the proposals for the future of this very important service? Of course, I have looked at the draft guidance which has been issued and in paragraph 22 and following I see that the plans that the boroughs make must indicate their proposals for adult education. That must be right. I believe it will be helpful to hear from my noble friend Lady Hooper in more detail than her original remarks about what will happen.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State comes to consider the guidance it is very important that he ensures that the variety of provisions is maintained and that it is possible for people to cross borough boundaries. I see no reason why that should not be the case because it happens in other authorities up and down the country and I see no reason why in London, where it should be much easier to move around, that should not continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said how worried he was that this service would come under an authority which was not just an education authority but was also a local authority. However, that is the position

247
in the rest of the country and it functions. Therefore, I see no reason for believing that it will not function at this point.
We return to the argument about resources and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper will have something to say on that matter. As regards the future of local government finance, as I understand it—but I stand to be corrected—at least half will be paid by the Government. Moreover, its distribution will be crucial because it will have to pay attention—and I believe this was the point made by my noble friend the Leader of the House when he wound up—to the needs of the authorities. Therefore, it will be distributed in that way. I believe it is very difficult to put a figure on this because, if I may say so and I hope that I shall not raise too many hackles in saying this, more resources do not necessarily mean that it will be better. One matter that one has to look at is what is happening to the resources. We have seen in quite a number of organisations that one can be more efficient. I do not put this forward as an argument because I am not sufficiently familiar with the details and therefore it would not be proper for me to criticise something of which I have no knowledge.
That is one of the arguments that would need to be looked at. If ILEA is proposing, as I understand, to reduce its expenditure by 12 per cent., no doubt the resources on these colleges will be taken into account with the resources on its other services. That is another measure. Therefore, it will be very difficult to answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Perhaps my noble friend could reiterate the broad basis on which we see Government funding in the future which must take account of the needs of adult education in less well off boroughs in London as in a general distribution of government grant to local authorities.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, I have some responsibility for adult education in London. Indeed, the University of London's extra mural studies department will be incorporated into Birkbeck College on 1st August this year. That department has had an enormous range of contacts with ILEA's further and adult education provisions. Many of us are extremely nervous about how far the university's contribution to this area of work can continue when we have to negotiate with 13 different authorities rather than with one.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that for higher education institutions in London—and no doubt other universities such as Brunel and the City University—the proposals in this Bill will create much greater difficulties. As the Master of Birkbeck, I should like to add that we are endeavouring to recruit a much wider range of students than traditionally has been the case. We are anxious to recruit more young people, and indeed elder people, from ethnic minority backgrounds, and people who do not have the conventional two or three A-level qualifications but have other types of experience or qualifications, many of which can be equally useful for attaining higher education.
248
One of the initiatives taken by ILEA in its provision of further and adult education is to be a great leader and innovator—I believe those are the correct terms to use—in the field of access courses. The Government have become increasingly concerned, and Ministers have been making speeches about it, to seek to widen access. They are right to do so, and I congratulate them. It is extraordinarily important in a context where we are to see such massive demographic decline and if the level of qualified manpower that this country needs to survive is to be maintained.
Apart from individual access courses for particular colleges, ILEA has set up what it calls open college networks which cover a number of areas of the authority and certainly go right across borough boundaries. It has planned those networks in the interests of serving as large a number of people as possible. If we are simply to hand over the whole of adult and further education to 13 different boroughs, those networks which have done so much for access courses will be jeopardised.
Reference has already been made to provision for the unemployed and the elderly—people who may not necessarily be in the same category of people, as I have described, who go on to higher education. Those groups are equally important and must not be neglected. Only this afternoon I received an extremely touching letter from a man of 74 whose wife had just died. He said that adult education had brought to him a lifeline of sanity from black depression and misery. One could, of course, give countless other such examples.
Just because the metropolitan districts provide adult education does not mean that the 13 inner London boroughs would be the best form of organisation for that in a big city like London. I am sure the Minister will agree that the extent and nature of provision in inner London is, in any case, very much broader and wider than that provided in any other metropolitan district in the country.
It is rather strange that we have sitting on the Government Benches noble Lords who are Conservatives and who therefore, I had always thought, want to preserve what is best about educational provision or, for that matter, any other aspect of our national life, but who are willing to throw away a service of such merit as this. I do not need to remind the Committee of what the recent HMI report on ILEA said about these services. They could not have been described in more positive or rosy terms than by Mr. Eric Bolton.
In those circumstances, does not the Minister agree that it would be sensible to endeavour to set up some sort of provision across London to ensure that these services can be preserved at their present level? I reiterate the questions already put by a number of noble Lords about the funding of adult and further education. One of the reasons the ILEA has had high levels of expenditure is because it has had high levels of provision. It reaches far more people than is the case in many other parts of the country. It is not simply because of high administrative costs or more support services. I support the amendment because I fear that otherwise these excellent services will be jeopardised.
Baroness Hooper: We recognise the importance of further and adult education, and I have already acknowledged the high quality of much of the ILEA provision. Indeed, I go so far as to say in a general way, and not just with reference to ILEA, that adult and continuing education has an increasingly important role to play, as my noble friend Lady Young said. Indeed, the widening of access to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred is supported by the Government.
These amendments would mean the retention of an independent pan-London bureaucracy to deal with all further and adult education, and that the boroughs would simply take their orders from that body. The responsibility for the education of London's 16 to 19-year-olds would then be split between the boroughs, which would run the 16 to 19 service in schools, and this body which would provide for them in colleges. That is surely a recipe for divisiveness and consequent inaction at a time when it is widely accepted that more flexible and integrated provision of education for the 16 to 19 age group is required. Morever, it does not appear necessary to have that sort of division in any other part of the country.
I note also that the amendment offers no advice on how the service determined by this body would be funded, although a number of questions raised in the debate have referred to resources. I suspect that it might be the case of the body deciding the provision and the boroughs being obliged to stump up the cost. We are in no doubt ourselves that the responsibility for policy provision and funding must be located at the borough level; and that is the intention behind our proposals. In saying that, we fully recognise that further education provision in inner London has its own distinguishing characteristics: an uneven spread of colleges, many of them with sites in more than one borough, and specialist provision. We believe that those factors do not present insuperable problems.
The draft guidance referred to, issued recently, makes clear that the Secretary of State expects that, even though they cross borough boundaries, colleges would usually transfer to the boroughs intact and the boroughs should continue with the broad pattern of provision that they inherit. Of course, we shall be discussing that further with the boroughs and will be concerned particularly to ensure that specialist provision is maintained.
The existing automatic recruitment arrangements will ensure that boroughs are reimbursed for the provision they make available to students from outside their area. In addition, it is to be expected that, like other local education authorities, the London boroughs individually or in co-operation will purchase some further education provision from those institutions which will be transferring to the PCFC sector.
Turning to adult education, as I have said, we readily acknowledge that the ILEA provides a first-rate service, and it is the firm intention of government that a first-rate service should continue. That is entirely consistent with our view that decisions on the generality of adult education are best taken by the boroughs themselves, which should be at
250
least as aware and responsive to the needs and wishes of their local communities as a London-wide body.
As we said in the draft guidance, we expect boroughs to consult each other in order to secure the most satisfactory organisation of resources. We also recognise the need for boroughs to consider carefully recoupment arrangements in order to safeguard the viability of certain courses. The department intends to have early discussion with the boroughs about these and other matters in order to assist them in the preparation of development plans.
We have two years in which to do this and we do not wish in any way to pre-empt any suggestion that may come from the boroughs themselves. Questions have arisen over resources and, as I have said, I am not sure how the creation or the introduction of a unitary body would make an enormous difference in this respect. However, for the generality of adult education we believe that decisions about what provision can be afforded and what charges should be made are best taken by the boroughs, which should be more aware and responsive to the needs and wishes of the local community than a London wide-body. Therefore, the main provision will come from that source.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others asked me to return to my remarks as regards the specialist colleges, the future of Morley College, the Mary Ward Centre, the Working Men's College and the City Lit. I believe I have made it clear that the concern of the Government for these four institutions is such that their future is guaranteed. As necessary, the London Residuary Body will meet the shortfall in their funding—and shortfall that arises—in order to ensure the continuation of an effective service. Beyond that, the Government are willing to continue to provide financial support. That will take us some years ahead and so provide as much or more of a guarantee than ILEA would have been likely to do.
It is not unreasonable that during that time the institutions should also look to see what level of private support they can attract and also to look at their charges. That does not mean that the Government are aiming to price them out of the market; on the contrary, we want them to thrive.
The noble Viscount referred to the generous discretionary provision of ILEA. I accept that ILEA has traditionally operated a generous policy in respect of discretionary awards to full-time students in further and to some extent adult education. We believe that discretionary awards are the responsibility of each local education authority. It will be for the inner London boroughs themselves to determine their own policy for making such awards, taking account of the particular needs and circumstances of their area.
In the course of discussion and preparation of the development plans that will be taking place, obviously the Government will be in a position to emphasise the importance which they attach to this area. With these explanations and assurances, I trust that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount will feel prepared to withdraw their amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I hope the Committee will bear with me because I have one or two other questions to which it will be of interest to know the answers. I believe I am right in saying that there is no actual obligation to provide adult education. I understand that the Government and the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Secretary of State have been in touch with at least one or two of the Conservative boroughs. Without any secrets being revealed, it will be interesting to know whether adult education was discussed when they talked about their anxieties in regard to how to deal with this subject. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us something about that.
Perhaps we may consider one of these bodies, namely, City Lit. Let us suppose that Westminster announces that it does not want to spend any more money on City Lit. It seems that it is perfectly entitled to say that. Does the borough of Westminster really believe that it does not gain anything from the existence of City Lit and therefore that it does not see why the ratepayers or poll tax payers of Westminster should help in any way to finance City Lit? In addition, let us suppose that the London borough of Westminster were to say that it has no intention of reimbursing other boroughs for their own people who go for adult education in other boroughs. I ask the noble Baroness whether I am right in saying that there is nothing that can be done directly about this if Westminster announces that it is simply not going to make this provision any longer and it simply does not do so.
If that is the case, it seems to me that we have moved to a logically different state of affairs from that which exists under ILEA. I should like some explanation as to why that different situation can be better. It seems that it can only be good if Westminster behaves itself or it becomes worse with the other possibility of not reimbursing other boroughs. There is no prospect of its being better. I have no reason to believe that this is an actual case I am discussing; it is a theoretical one.
Let us assume that this happens. Who then steps in? It seems to me that one of the results that will follow as regards this whole Bill and the 366 leap-year number of powers of the Secretary of State is that this is one area where there are not any powers. In other words, he cannot intervene and say, "In that case I instruct Westminster to provide or support this measure or I myself will do it for the people of London". It seems that this amendment opens up a can of worms and I should like some response from the Minister on that subject.
Perhaps I may return to the question of private finance for institutions like Morley College. I am not objecting to private finance. I shall be interested to know—this relates to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Blackstone—why the private sector would wish to finance Morley College in any major way. Why would the private sector wish to discover that it had become a Lady Bountiful, if you will forgive the sexist term, or Lord Bountiful? We all have to be non-sexist these days; perhaps I should say, Ms Bountiful. What has happened or what is about to happen to our society that we can have any confidence whatever that places like Morley College
252
will receive significant sums? Is not this merely rhetoric on the part of the Government, a whistling in the dark and saying "We hope, we hope"? We also hope. I believe that what we are exposing here—I reiterate that I shall raise it again as regards other amendments—is the taking of terrible risks. Risks are being run by our fellow citizens and they are precisely the kind of people who should not be running such risks.
Earl Russell: I am not by any means an uncritical admirer of Edmund Burke, but I believe that some of the wisest things that he had to say in his reflections on the revolution in France were on the dangers of local government reorganisation. It was in that context that he developed most effectively the case that one cannot effectively tear down a living institution and build it up again in a completely new form. One has to let the institution grow, and when it grows one has to pay attention to the form in which it has grown.
The way in which organisations have grown in this city is the London way. We think as Londoners and we associate as Londoners. Our interests are shared with other Londoners, but not very often with residents of our individual local borough. Our transport network is run in that way. We have here a living institution, and when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke of a can of worms he was using an image which I believe is apt in more ways than he intended. The Government seem to be saying that they imagine we may treat the education services as though they were worms, divide them, and leave each part to carry on its own separate life.
With the more specialist forms of education provision I do not see how this can work. To draw up a form one has to draw on a large area. I do not see the future for 13 different boroughs teaching Arabic and 13 different boroughs teaching Chinese. I simply cannot see how one can do it. The result will be to tear down a valuable service. It will come very near to an act of educational vandalism.
Therefore I ask the Government to take some heed of what has happened in other places. Other countries take pride in their capital cities; they treat them as a national asset and develop their services. I can think of no other country which treats its capital city with the contempt which we are showing towards ours at the moment. I beg the Government to think again on this issue.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to answer one or two of the additional questions which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether the subject of adult and continuing education has been discussed with the Conservative boroughs. I should remind him that the guidance which has been issued, which refers to adult and continuing education and its importance in the development plan, has been issued to all boroughs. Further, it has certainly been discussed with the leaders of those boroughs which have been prepared to come forward and discuss their plans with us. I refer the noble Lord to the leaflet issued by Wandsworth council which has a section headed "Adult Education", which refers to various details on the matter.

253
The noble Lord also put forward a hypothetical case where Westminster council would not choose to send any of its population to the City Lit. I think that hypothetically is the only way that we should treat the suggestion. There is no doubt that not only in London but in other parts of the country that type of cross-boundary movement takes place, especially in the case of the City Lit. and the school for the deaf where a special provision is available. Therefore to say that he is being a pessimist about that aspect of the matter is, I think, understating the situation.
The noble Lord also asked why any of the private sector would wish to provide finance for Morley College. If we consider that this is a service—as we have all agreed—that is valuable to the population in London and if we also agree that firms and businesses are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of training and retraining their employees, I believe that there is plenty of scope for private sector input in this area. We certainly do not wish to pre-empt any suggestions that may be forthcoming and we understand from the colleges themselves that they may have some ideas in this connection. Therefore we clearly wish to see them and support them in any endeavours that they may put forward.
I entirely refute the suggestion that this is an act of educational vandalism.
Lord Peston: I was genuinely seeking enlightenment so as to save myself having to look it all up. Am I not right that it is not obligatory to provide adult education—in other words, there is no statutory responsibility?
Baroness Hooper: From memory I believe that the 1944 Act—
Baroness Seear: There is no statutory obligation.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The Minister drew our attention to the document published by Wandsworth council and the fact that it contained a section entitled "Adult Education". However, has she noticed that one of its recommendations is that fees charged in evening institutes should be increased?
Baroness Hooper: It is a suggestion that has been put forward and obviously there are people who many well be willing to pay such additional fees to those institutions.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I was most disappointed with her reply. She told us—as have other speakers on the Government side—that other parts of the country manage perfectly well with local authorities controlling adult education, so why should not London? The fact of the matter is that London is way ahead in this connection and that is a very good thing. Just because other local authorities have not caught up, and have not been able to do as much, is no reason why London should have the service which it has built up so effectively relatively undermined; I believe that is what will happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was right when he said that it is not, by any manner of means, only people in inner London who benefit from the provision in London. In the case of Morley
254
College—I am sure it is true of many other colleges—many people come into London daily in order to work and when they finish at 5.30 p.m. they pop into the Morley canteen, have a cup of tea and go to a class for two hours before going home. Surely that is good use of resources. It is a great benefit to all manner of people in London—for example to ethnic minority groups; to women returning to work; to old-age pensioners; to housewives who suddenly discover interests they never knew they had before, and so on. In short, it is a most important service.
Moreover, economically speaking, continuing education is of the highest importance. Frankly, I do not believe that the noble Baroness understands what we are talking about: the importance of the service; the extent to which it has developed in London and the need for it to be developed still further, especially in the provision of specialised services of one type or another. If the Minister seriously thinks that this facility will be provided by the boroughs without any type of overall London plan, guidance, and financial assistance then frankly she is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the local authorities have, overall, local authority responsibilities competing for the money. There are many other worthy causes knocking on their doors wanting the money and adult education has to compete with those other demands. Again, it is perfectly true—although I do not think the Minister was quite clear about this aspect—that this is not a statutory obligation. If I were on a local authority committee, dealing with all those other demands, and an organisation which had no statutory right approached me and asked for resources I would say, no.
Unless the Government are prepared to consider provision on a London-wide basis, it is not just a pessimistic forecast, because as sure as night follows day the level of adult education and further education in the London area will decline. However, in the circumstances I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage and shall beg leave to withdraw it for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 142 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I think we have reached a suitable moment at which to break for dinner and adjourn the Committee stage. I suggest that we do not return to further consideration of this Bill until 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Eastbourne Harbour Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I have studied the plans of this most imaginative project and I think it is an outstanding example of the way that Britain and her

255
imaginative building companies, planners and others can come together for a project which is perhaps too often seen in France, and elsewhere, but not seen enough in this country.
The plan has the entire support of the East Sussex County Council and of Eastbourne Borough Council. It is a large and imaginative plan. I am told that at the peak it will employ some 4,000 extra people. On all those scores I trust it will have the support of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Orr-Ewing.)
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for introducing this Bill. I am grateful to him personally for the discussions we have had, but I am afraid I still have some fears as to the outcome of the proposals.
First and foremost I must clearly state that I am not opposed in any way to the building of the marina. I am sure that it could enhance the area and bring benefit to the town of Eastbourne and some of its inhabitants and the surrounding areas, as well as being a benefit to the sailing fraternity.
I must make it quite clear, talking about the town of Eastbourne, that noble Lords might think Eastbourne a place to retire to with rather pleasant buildings of one sort or another. But from a local historian's point of view it is an ancient fishing port which people remember. Where we are thinking of building is in an area known as the Crumbles, which is an area of special scientific interest on the Pevensey marshes.
Having said all these rather pleasant things, there is a very big "but". We have some concern as to the cost which could arise to the ratepayers not only now or in a few years' time, but for ever. The expertise of Tarmac Construction, who might or might not be the owners at the moment, might not be able to stem the drift of shingle eastwards, caused by the construction of this marina, now or in future decades. We have two examples where erosion to the eastern shore, not very far from Eastbourne, has occurred. The first was the building of Shoreham Harbour, which was contemplated in 1816 when curiously enough a trust fund was set up. The building of the harbour produced erosion of the beaches of Hove and Brighton. I put them in that order because we go from west to east. More recently, work done on Newhaven Harbour has involved the Southern Water Authority in great expense in maintaining the beaches at Seaford. Erosion, I am afraid, will be inevitable.
I am asking that a bond be provided by the owners, whoever they may be, either the Chatsworth Estates or Tarmac Construction. I should make it absolutely clear that this goes back to even before the proposals for any planning permission to be granted, in 1974—and, as my noble friend has said, the Eastbourne Borough Council have now agreed. The only reason why they were given planning permission was that they would look after the situation afterwards. An agreement was entered into, and one cannot escape that fact.
I am asking for a positive assurance that whatever agreement is reached between the Southern Water
256
Authority and the past, present and future owners of the Eastbourne Harbour Company, it will be properly funded and able to fulfil its legal obligations under the agreement to maintain the beaches north-east of the harbour for all time. If a positive assurance is not given, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which I was a council member at one time—and they are very keen on this—may have to petition. It might not be Eastbourne, but it is comparatively east for the purposes of whatever is proposed. I am looking forward to hearing my noble friend's reply, giving me those splendid assurances.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I intervene only briefly because there was perhaps a question about some of us on the Swanage Yacht Haven Bill voting on a totally non-party basis. I wish to make it quite clear that we on these Benches are not opposed to marinas. The proposal for Eastbourne is something which we wish to support because the safeguards have been built into the situation, regardless of what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says, either by Tarmac or the Water Authority.
I am quite sure that at the end of the day this will be a project which will enhance the viability of Eastbourne as a place for leisure and recreation. If noble Lords look at the plan for this new marina they will see that it takes over an area of fairly derelict land. With the best will in the world, it is a gravel pit which is past its best.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I think it might be a gravel pit now, but whatever it is it was a place, within living memory, where people could go and seek recreation and enjoy themselves. It is not an entirely derelict parcel of land.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying but I believe that this is an opportunity to restore it to being an area of recreation. I wish I could afford the kind of boat that people will put there. Nevertheless, it will be an area of recreation and better than it is at the moment. I believe that this is a good project and one which has our support.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Teviot in this matter. I have made available to him a copy of a very important letter
which the chief executive of Tarmac wrote to the chief executive of the council, because that council had some anxiety that at some time in the future a littoral drift might be troublesome. One has to remind oneself that Tarmac is a very substantial and hightly successful company. In all the projects which it has undertaken it has done outstandingly well.
I can now announce that a further agreement has been made, in case there is any incipient anxiety, even after that comfort letter. Tarmac and Southern Water have reached an agreement in which the costs of managing any littoral drift problems will be met by a bond or a trust fund which will have a value of at least £2 million.
I hope that in view both of Tarmac's assurances and this joint fund or bond my noble friend will feel

257
that the Bill should now have the recommendation of this House and proceed to another place. Therefore, I trust your Lordships will agree that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1988
7.39 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order be agreed to.
The order provides that the members of the European Committee to be established in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment shall enjoy the appropriate privileges and immunities to enable them to exercise their functions under the convention.
The task of the committee will be to arrange visits to places of detention in order, in the terms of Article 1 of the convention:
"to examine the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Parties to the convention are required to offer the members of the committee every facility in the performance of their tasks, in particular by giving them access at any time to any place where persons may be held (for instance, police stations, prisons and hospitals) and the opportunity to interview detainees in private and likewise their families, legal representatives and doctors.
Apart from periodic or routine visits in the territory of each contracting party, the committee may organise any ad hoc visits warranted. After each visit the committee will communicate its findings and recommendations to the party concerned. This procedure is confidential.
This non-judicial and confidential procedure is designed to assist governments in treating detainees properly. It aims at co-operation between the committee and the state concerned, not the latter's conviction by a judicial authority.
If this committee is to be able to carry out its task fearlessly and impartially, it is vital that its members be accorded certain privileges and immunities, not for their personal benefit, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions and free them from any constraints in carrying out their duties.
This order accordingly provides for the members, whilst performing their official duties, to have some of the privileges and immunities accorded to a head of a diplomatic mission, such as immunity from legal action, immunity from personal arrest or detention,
258
inviolability of documents and papers and inviolability of personal baggage.
The convention has been signed by all 21 member states of the Council of Europe and three have already ratified it (Turkey, Malta and Ireland). The order before the House will enable the United Kingdom to ratify it. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have examined the order and commented favourably on it. This convention will serve as a signal to other regions of the world of European commitment to stamp out torture. Let us hope that it will eventually lead to the elimination throughout the world of this terrible violation of human dignity. I commend the convention and the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th April be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.42 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his explanation of this important new order which provides a new mechanism for dealing with torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It was in the late part of the 18th century or in the early part of the 19th century when Voltaire said how splendid it was that the use of torture had ceased to be an instrument of Government activity and action. How wrong he proved to be! The United Nations passed a resolution in December 1986 which expressed its sincerest concern about the:
"alarming number of reported cases of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment taking place in various parts of the world".
That is the sombre reality. In a statement to the Commission on Human Rights in February of this year the United Kingdom delegate, my old friend Henry Steele, if I may call him that, said:
"So long as torture continues to be widely used—and recognition of the fact that it is widely used is inescapable—it is clearly essential that the Special Rapporteurs Mandate on Torture should be continued."
So that is a measure of the gravity of this matter.
This year's report of Amnesty International, which has done valuable work in exposing and fighting against torture, alleges that torture is practised in the countries of over one-third of the members of the United Nations. So it is a grave challenge to human dignity, liberty and to international decency. Therefore I would hasten to congratulate the Government upon their decision to bring this order forward. It will have a great value in that by conferring immunities on members of the European Committee to which the noble Lord referred, the order will enable the Government to become a party to the convention which they have already signed and in the creation of which the Government—I give credit to them for this—have played an important part.
As the noble Lord has indicated, the convention is unique among both regional and international instruments dealing with torture in setting up this committee of elected members to conduct, as he has said, on-site visits to places such as prisons, and possibly even police station cells, where people are

259
deprived of their liberty under the jurisdiction of the states which are parties to the convention.
This is therefore a very important order with very important implications indeed for this country and for prisoners, in that it will enable the members of the committee to enter these places and make their report. I am not very clear as to whom the committee is to report or the extent of confidentiality of its proceedings. It is clearly very important that the committee should be provided with adequate resources for its important and difficult work. It will also be very important that the Government should be able to ensure that access to the committee is available to those who might have complaints to bring forward under the terms of the convention. Perhaps the noble Lord will indicate how it is hoped that this access is to be ensured.
Finally, it is very important, of course, that the committee should be provided with adequate resources for its important and difficult work. In short, I believe that this is a most important step that the Government have taken in the advancement of human rights, and I am happy to be associated with it and to support it.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to welcome this order to establish a European committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The order also concerns the immunities and privileges for this committee. I do not want to delay for too long the passage of the order, but I hope that the Minister can clear my mind on a few points.
How will the committee members be chosen? I understand that the bureau of the European Assembly will be involved and that there is also a mention of expert advisers. But what tests will be applied to establish this good and just list? How large will it be as it will come from the 21 different nations of Europe? How will the committee members choose their visits, and on what criteria, or is this to be a roving commission?
How many countries have to ratify before the committee goes to work? It could be years, could it not? There are three countries which have ratified so far, and four if we pass this order tonight. One recognises that the few countries that ratify signify that their doors and their frontiers are open. That in itself is indeed a welcome step forward in combating torture in Europe.
As regards how the members will choose their visits, suspected punishment and torture will of course be the test. But are there to be any guidelines for their work? What happens in the case of newspaper and media exaggeration? I know from experience that that often happens in this sphere of alleged torture. Will this form of highlighting an alleged act or incident be the signal for the committee to act?
I should also like to know what Amnesty International's role will be after this committee has been established. Of course, Amnesty International will be totally free in its operations and activities outside the European countries that are subject to
260
this committee's work. The Minister may well say that he has no responsibility for Amnesty International. But what will happen if Amnesty International intrudes on the work of the convention and affects the 21 European member states covered by it? Will Amnesty International and the committee co-operate and work together, or will they work separately but in parallel? In the latter case, we shall have two torture-examining bodies working within the 21 countries.
Amnesty International might decide alternatively to raise its profile within the 21 states, to heighten or at least maintain its international profile. It might well try to be more unduly active than has hitherto been the case, ferreting to keep itself alive in Europe. I warn it that to do so will damage its reputation. How exactly will the two organisations perform within the 21 states?
Welcome as this development is, especially in the light of the committee's diplomatic immunity and ability to travel to visit institutions on an ad hoc basis, I hope there will be no confusion between the operations of Amnesty International and the new committee. Above all, in this sensitive field there should be no competition which, in the end, would only result in the hounding of the various institutions, subject to investigation within the 21 states. The order has my blessing. However, I should like assurance on the points which I have raised.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that I greatly deplore his attacks on Amnesty International, which will of course be happy to work in a most co-operative way with the new organisation.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word from these Benches in support of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. It is a matter for congratulation and gratification that the Government have adhered to the convention. The only question which I wish to ask concerns a matter of fact. As I understand it, this order is made under Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968. That section enables representatives of international organisations and other persons to have conferred upon them by Order in Council certain privileges and immunities. Those privileges and immunities are to be set out and specified in the order. That is precisely what is being done here.
If one looks at Part II of the order and in particular at Article 4(c), one will see provided there that, among the other immunities conferred upon members of the committee, is an immunity in respect of personal baggage. I understand that to mean that personal baggage will not be liable to search or investigation. However, there follows a proviso which states that:
"the provisions of paragraph (c) of this Article shall not apply to any person who is a United Kingdom national".
There may be a simple explanation for that which I have missed. I should be grateful if the Minister can explain why United Kingdom nationals do not have an immunity which is granted to all the other members of the committee.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, previous speakers have underlined the importance of the order and of the European convention which lies behind it. I should like to welcome it. I was particularly delighted to hear that the Irish Republic has already ratified the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, asked what kinds of cases the committee might look into. I should like to suggest a few. We have had too many prison riots in this country in recent years. The knowledge that the committee could, or would, visit might well defuse a potential riot before it actually happened. Again, in recent years we have had rather too many cases of abuse of patients within psychiatric hospitals. The committee might act as a preventive safeguard. We currently have far too many persons, who have been arrested and who are awaiting charge and trial, confined within police cells. I hope that the committee will be a spur to the reduction in those excessive numbers.
In recent years we have experienced cases where would-be immigrants—some of them asylum seekers—are detained in such places as Harmondsworth. Some of them have reached such a desperate state of mind that they have attempted suicide. I hope that the committee will help to eliminate those situations. Those are examples of the reasons for my belief that the committee can be active in the United Kingdom and do much good. I welcome the order.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussion on the order. Although I very much appreciate the general concerns which have been articulated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, regarding torture in all its forms and the rights of people in detention to the provisions in the convention which apply to them, we are not debating the European convention as such. We are merely discussing the immunities and privileges aspects of the convention. However, I thought that it was important to allow the debate to develop. I realise that there are very real concerns, such as those expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Foot.
Many of the answers to the questions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, raised are to be found in the convention itself. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will have a copy. It describes the details of the committee and how it will operate. However, perhaps I may answer the noble and learned Lord by saying that the committee will report to the state concerned. It will also report on its activities to the consultative assembly. So far as I am aware, that report will be made public.
Articles 4 and 5 cover the election of members. The members of the committee will consist of a number of members equal to that of the parties, and the convention will come into force when seven member states have ratified it. After our ratification, a further three ratifications will be needed. The members of the committee are to be of high moral character and known for their competence in the field of human rights.
262
As regards Amnesty International, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will accept that that is not in any sense a matter for us. So far as I am aware, Amnesty International will continue to operate as it always has. It is in no way affected by the order or the convention itself.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. There was no attack on Amnesty International. However, I wanted to clear up the confusion between the two bodies operating within the 21 states.
Lord Glenarthur: The two bodies can operate as Amnesty International always has. This is a totally separate body and in no way affects Amnesty International.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised a technical point concerning Article 2 of the order. As he said, the order is made under Section 5 of the International Organisations Act 1968, not Section 1 of the Act. Paragraph 3(a) of the annexe to the convention reflects privileges granted to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official duty. I am not sure that that answers fully the point that he made but it seems to me, unless I have got it wrong, that the provision relating to baggage would not apply to a UK national operating in his own country. That is presumably all that the order refers to in so far as it concerns people trying to deal with these problems as members of the committee in this country. I hope that I have got that right but I believe that to be the case. I do not think that anyone will be disadvantaged by it and I believe it to be perfectly normal. I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 272ZB not moved.]
Clause 143 [Extension of function of London Residuary Body.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 272A:
Page 137, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In discharging its functions under this Act the London Residuary Body shall be treated as a principal council for the purposes of Part V A of the Local Government Act 1972 (Access to meetings and documents) and shall be a body to which the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 applies.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 272A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 272B, on which the main emphasis of my words will fall. The Committee is discussing the extension of the life of the London Residuary Body and what will happen to the assets connected with the proposed abolition of the ILEA.
I must apologise to the Committee. Before the break I understood that the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a number of observations about the London Residuary Body and they sounded rather interesting to me. However, we were proceeding at such a pace that unfortunately I did not take a proper note. I hope therefore that I shall be forgiven if I raise matters to which, in a sense, he has already responded.
In the first place, it must be recognised that the Inner London Education Authority owns a vast amount of valuable property. When this Bill becomes an Act, that property will devolve to the individual boroughs and I suppose that one of the interesting questions which this Chamber will be discussing in due course relates to that transfer. En passant, I should mention another matter that we have not discussed and which interests me as a general proposition—presumably we shall discuss this matter on Thursday—namely, that property which belongs to taxpayers will be taken from them as a result of this Bill and given to other bodies involved with the polytechnics and the grant-maintained schools. I mention that merely in passing, however, since Amendment No. 272A is not concerned with that matter.
Amendment No. 272B is essentially a probing amendment which raises questions about the disposal of properties. I suppose that the noble Baroness was right earlier when she accused me of pessimism. I must tell her that I am about to be pessimistic once again. Essentially the concern is with properties which are dedicated to education in one way or another either in the form of educational buildings or in the sense of dedicated playing fields and so on. Uppermost in my mind is the question of the criteria that will be applied when such properties are disposed of.
If I understand the law correctly, the duty of the LRB when disposing of any property simply consists of obtaining the best commercial value for it. That is my understanding of the present legal position and as it will apply to the disposal of ILEA properties under this Bill if it becomes an Act. We should not like to see that happen if it is fairly obvious that such properties could be better used for other purposes. That is a source of concern to these Benches.
Let me take the example of playing fields. I do not wish to emote over the value of playing fields or to assert that all character-building derives from what happens on the playing fields, but I am bound to say that I believe that boys playing football on Hackney Marshes on a Sunday (and one can see there hundreds of games of football being played) are better occupied than boys who are going around spreading graffiti on walls. Playing fields are on the whole a good thing.
If it should turn out that playing fields are, in some sense, surplus to the requirements of individual boroughs—and my argument is always a question of "if"—and it falls to the LRB to dispose of those properties, we feel that the LRB should be able to dispose of them not in order to obtain the highest commercial or development value but to obtain what is almost the reverse—the lowest commercial
264
value—by preserving them as playing fields. That is simply an example. Similarly, it seems to me that if it is a question of buildings that are not required for educational purposes in the maintained system, should people of a charitable nature come along who felt that they could make use of those buildings for suitable educational or related social purposes but could not possibly meet the development value of buildings, then at least it would be possible to dispose of the properties to them.
I should like the noble Baroness to reassure me that I am right. I believe anyway that the Secretary of State has power to intervene on matters of that kind and declare that such playing fields should remain as playing fields and not be used as the basis of development for, say, a block of flats. I believe that that is the case and I should like confirmation of it.
This amendment has been tabled in order to clarify the position and make explicit that the direction-making power (if it exists) is for educational purposes and not for other purposes. In particular, we believe that the Secretary of State ought to be in a position to intervene, and indeed should intervene by way of direction, so that property of an educational and community value is not sold or at least is not sold without due consideration, explicit argument and proper consultation. That is the basis of our argument.
I reiterate that this is a probing amendment. I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue. We should like to use the discussion as a basis to discover rather more about what may be happening and in particular to declare that we want many of these properties protected for educational and similar purposes. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that the noble Lord was speaking to Amendments Nos. 272A and 272B. As I understand it, as well as the property matters to which the noble Lord referred, these amendments are largely concerned with the extent to which the LRB will take account of education interests in discharging its functions in relation to ILEA and the transfer of education responsibilities in inner London generally.
Clause 158 requires the LRB to comply with any directions given it by the Secretary of State. In issuing any such directions the Secretary of State would of course be under his duty under Section 1 of the Education Act 1944:
"to promote the education of the people of England … and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
That, in short, explains why this part of the amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State will of course want to ensure that the LRB acts in accordance with the educational interest of inner London. In any event, he will be under a duty.
It is not inconceivable that the Secretary of State might, in certain circumstances, direct the LRB to accept less than the full market value of a particular piece of property, if that would be in the educational or other interests of boroughs. But it would be difficult for the LRB to take that sort of decision without guidance by the Secretary of State. I have

265
already explained to the Committee in answer to a question on another occasion from my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that we recognise the importance of sports facilities; and we are of course willing to discuss specific issues with those with an interest in sport. In the meantime any arrangements which the Inner London Education Authority might wish to make on the disposal of property is of course subject to consent from the Secretary of State.
There are, I think, two other points raised by this amendment. The first is that meetings of the board of the LRB should be open to the public, and their papers published. This is not, of course, the case with the LRB at present, nor do I think it would be appropriate in the future. The London Residuary Body is in existence for a specified period only, to carry out as quickly as possible certain transactions which are, to a large extent, of a commercially sensitive nature. It would not be appropriate for the meetings of the board to be treated as though they were the meetings of a borough council. Questions arising on
the work of the LRB at the moment are dealt with as necessary by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and questions relating to the LRB's work on ILEA would similarly be raised with my right honourable friend in future. That is the proper line of accountability in this case.
A second point raised by the amendment is that the inner London boroughs should designate members to serve on the LRB. Quite apart from the fact that to do so would mean trebling the size of the body, and completely overbalancing its present expertise, we do not believe that the nature of the LRB's tasks is such as to require such a large change in its membership. There is, however, some slack in the membership of the LRB in relation to what is permitted under the Local Government Act 1985, and it may well be that it will be appropriate for the Secretary of State to appoint a number of additional members with specific experience in education in order to inform the hoard's discussions. This is something to which we shall be giving further attention.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. She will not be surprised to hear that I am not happy with the answer although I am not too unhappy. I should have liked her to have gone further on the openness point because I believe that it is a good thing. I do not believe that most of the matters I have in mind could be described as commercial incompetence. I am concerned with the disposal of valuable community assets. I should have thought a degree of openness in justifying that would be a good thing.
Having said that, I shall think more carefully about what she has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 272B not moved.]
Clause 143 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 144 [Development plans for education]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 137, line 29, after ("areas") insert—
("( ) consult organisations representing Head Teachers of schools in their area").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 273, and Amendment No. 274 to which I am also speaking, are simple amendments. They affect Clause 144, which lays down the ground rules for the development plans. I had the impression from our earlier debates that the Government attach considerable importance to these development plans, not only as rigid blueprints of what the new LEA plans to do, but also as a consultation process. I understand from the intervention of the Leader of the House, when he wound up on the debate that we had before dinner, that the Government will be bringing forward amendments at Report stage to allow appointments to positions to take place during the development phase. One of the reasons why the Government rejected the amendment which I moved was that they felt that it would hold up this process in some way.
Clause 144(3) provides that in preparing a development plan a council shall, according to the Bill,
"consult the local authorities for adjacent areas".
It shall also take into account,
"any guidance given by the Secretary of State".
All that I am seeking to put into this clause is that it should also consult organisations representing head teachers of schools in their area. I should have thought that that would be a sensible provision. If there is a provision to consult the local authority for adjacent areas but not to consult those who have hitherto been responsible for the running and administration of the schools, there seems to be a gap.
I know that the noble Baroness and, I think, others have referred to reasonably friendly consultations taking place between the boroughs and ILEA. But it would seem to be sensible that we should have on the face of the Bill that the head teachers of the schools—the people who had been the frontline runners of the schools that will be transferred to the local authorities—should be in at this stage of the development plan. That is the sole purpose of these two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I had rather assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was tabling these amendments as probing amendments. I therefore hope that I shall be able to reassure the Committee on the point that they raise.
Amendment No. 273 would require inner London councils, in preparing their development plans, to consult organisations representing head teachers of schools in their area. I think that in many ways, such consultation is certainly common sense. The head teachers in each area will have a crucial part to play in advising the new local education authorities and in helping to establish new working arrangements. But I draw the Committee's attention in particular to Clause 144(3)(b) which requires councils to take into account any guidance given by my right honourable

267
friend as to consultation. Members of the Committee will be aware that the draft guidance which the department published three weeks ago made clear, in paragraph 45, that councils should consult all groups with a direct interest. That would plainly include heads, and indeed other teachers, both in schools and colleges.
If that is not clear enough, the fact that the guidance is at present in draft form means that the final guidance can—if it is indicated that it is not absolutely clear—be clarified in this respect. So I doubt whether it would be appropriate to specify whether councils should do this on an individual basis or formally through the teachers' associations. This is something which they will wish to decide in the light of local circumstances, although I would naturally expect that the representative associations and union would wish to engage in discussion with local councils about their plans; and indeed we are very much encouraging them to do so.
Amendment No. 274 goes on to require my right honourable friend, in issuing his guidance, to take account of the views of head teacher organisations about the way in which it should be published. As I said, the draft guidance has been sent to the bodies representing head teachers, and we shall naturally take into account any points they make, especially on the content of the guidance, but also on its presentation.
I must say, however, that it would be rather odd to require my right honourable friend on the face of the Bill to take into account the views of only one group, however important that group may be—and I do not wish to under-emphasise the important role of head teachers—in relation to the way in which the guidance is made public rather than what it actually says. I hope that in making the Government's position clear I have set the noble Lord's mind at rest and that he will therefore be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I did not say that this was a probing amendment because I had rather thought the noble Baroness had assumed I would not press this to a Division at this time. She is perfectly right and of course it is. I must confess that I have not read the full draft guidance. I read a summary of it, which was quite long, but I have not read the draft guidance line by line. I think it runs to something like 40 pages. Perhaps that was remiss of me.
I am certainly prepared to accept what the noble Baroness says and, maybe, these would be the natural group to be consulted at this stage. Before withdrawing this amendment I should like to say that head teachers are quite clearly crucial to getting the new system off the ground. So I hope that when the guidance is firmed up—I think the noble Baroness said that it was only draft guidance and that there would be a final version—it will make this point very plainly to local education authorities. If that is the assurance that the noble Baroness is giving me, which I think she is, then I am perfectly happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 273A:
Page 137, line 33 at end insert ("; and
(c) and any trust established under section 145(5A) of this Act,").
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 274BZB, 274BZC, 274BZD, 274DZB and 274EZB. I am very much hoping that we shall find agreement with the Government on these amendments, because they are about a specific matter with which I believe the Government have very considerable sympathy, and that is provision for handicapped children, particularly residential schools for handicapped pupils.
The Government must be very well aware of the enormous importance of these schools, both to the young people who are in them and to the families which they serve. I have contact with—as I am sure have many members of the Committee—people who are using these schools, and the whole of their lives would be radically changed, and changed for the worse, if this provision was not available.
We are therefore asking that the position should be safeguarded by the establishment of a trust, so that there is no question of these premises, which are no doubt valuable, being used for some other purpose. This is a specific objective of the very greatest importance to be served by the establishment of a trust, in order that these residential schools for the handicapped may be maintained on a basis of permanence. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern over the future of the residential schools for children with special educational needs maintained by the ILEA. There are 30 of them, 27 of which lie outside the ILEA boundary, either in the outer London boroughs or counties in the South-East of England.
About half of the schools are for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The others cover a range of handicaps such as moderate and severe learning difficulties, autism and delicate children. At present there are about 1,000 pupils attending them. Most of the children are of course placed by ILEA but, in common with other residential special schools, they admit children from other LEAs. There are three residential special schools located in inner London boroughs and responsibility for them will fall to the relevant borough council. But the Government are aware that responsibility for the other 27 cannot be allocated in quite this straightforward way.
The department's draft guidance on the future provision of education in inner London addresses this point. While the guidance asks inner London borough councils to state their intentions within their development plans with regard to this group of schools, we recognise that there will need to be further discussion before firm proposals can be made as to their future.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal explained earlier, we shall shortly be sending out to interested parties invitations for the first meeting of a working party which is to be established to consider this matter. The interested parties will, of course, be the

269
ILEA, the outer and inner London borough councils and those county authorities where these schools are located.
Through this working party, it will be our aim to reach agreement that either a borough or the LEA in which a school is situated will take on responsibility for these schools. There are precedents. When Middlesex disappeared as a county in 1965, the new outer London boroughs were able to decide among themselves responsibility for those Middlesex special schools which lay outside the county. However, I do not want at this stage to prejudge in detail the outcome of what may be the working party's deliberations.
The amendment proposes the establishment of a trust to run these schools, as the noble Baroness explained, although it does not say how this trust would be financed. It would presumably need to employ its own staff and expert help or to buy it in. The central thrust of our proposals for the provision of education in inner London from April 1990 is, of course, that each borough—like metropolitan LEAs elsewhere in the country—should be able to develop its own education service, including special education provision.
We recognise that, again like all other LEAs, the inner London boroughs will need to share their expertise in special education. But the department's Inner London Unit will be offering guidance as development plans are drawn up, in order to ensure that the necessary co-operation is built in. We are confident that in this way a strong special education service will be maintained, with an important element of local control. So I trust that with that reassurance of how we are planning to go about this situation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: May I ask the Minister a question which I do not think she answered in the course of her remarks? Do the staff of these schools and the parents know what is going on at the moment, because there must be quite acute anxiety about their position?
Baroness Hooper: As I said, guidance was distributed some three weeks ago to a very wide variety of people. I expect that the staff will certainly be aware of what is said in that and can go some way in being able to reassure the parents. As regards the establishment of the working group, I am not sure but I think that it was announced by my noble friend this afternoon, and therefore people might not be aware of it.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter: Although the amendment refers only to residential schools for handicapped children, the Minister in her answer widened the scope to deal with special education generally. I shall do the same. The amendment refers to residential schools. As the Minister said, there are only about 1,000 children with special educational need in boarding schools. There are 5,000 children with special educational need in day schools. They must also be considered.
270
There are 8,300 children in inner London who have statements of special educational need. As we know, there are many more without statements. There are 6,600 in special schools, 495 in specialist units in mainstream schools and 1,200 receive individual support in mainstream schools.
The residential school that I referred to at Second Reading illustrates the problem that the successor to ILEA and the boroughs will face in handling this matter. It is the only boarding school for children with impaired vision in the ILEA area. The figures are for all the children with impaired vision in boarding and day schools, and 52 per cent. of the children either at the boarding or the day schools are from outside the ILEA area. Obviously, there must be something in the development plans for this trust or whatever is used to deal with the problem.
Reference was made to special boarding schools outside London. As the Minister said, there are 27 of these. It seems that the Government do not have the first idea of a policy because all we are offered is a working party. We are not told what is the Government's view on how the problem should be handled. Also there is the problem of the use of central services and resources.
At page 9 of the draft guidance for ILEA which has already been referred to one reads:
"The Secretary of State's initial view is that in general he would expect each borough to maintain any ILEA special school which is within its area, although decisions about the allocation of institutions to councils will reflect the totality of councils' plans, in order to ensure the satisfactory maintenance of provision in inner London".
I have read that three times and believe that it is Civil Service jargon for saying, "We have not the first idea of how to do this. Will you please tell us how to do it?"
I referred to the only boarding school in London for the visually impaired. It is in Wandsworth. I referred also to it at Second Reading. Only seven out of 61 children come from Wandsworth. There are a further eight from the other ILEA boroughs, so only a quarter of the children, 15 out of 61, at that school come from the ILEA area. The other three-quarters come from the outer London boroughs and the Home Counties. As we know, the provision of special education is extremely expensive. The fees at that school are between £15,000 and £17,000 per head per annum. I repeat the question I asked at Second Reading. Is Wandsworth really equipped to take over a school with an annual budget of about £1 million where only seven out of the 61 children actually come from Wandsworth? That is only 11 per cent. of the children involved.
It is true that in the leaflet that Wandsworth has produced it claims that it wants to take over all 12 special schools in its area. This refers to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. In reply to an earlier amendment the Minister said—I wrote the words down when she said them:
"The policy provision for funding should be located at the borough level".
That presumably is to apply to special education. But what about the special schools which, through the accident of history, are in the poorer boroughs? Are they to rely on central resource grants to provide the special education in their areas, or are they to rely on

271
the kind of trust which is only to deal with the residential schools that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has referred to? All of this indicates the lack of planning and forethought that has entered into the Government's thinking on ILEA in relation to special schools. I hope that the noble Baroness will either be able to accept the amendment or to return at a later stage with some better ideas than the Government have produced so far.
Baroness Hooper: I shall try to meet one point as well as the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has raised. As I understand it, the amendment addresses specifically the cases of the 30 residential schools. That is why I confined my remarks to that factor. We have considered the general provision for special educational needs, and the cost element to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention is not really a problem because the cost follows the child. The recoupment takes place at full cost. Even if the example he quoted for Wandsworth were to exist where only a small number of local children were in the school, for children coming from other areas the full cost would be met in a similar way to what happens in other parts of the country. I do not foresee any major change or problem in that respect.
Baroness Seear: The response of the noble Baroness to the proposed amendment was sympathetic in tone, but all we have had as a hard offer is a working party. The noble Baroness says that the boroughs will continue to be responsible for special education provision for their own areas. Once again this raises the problem of what happens if a borough finds itself in financial difficulties.
The whole subject of the provision for handicapped pupils is of an order of its own. It is not the same kind of problem as the ordinary provision of schools for ordinary healthy children. The costs are very great, the anxieties are very great, the problems of dealing with such children are specialist and it requires specially trained staff to provide that education. Are the Government prepared to go any further and say that they will stand behind these schools in some way, so that this essential provision, both for the children and their families, can be guaranteed? If the boroughs cannot provide it, will there be some other provision, either through the trust as suggested in the amendment, or in some other way? Are the Government prepared to say that they give this high priority and that they will see that adequate provision is made for young people of this kind? Can the noble Baroness reassure us more on this issue?
Baroness Hooper: Because we have requested the boroughs to address this concern in the development plans they are to bring forward, we shall be looking closely at those plans to ensure that the provision is adequate. In terms of any other support, as I said, these arrangements are made in other parts of the country and therefore I see no reason why London boroughs, provided that they go about it the right way, should not be perfectly capable of and responsible for handling these needs.
Baroness Seear: I am not reassured that these schools will still be in operation and providing the service required in a few years' time. However, this is a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 274 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 274AZA:
Leave out clause 144 and insert the following clause:
("Development plans.
—(1) Not later than such date as the Secretary of State may direct, each inner London council shall prepare and publish a draft development plan—

(a) providing full particulars of the manner in which the council proposes to perform the functions of a local education authority including separate consideration of inter alia the items set out in Schedule (Items for inclusion in development plans) to this Act;

(b) providing a list of the property belonging to ILEA which in its opinion needs to be transferred to it for the purpose of enabling it properly to perform its LEA functions; and

(c) specifying all schools and other bodies or institutions which it proposes financially to maintain.

(2) The council shall carry out consultation on the proposals contained within its draft development plan in such a manner as is requisite to bring the same to the attention of those persons (both inside and outside its area) who may be affected by the performance by the council of its LEA functions, including parents, governors, students, churches, the ILEA, staff employed within the education service, voluntary organisations, employers, adjacent boroughs and bodies representative of such persons and bodies.
(3) Not less than three months shall be given in respect of the consultation required under subsection (2) above.
(4) The council shall make public available and take into account all representations received in respect of its consultation and having made such amendments to the draft development plan as it considers appropriate, shall approve its development plan for submission to the Secretary of State.
(5) Upon receipt of a development plan the Secretary of State shall forthwith seek the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the contents thereof and shall—

(i) approve the plan if advised that it provides reasonably for the establishment and maintenance of an efficient and effective comprehensive education service for its area and is consistent with the provision of such service by adjacent LEAs;

(ii) refer the plan back to the council for reconsideration, if advised that it does not so provide.

(6) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of assisting councils in drawing up draft development plans, or development plans, give guidance in respect of the contents thereof, and a council shall take into account any guidance so given.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 274AZA, I should like to speak to the corresponding schedule under Amendment No. 274ZZB. It may be helpful for the Minister to know that this is not a probing amendment but one that we intend to pursue fully.
If we are to devolve education to the individual boroughs, we have to take seriously the way in which they will exercise their responsibilities. More importantly, they have to start to face the reality of education planning and decision making. The Government recognise that. Therefore, we enter the area of development plans and so on. In moving the amendment, we are emphasising the nature, scale and complexity of the problems and our view, which we have argued on many other occasions in connection with the Bill, that the Government have not thought this through. The draft guidance is a botched and not fully analysed document. Like so much else of the Bill, it is based on the premise that it will be all right

273
on the day. However, it will not be all right on the day unless we amend the Bill and do much more about it than we have so far done.
Perhaps it would be helpful for me to draw the attention of the Committee to the schedule that my noble friend Lady David and I have set down. This brings out the scale and complexity of the problem confronting the individual boroughs. I say "brings out" because I do not wish to vouch that we have covered the whole ground. If we had been able to think about it a little more and had not been so preoccupied with moving amendments, we could probably have provided an even longer list. This is at least a beginning, and pretty much the kind of thing that will have to be covered.
It would have been interesting to ask whether those noble Lords who so blithely voted for the abolition of the ILEA and who said that it would be all right to let the boroughs become education authorities fully appreciate that this is at best a minimum statement of what will be involved. Although I did not speak on the previous amendment, I draw attention to the arrangements that will have to be made under subsection (6) for the education of children with special needs, in particular those not provided for in borough schools. I should like to emphasise—I was remiss in not having done so earlier—the many worries of those people who have written to me and to other noble Lords.
One serious matter that has been raised is the long and short-term provision for children in hospital. Another concern that I wish to put on record from the letters that I have received is about schools dealing with children with mental handicap. This is an immensely difficult question, and people are struggling all the time against insuperable odds. That comes under the same heading, and is another problem with which the authority will have to concern itself.
Bearing all that in mind, the development plan is vital. We have discussed staff. The authorities will have to recruit staff, but it is not a matter of recruiting any old staff; the problems involved require experience and judgment. Management in this above all other areas cannot be bought off the management supermarket shelf. One cannot say, "You are a manager. Come and run our education system". That talent is scarce. In that connection, the noble Lord said that the Secretary of State will have powers and that on Report there will be amendments concerning those powers so that he can take a direct interest in the early appointment of senior staff in connection with these matters. We certainly look forward to that.
What does this amendment seek to achieve? First, in referring to the schedule, we are seeking to achieve that all possible aspects of educational provision are fully covered by the individual boroughs—the new authorities. That must be common ground with which we all agree. Secondly, as a matter of principle and good practice we believe that the new bodies must consult properly with all interested parties; not least parents but also staff, Churches and other people who take an interest in these matters. We believe in this consultation because we think it is right to consult, and we believe that if one consults the
274
matter is carried out more efficiently. In other words, we take a positive view of the value of consultation.
The boroughs have been given this draft guidance document. Our own reading of it—and I should like to know the view of the noble Baroness—is that the draft guidance issued to the boroughs is weaker than that offered by her department in Circular 3/87 and, in particular, was weaker in connection with consultation. We should like to hear from the noble Baroness whether that was a slip of the word processor or was intended.
In relation to consultation—and again this seems to me to be common sense—it would make good sense to have a draft development plan in the first instance and then to consult, review and moderate the draft development plan to produce the actual development plan. Indeed, in other guidance that the DES has given that is how it suggests that people should operate. We should like to know why it is not suggested that the department operates in this way.
Perhaps I may emphasise another matter which we have consistently argued from these Benches. We propose that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's advice should be sought on the educational validity of the development plan. I am drawing attention to what we believe are the inadequacies of the draft guidance. We are not surprised at the inadequacies because we are not surprised at anything in this horribly rushed Bill. Therefore, in a sense I am boring on about the nature of the Bill and I continue to do so because that is the case.
Finally, I come to the point which I have made twice, and perhaps three times will be enough for this evening.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord has not yet heard what it is, and he may even enjoy it this time. It is the point about real resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has raised the point and I reiterate it. We still await a modicum of an answer.
First, quite separate from the question of what real resources will be available, it seems to me—and I do not see how this is avoidable, particularly in the interim phase of the first three to five years—that if one sets up all these individual authorities, there must be a vast duplication of the decision-making and management mechanism.
All those people will have to hire their own management structures, which, in many ways, are already catered for by ILEA. However, because they are also engaged in a learning process, because they are largely starting from scratch, they are likely to have a lot of it wrong. Therefore, the transition phase must, in itself, be more expensive than what economists call the eventual equilibrium—if we ever reach it. Therefore, there is the problem of real resources.
We return to the question of what real resources will be available. As an economist, I do not understand what is the point of planning unless one is planning within a real resource framework. It is all very well to say that there are all these duties and things one would like to do, but what matters is what

275
one is proposing to do; what it costs; what are the likely resources available; how do we compare the likely resources available with the costs; and how do we then set a priority system to choose, because one is obliged to choose. Those are questions which will have to be answered. For those boroughs plunging head first into this matter that is what they will have to do, and it is not easy.
The key point is the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In the earlier main debate I heard several Members of the Committee talk about the wasteful nature of the ILEA. Therefore, the Government must be arguing that they are proposing to cut the real resources available to the individual boroughs. There will be much less available in the way of real resources.
Perhaps they are arguing that this cut will occur at some time in the distant future; that they will let the authorities get going and that they will become infinitely more efficient—although we do not see how—and make fewer demands for resources. I do not believe that that is remotely in any way what the Government have in mind. I believe that the Government intend to impose, on the basis of needs assessment, stringent and serious cuts, even well beyond what ILEA was in the process of being obliged to engage in.
I conclude by again exercising the natural pessimism of the economist by pointing out that we have, in considering the development programme, a recipe for possible disaster. My view of how to take decisions is always to look at the worst aspect to decide what to do and then, if you do slightly better than the worst, you feel a little more cheerful. I have been emphasising the worst but I hope desperately that it will not happen. My own children are past school age so it will not happen to them, but I have friends and colleagues who will be affected.
In this amendment we aim to be constructive and to suggest ways which might minimise some of the damage. If the noble Baroness can bring herself to say something more positive about the real resources and, as we asked earlier, about guaranteed resources we will perhaps be reassured—or less not assured.
Baroness Young: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on many occasions during the progress of this Bill and have frequently found myself in agreement with him. However, I am bound to say that his last remarks did not reach the standard which I at any rate have come to expect from him.
The noble Lord put forward arguments for his new clause—I understand he spoke also to his new schedule—but in the draft guidance, which we have now all had an opportunity of reading, his points are largely covered. Of course a local education authority, a borough taking over educational responsibilities, must draw up a plan. Quite properly the noble Lord lists in his amendment what must be considered. However, I understand that that is what the draft guidance says.
The noble Lord said in the course of his remarks, if I understood him correctly, that it is important to get the inspectorate's advice. I have no doubt—and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper will
276
confirm it—that when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks at the plans he will be taking advice from the inspectorate and others on whether or not the London boroughs have drawn up plans which meet the requirements of their areas.
The noble Lord then said that there will be increased management costs. I find that difficult to believe. One of the criticisms of ILEA is that although there has been an enormous drop in the school population the number of administrators has increased since 1980. That is an irrefutable fact. I see no reason to suppose that management costs will increase.
As regards resources, we have had this argument several times, but if ILEA is to reduce its expenditure by 12 per cent. clearly there will be fewer resources. That does not mean to say that education may not improve. It is a question of what one does with the money available and, in the schools specifically, what expectations one has of the pupils. It is nothing to do with resources available.
I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper will, without difficulty, satisfy the Committee that the Secretary of State has clearly thought of these points and will pay attention to them when approving the plans.
Earl Russell: It strikes me that we are today dealing with a kind of mini-Bill. In effect, we had this afternoon a Second Reading debate which we concluded at about six o'clock. We have now begun a Committee stage, so to speak, anew. That illustrates how many measures are packed into this Bill. Incidentally, if this were in law a single Bill, as it is in fact, it would be out of order to take the Second Reading and Committee stage on the same day.
What is unusual here is that in starting a new Committee stage we have the Opposition attempting to write the Bill as we go along because we believe that a great deal of it is not yet written. It is clear that on this side of the Committee people wish services to continue. We keep reiterating this point because over and over again we find an ambiguity at the very heart of the Government's case on this subject. On the one hand, the Government tell us over and over again that the service is too expensive; it wastes money and costs must be reduced. On the other hand, as soon as any Member of the Opposition begins to ask whether the Government wish the service to continue they say "Yes, of course we do".
I can understand that in some kind of double visioned heaven the Government might have both those objectives and pursue them honestly at the same time. But in the real world down here, sober, and on earth, there comes a point where the Government have to choose between their objectives. They have to say whether they wish to reduce the cost or whether they wish to continue the service. If the Government wish to convince Members on this side of the Committee that they want to continue the service then they should join in what I believe are genuinely constructive attempts being made to write, as it were, a new Bill to ensure the service will continue. If they do not wish the service to continue, then I believe that they should come clean and say so and then we may be able to join issue on what many

277
of us on this side of the Committee suspect are the real issues. It is time that people on the other side of the Committee absorbed the basic message of commercial practice; namely, you cannot have something for nothing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know whether the noble Earl has ever been in local government. I should know but I do not. If he has—I notice that the noble Earl is shaking his head—he would know that very often two councils next door to each other obtain quite different value for money. One will get a far better education service for the same amount per head than another. That is a fact and that is what local government is all about. That is why we are convinced that local government should be linked to the democratic process.
I can understand that an amendment of this kind dampens the best of motivations, but it completely takes away the power of local government. When councillors meet they have a mandatory duty; they have functions to perform and matters that they are permitted to do in education. They have many models to look at in other education authorities. They will have guidance and it will be for them to decide. Some local authorities will be much more successful than others and people will vote for them accordingly.
When we discuss the problem of resources, the needs element in the support grant will take great account of the different requirements in different authorities. That having been done, the local authorities will know what grants they are receiving; they will set their rate and subsequently, under the new system, they will collect their money in a different way according to what is decided in this Chamber. The local authorities will then see the results of their actions.
To talk about this subject as though it had nothing whatever to do with local democracy and local government is a little misleading. At the same time I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is attempting to do. He is trying to make sure that the new local authorities understand their duties. I believe that they are not so daft; they are used to local government and they will find that they have far more flexibility within an all-purpose authority to cross the boundaries of different departments and so have their resources adjusted in the way that they want. They will be like other all-purpose authorities. I do not see why this measure should not work and I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
Lord Hylton: As regards the question of resources, I understand that in the past five years the expenditure of a London fire authority increased by 82·5 per cent. and that of the Metropolitan Police by 67 per cent. Those are two examples of non-elected statutory bodies in the London area. When one considers the inner London boroughs' social services, their expenditure went up by 64 per cent. We have to remember that a good number of them were rate-capped.
During the same period the expenditure of ILEA increased by only 43 per cent. I wonder if there is
278
some lesson to be learned there. Can the Government give some really cast-iron assurance that what the noble Baroness from the Government Benches was saying a moment ago would happen, will happen; that is, that the resources element will cope with the clear, well-known and thoroughly studied problems of the inner London boroughs, or will we end up with a much worse service than that which we have now?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that in moving this amendment the noble Lord was not moving it as a probing amendment. I also recognise that in tabling these amendments, in any event, he is taking a most constructive approach, which I very much welcome. I believe that the amendments contain a good deal more detail than is either necessary or appropriate for primary legislation, but they nonetheless deal with important questions which we have addressed in our draft guidance on the preparation of development plans, which we shall want to discuss in more detail with the inner London boroughs during the coming two years.
One effect of the amendments would be to require the inner London boroughs to prepare draft development plans by a date to be specified, to publish those plans for local consultation with specified interests, and then to submit a final version of the plan to the Secretary of State for approval. No date is specified in the amendment for this last step. The Secretary of State would then have to seek the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the development plan, and, depending on what that advice was, would be required either to approve the plan or to refer it back to the council for further consideration. I have to say that this makes it look very much like another delaying tactic.
Amendment No. 274ZZB sets down a list of items that need to be covered in boroughs' development plans. The list contains 37 items. I can say to the noble Lord that there is one category which they have missed, which I learnt of recently, and that is the instruction of London taxi drivers in "the knowledge". Nevertheless, I have checked the list in the schedule against the draft guidance which the department issued a few weeks ago, and all but about nine of the items in the list are clearly dealt with in our guidance, as my noble friend Lady Young assumed. Indeed, some have been the subject of discussion earlier today.
Some of the items in the noble Baroness's list that are not in the guidance at present are not ones which it would be appropriate to ask of boroughs at an early stage in drawing up their plans. The arrangements for the provision of physical education in relation to the adequacy of on-site facilities will, for example, be a matter to be discussed between the borough and its teachers. Other items, however, I think we could usefully add to our guidance—just as the proposers of the amendment could usefully have added to their list if they had chosen to do so. However, it is encouraging that both sides of the Committee are in close agreement about the broad information which is required. But I need hardly say that the Government do not believe that it would be right to

279
include in primary legislation a detailed list of the type proposed in the amendment.
Perhaps I may make some further comments on the amendments. We certainly believe, as is made clear in the Bill and in the draft guidance, that boroughs should take account of local opinion when drawing up their development plans. Indeed, it is central to our proposals that for the first time local people will have a chance to shape the education service in their area.
However, we do not believe that it is right to impose the precise manner in which consultations should take place in the way which has been proposed. In the last resort it is the boroughs who will be taking on the responsibility for their local education service. It is they, as democratically elected bodies, who must decide how to set about consulting on their proposed arrangements. Further, the draft guidance makes it clear that we expect local councils to continue the process of consultation after the development plans have been published.
These amendments, on the other hand, envisage that the development plans would be subject to approval by my right honourable friend and so become, as it were, set in concrete. It is not clear whether the proposers of the amendments believe that once the transfer of responsibilities had taken place a local education authority would be able to change aspects of its development plan. But in any event the Government believe that it is necessary to preserve flexibility for what will, after all, be local education authorities in their own right, once they have assumed education responsibilities. So while the development plans would provide a basis for local consultation and for the necessary decisions on staff and property transfer, we do not see that there will be any advantage in making them binding in a way which would place on these local education authorities a constraint which did not apply in relation to all others.
Naturally, my right honourable friend will wish to discuss the implications of the development plans with the councils concerned and in doing so he will take full account, as has been hoped for, of the views of HMI. Indeed, the department's Inner London Unit has a member of HMI attached to it to assist with this process from the outset. But it would be wholly wrong for the legislation to prescribe the HMI's advice and only that advice should determine the decision of the Secretary of State.
Much has been said again about resources. It has been suggested that the Government are expecting boroughs to cut spending by various amounts compared with what ILEA spends now. I must reaffirm that we have no such target. We believe that there is considerable scope for savings but that these can come mainly from reductions in administration and support services rather than from teachers or other important facilities.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal made clear earlier on about our proposals for local government finance, the transitional arrangements from 1990 to 1991 will be such that domestic ratepayers and community charge payers in inner London are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged as a result of the abolition of ILEA. In the longer term, it will be
280
for each borough to decide on the level of provision for its area, as it will be for every other education authority in England.
In short, on the basis of these amendments I believe that noble Lords opposite share very largely the Government's view of the best way to handle the process of transition. We believe that it will be more effective if we allow a greater degree of flexibility than is envisaged in these amendments. We certainly believe it necessary to be much clearer about the target date for transfer and to make that date as early as possible. On this basis I hope that the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness referred to savings which she foresaw through the reduction of support services. Which support services did she have in mind?
Baroness Hooper: I said that these would be administrative and support services. It is largely in the administrative services that we expect to see possibilities for savings.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness said "support services", and I wondered what she meant.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may draw to the attention of the Minister one particular aspect of the draft guidance. It suggests on page 1 that many areas will need to be the subject of discussion between the department and councils and ILEA as appropriate. I think it woud be very helpful if we could have some clarification as to what "ILEA as appropriate" means. I should have thought that ILEA would have to be consulted about almost every aspect of this transfer, if it is to be achieved in an effective and efficient manner.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples. There is of course a huge amount of work to be done, despite what some Members of the Committee said earlier. Only three boroughs have done very much in terms of getting the planning process under way. It is suggested that staff who work in schools and colleges should be transferred by order to the borough in which they are situated. But I think many people may be unaware of just how many staff in the ILEA are not attached to any particular school or college, and therefore cannot simply be transferred to the borough concerned.
I shall give a few examples of this. There are 3,000 central administrative staff. While mentioning those I should like to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She suggested that there has been a growth in the number of administrative staff in ILEA, despite the fact that the number of pupils has declined.
Yes, there has been a growth, and one of the most important reasons for that growth is the abolition of the GLC. Before the GLC was abolished ILEA used the GLC as an agent to provide many of the services that are necessary, such as valuations, surveying, architecture, legal services, accountancy and other services. As it happens, I oversaw the transfer of many of those staff whom I am sure the noble Baroness would agree were utterly necessary in order to maintain a single function local authority.
I also wish to point out another important fact. It is not the case that many of the people who are

281
classified as administrative staff in the CIPFA statistics are administrators. I do not think that we should be constantly carping and critical of administrators. Any large public authority needs administrative staff to keep it going. But many of the people in that category are providing various forms of specialist services in advising schools and indeed providing direct support to teachers in the classroom. Of these inspectors and advisers are perhaps the best example.
But in addition to those administrative staff there are some 2,000 buildings and maintenance staff who are not attached to particular schools or necessarily located in particular boroughs. Much of that work in ILEA is done on a quadrant basis. They must all be considered and divided up. This provision says nothing about supplies. It was agreed by the Government when the GLC was abolished that it would be sensible for ILEA to take over the GLC's supplies functions, and that in doing so it would be possible to provide an efficient service not just for ILEA but for a number of other local authorities in the London area and way beyond it.
There are 2,300 teachers who are not attached to a particular school. These comprise supply teachers, home tutors, peripatetic music teachers and PE teachers who are based in sports centres. In the light of all this, it seems quite extraordinary that this draft guidance does not suggest that ILEA should be consulted on all matters regarding transfer because I cannot think of a single area where it will not be necessary.
As regards administrative functions, quite a lot of work is delegated to the divisional officers in ILEA, and although eight of these cover the same area as the boroughs there are two that do not. They cover more than one borough. Those staff have all got to be divided up, and the only way that that can sensibly be done is to involve ILEA in proper consultation.
A number of Members of the Committee have referred to the particularly acute problems of transfer in such areas as special education, adult education and further education. Again I see no possibility of doing this effectively without the direct involvement of ILEA. In addition to those services, no one has yet referred to the fact that in-service training for teachers is of course run centrally by the authority. There are 27 specialist teacher centres which either cover the authority as a whole or alternatively cover parts of the authority. There is no way that individual boroughs will be able to make sensible decisions about issues of this kind without again the direct involvement of ILEA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that local authorities understand their duties. I have no doubt that they do understand their duties in a general sense, but we are talking about the most complex service in local government—that is education—and I think it is fair to say that in the inner city the range and complexity of those services will be greater than in some other parts of the country.
I have not mentioned property transfer, which is another difficult and complex area. It seems to me that the guidance given in this document is
282
extraordinarily vague and needs to set out in much greater detail what is expected of these boroughs which have never been education authorities. Finally, it is exceedingly important, as the amendment suggests, that there should be proper consultation of all interested parties before final decisions are made. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing sinister in the words, "discussion [with] ILEA as appropriate". We intend to involve the ILEA fully in all aspects of the transfer of functions and hope for its full and effective cooperation as soon as possible.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we think that the Government are wrong. Let there be no doubt about that. However, given that the die is cast, the next stage is to make the best of what is happening. The amendment is intended to be constructive and to help the new local education authorities in their task.
I should have been more reassured if the noble Baroness, in her considerate reply, had said that the Government would consider re-writing the draft guidance along the lines suggested. The Government recognise the problem; otherwise, there would not have been a draft guidance in the first place.
Perhaps I may respond to the interesting contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, by saying that it is one of the mysteries of local government that there is no very evident explanation of why some local authorities are more successful than others. I shall not make any political points. However, the
subject has been studied by economists in some detail. Even within a local authority, schools which
apparently have exactly the same resources and everything else produce extraordinarily different results. Clearly variety is characteristic of local government.
If we are to decentralise, then I grasp the straw of variety. I hope that some of the authorities will take the opportunity to achieve new things. My emphasis is on the fact that the contributions throughout the experiments will not be the positive and successful ones which we are looking for, but rather the negative ones and the failures. However, I entirely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has said about the variety of local government.
There is a further complexity, in that one can talk about the local authority fine tuning its education system to meet its requirements. However, the essence of the problem and what the whole debate has been about is that many matters are London-wide. Problems cannot be defined as pertaining to individual authorities. That is the logical error and the reason that I am afraid that the experiment will go wrong.
Having said that, I find some aspects of the reply of the noble Baroness quite helpful. I shall return to the theme again, I hope constructively. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendemnt.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
9.50 p.m.
Clause 145 [Responsibility for schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 274EZA to 274BZD not moved.]
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 274CZA:
Page 138, line 33, leave out ("On the abolition date—").
The noble Lord said: I wanted to speak to my three amendments together. That is why I did not move the amendment earlier. If I am in order I shall move them in this way.
The Government proposals will mean yet another upheaval for governing bodies only a short time after the reconstitution arising from the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act. That reconstitution will take place in September 1988 for county schools and in September 1989 for the voluntary schools. In some cases governing bodies will have been in being for only two terms at the very most.
Subsection 8(a) is undesirable. The Government's proposal to remove ILEA appointees will mean a considerable change in the membership of the governing bodies. Subsection 8(b) would mean an unnecessary upheaval. ILEA intended to recommend to governing bodies that they co-opt representatives of black and ethnic minorities, staff support and members of the business community. The combination of Subsection 8(a) and (b) will add significantly to the disruption caused by abolition and further upset the system.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Do I understand that the noble Lord is moving Amendment No. 274CZA?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I am.
Baroness Hooper: As I understand it, in addition to moving that amendment the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 274DZA and 274EZA.
These amendments would mean that rather than boroughs having the opportunity to replace ILEA nominees on school governing bodies from 1st April 1990, they would have to wait until 1st September to be able to do so and that the governing bodies themselves would then have to wait for a further year before they could replace any co-opted members. I can see the argument that this would help to preserve continuity. But, especially given the new and important responsibilities which fall to governing bodies under the Bill, we feel that it is vital that those who are intended to represent the local education authority on the governing body do so effectively from the word go.
Clause 145(8) as drafted specifically states that the provision for removing ILEA-appointed governors is without prejudice to their being appointed again, if the new LEA so wishes. There is therefore ample scope for maintaining continuity where the borough believes it necessary. Where the nature of appointments to a governing body changes as a consequence of new appointments it is only right that the co-options to the governing body should reflect
284
that also, and that a governing body should not have to wait for a year or more before it could make any necessary changes in that area.
I recognise the noble Lord's concern and interest in this matter. I hope that he will be satisfied by my explanation of the existing provisions and that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I am not happy because I do not believe that the Bill provides for the continuity that I should like to see, especially since the existing arrangements have been operating for only a short time. I cannot see any point in pressing the amendment further but I hope that the Minister will look very closely at the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 274DZA, 274DZB and 274EZA not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 145 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: One can best look at the point that I wish to raise by first looking at subsection (4) of this clause, which provides, obviously correctly, that designated schools cannot be closed without following the procedure laid down in the Education Acts. Then one sees that a designated school is such school as the Secretary of State designates in an order as shall relate to that inner London council and which had previously been an ILEA maintained school.
In our present situation of falling school rolls and other demographic changes, it may well happen that there are too many schools in the borough for efficient use. So far as I can see from the Bill, and certainly as it appears from Clause 145, in those circumstances the Secretary of State can designate only certain of the schools in the borough as necessary to be taken over by that borough. If I have read the Bill correctly—and no doubt the Minister will tell me if I am wrong or if there are some other provisions—it would mean that such schools would fall through the trap, so to speak, and close. There would not be any consultation process either with parents or other interested bodies as to whether that or another school should close. That problem does not appear to have been dealt with in this Bill.
The possibility of schools falling through the trap occurs because the Secretary of State has no duty to designate each school which is an ILEA school to one of the various inner London councils. Therefore there could be schools which are not designated. I should like to know whether that is the case and, should I be wrong, where the provision can be found. Otherwise it appears to me that this is an omission from the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: The flexibility to designate schools outside a borough's area is designed to cover two specific cases. First, ILEA maintains a number of schools completely outside the inner London area (and this is a matter that we have already discussed), most of them catering for children with special education needs. We do not wish to preclude those schools from being transferred to one of the

285
boroughs. I imagine from what the noble Lord has said that he also accepts that point.
Of course it would be possible for such schools to be transferred to a local education authority outside inner London if it seemed to be more appropriate under Clause 146(2). In order to remove any possible misunderstanding on this point, at Report stage we shall table an amendment designed to make quite clear that the provisions for the designation of schools in Clause 145 extend also to the designation of schools to a local education authority outside inner London.
However, there is also the possible case of a school which is near a borough boundary and which primarily serves a borough other than the one in which it is located. The borough that it serves may wish to be responsible for administering that school either by having it formally designated under subsection (3) of the clause or by agreement with the host borough under subsection (5). The borough in which the school is located may be equally happy with that arrangement.
I cannot see the point in removing that flexibility. That is not to say that there will be many or even any such cases, but we simply wish to leave open that possibility within the general provisions of Clause 145.
Lord Morton of Shuna: No doubt it is my fault but I do not think that the Minister answered the point that I was endeavouring to make. If there is a borough that has within it five secondary schools, say, but it should only have three because of the number of children that it contains, what is to prevent the Secretary of State from saying, "This borough needs only three schools" and designating the three of his choice? Then the other two, which have no connection with any other boroughs, close because they have not been designated, so far as I can see under this clause. There is no consultation process because subsection (4) deals only with schools which have been designated.
It appears to be a mistake that has slipped through. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the department would not wish schools to be closed without the consultation process. It seems that there is a possibility of something having gone through by mistake. That was the point. It was not the question of schools on borderlines or outwith the area but of too many schools in the one borough.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I thought that the noble Lord was concerned about the possibility of flexibility in this case. In preparing their development plans under Clause 144 councils will be required to specify all schools inside their area which are currently maintained by ILEA and therefore to anticipate the kind of example that the noble Lord has given us.
In case there is something into which we should look in more detail in respect of schools that are no longer required, I shall look again at the clause and come back to the noble Lord in some way.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities]:
[Amendments Nos. 274EZB and 274EZC not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274FZA:
Page 139, line 21, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State shall consult each Inner London Council before making an order transferring property to any local authority other than to an inner London Council within whose area it is situate;
(7) In consulting Inner London councils under subsection (6) above, the Secretary of State shall inform them of the principles upon which he is proposing to make his decision, and no such transfer of property shall be made other than in accordance with principles applicable to all Inner London Councils or all local authorities, as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the clause relating to the transfer of property rights and liabilities. The provisions here are of very considerable importance as the Inner London Education Authority has nearly 1,500 sites and 3,000 individual buildings.
In view of the integrated pattern of educational provision in inner London there could be competing claims for buildings of certain types, such as special schools and sports facilities, but there are no statements of principles for transfer. For example, is transfer to go to the majority user with guarantees to the minority users? Inevitably borough development plans will throw out competing claims which, because of the inadequate timescale, will in practice fall to be dealt with by government officials who are likely to be unaware of the full circumstances.
There ought to be—and this amendment aims to put it in—the necessity or requirement for consultation before making the transfer of property. The amendment states that the Secretary of State,
"shall consult each Inner London council before making an order transferring property to any local authority other than to an inner London Council"
and that the inner London councils, in consulting, shall be informed of the principles on which the Secretary of State is proposing to make his decision; and that no such transfer shall be made other than in accordance with principles applicable to all the councils.
The problem is (as we considered in the debate on clause stand part) that there are properties which are outside the inner London area. There is, for example, for historical reasons a small children's cemetery in Kent, and how that will be transferred and to whom will obviously be a matter of some difficulty. Various other properties such as sports centres are outside the area. Are they to be transferred to the local authority that they are in, if they are outside the inner London area? Are they to be transferred to a different inner London authority so that it can use these out-of-its-area facilities and how are they to be paid for?
If, for example, a sports centre in Bromley is to be transferred to Bromley and used by Bromley Borough Council for its own purposes, how will it be financed? Is each inner London authority being charged for that use or will they get facilities for using

287
it? It is for these reasons that consultation is essential. We believe it is necessary that there should be some principle which would apply right across the board, and be stated to be there, so that people in the various local authorities know the principles on which the Secretary of State is acting and know that he does not apply an ad hoc principle to each individual case. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: If taken literally, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult each and every inner London council before making an order transferring property to any authority other than an inner London council within whose area the property was situated. If that is actually the noble Lord's intention, I have to say that it seems to be a somewhat cumbersome procedure. It would mean that a property transaction which affected only two boroughs—for example, at the western edge of inner London—would also have to be the subject of consultation with boroughs several miles away who had no interest whatever in it.
But it may be that the noble Lord's intention is not properly reflected in his draft, and that what he is actually concerned to ensure is that the boroughs involved in anything other than a straightforward transfer of property to the council in whose area it is situated should have a chance to offer their views. That is eminently reasonable, and indeed it is already reflected in our draft guidance on development plans.
Perhaps I may quote a few sentences from the guidance. Paragraph 39 says:
"… Councils may in general expect to inherit the ILEA property located within their area for which there is a continuing educational requirement. There may in addition be property located in one council's area but which has traditionally served another area or would be of more educational value in serving the area of another council than in remaining with the 'home' council. Where a council can make out a strong case for inheriting property located outside its boundary, the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider this, in the light of any representations made by other bodies. The Secretary of State will consult interested parties and the London Residuary Body as necessary in cases of dispute".
So the position is already clearly laid down in our draft guidance, and, subject to any modifications arising from the current process of consultation on the draft, will be reflected in the statutory guidance to be issued after Royal Assent.
There is a further aspect to the noble Lord's amendment, which is essentially that the Secretary of State must make clear to councils the principles upon which he is proposing to make a decision of this kind about property transfer, and that he must act in accordance with principles which apply equally to all boroughs.
It is of course a fundamental principle of administrative law that the Secretary of State should follow common principles in deciding different cases. If he failed to do so, his decision would be liable to judicial review. Again, our draft guidance sets out the principles in paragraph 38 which the Secretary of State would expect to follow. Perhaps I may quote briefly again:
"Councils should note that the Secretary of State will be prepared to transfer to them only that property clearly required in connection
288
with their LEA functions. All surplus property will pass automatically to the London Residuary Body in accordance with the provisions of Clause 156."
Then, there are the points which I have already quoted about the possibility of transferring property to an authority other than the one in which it is located, where another council can make out a strong case that it would be of more educational value for the property to be so transferred.
The guidance continues to make clear that
"in the case of an institution mainly based in one borough but having some of its facilities located outside that borough, (or for example) where playing fields in one borough serve a school in another … the Secretary of State will in general be guided by the principle that institutions should remain as an entity, and that they should transfer to the predominant owner, using the location of the largest area of floor space as an initial criterion, but taking account also as appropriate of the intensity of use of each site".
All this serves to demonstrate, I believe, that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary, as the Government fully intend to embody in their statutory guidance the principles he is proposing for the face of the Bill. I hope therefore that in the light of these arguments he will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister referred to "statutory guidance". Is that guidance to have the force of a statutory instrument, or is it just guidance?
The Earl of Arran: It is issued under the statute.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Under the statute, where? Which section? So far as I am aware, this guidance is just a document that comes from the Department of Education and Science. Is there to be an answer, or shall I go on? If we are talking about consultation that is fine. Paragraph 39 of the guidance states that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider inheriting property located outside a boundary in the light of representations made by other bodies. The question I should like to ask is: let us say that borough A wants this property outside its boundaries. How are the other councils to know that it wants it unless there is such consultation as I suggest in the amendment?
Speaking as a lawyer, I am becoming more and more irritated by the idea that we do not need guidance in primary legislation because it is somewhere in some statutory instrument that may be passed at some time in the future, after the Act is passed. That seems to me to be a totally irresponsible way of revising legislation, and it just will not do. Is the guidance just to be ordinary guidance, or is it to be some form of statutory instrument, once it has been decided what form the guidance is to take?
The Earl of Arran: If the noble Lord would care to read Clause 144(3)(b) he will see:
"take into account any guidance given by the Secretary of State (whether as to the contents of the plan or as to consultation with any other persons, and whether as to such plans generally or as to the particular council's plan)".
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry to keep on with this subject, but we have been through guidance in a whole variety of Bills in the very short time I have been here. Guidance can take all sorts of forms. The guidance to which I have been referred could be just

289
a letter. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can indicate without speaking that it is there. That does not make guidance statutory. That the Secretary of State says that one thing would be good and another would be bad is not a statutory form of guidance that we can debate as a statutory instrument and approve or negative. There may be reasons for not having the guidance there, but there is no reason for not having the principle in the legislation.
We are being told once again that there is no need to state the principle in the Bill, but that we should trust the Minister. To repeat what I have said more than once, I hope that, for the sake of his health, Mr. Baker is not to be the Minister for the rest of time. Ministers and governments change, and attitudes change. It is better to have a provision with full statutory force.
I am sorry that we have been given no satisfactory answer. I may have been slightly irritable and firm on the matter, but it is one about which lawyers feel strongly. I think that it would be appropriate to take the opinion of the Committee.
10.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 274FZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Raglan, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Russell, R.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Cowley, E.

Annan, L.

Cox, B.

Arran, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Bathurst, E.

Croft, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Braye, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gainford, L.

Burton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Caldecote, V.

Goold, L.

Camden, M.

Grafton, D.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gray, L.

Greenway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gridley, L.

Carnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harvington, L.

Clinton, L.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Colnbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

290

Hives, L.

Pym, L.

Holderness, L.

Radnor, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Selkirk, E.

Knutsford, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

Margadale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mersey, V.

Trafford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Young, B.

Newall, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 274FZB not moved.]
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Establishment and functions of staff commission]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274GZA:
Page 140, line 6, at end insert—
("(5) The Staff Commission and the Secretary of State shall so exercise their functions under this section as to secure that employees of ILEA are afforded all reasonable priority in the obtaining of employment upon or as soon as practicable after the abolition date with a relevant authority.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the security, so to speak, available to employees of the Inner London Education Authority during the transfer period. Clause 147 establishes a staff commission and states that the Secretary of State may give directions—not, on this occasion, guidance—on procedure. It makes various provisions, the intent of which is to assist the transfer of ILEA employees, especially teachers, to the various councils and the residuary body.
The amendment strengthens that clause by adding the words:
"The Staff Commission and the Secretary of State shall so exercise their functions under this section as to secure that employees of ILEA are afforded all reasonable priority in the obtaining of employment upon or as soon as practicable after the abolition date with a relevant authority."
The intention is to endeavour to make it worthwhile for ILEA staff to stay with that organisation, as it is essential that adequate staff remain until abolition, without feeling that they have insufficient security and therefore fade away and apply for other jobs. Without adequate compensation there is a severe risk that the education service will face a breakdown as key staff leave.
The GLC, in dealing with its own winding up, introduced through the staff commission a weak ring-fence procedure for the benefit of all Greater London local government employees, but it had no teeth and was widely ignored. The worry for the staff of ILEA is that that should not be a model and that we should have a method of retaining staff within ILEA until its abolition because if that does not happen chaos will result. The only way of securing that staff have an

291
incentive to remain is to offer some security after abolition that they will be transferred within a reasonably short time and have the priority to which they are entitled in this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment both from the point of view of giving a fair deal to the staff and, equally important, in regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, that two years will pass between now and the transfer. Unless an amendment to this effect is accepted a great many of the staff are likely to look elsewhere for jobs. We understand that this has already happened. The Government will say that it is due to uncertainty. Others may view the word "certainty" with even more dismay than "uncertainty" because they do not share the Government's enthusiasm to be transferred to the tender mercies of, say, Lambeth or Southwark council. They will busily look for jobs elsewhere and they will get them because of the shortage of teachers.
If the Government do not want to find that they are transferring to local authorities schools with extremely depleted staffs, they would be well advised to accept this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord and the noble Baroness may rest assured that the Government are in complete sympathy with the intention behind this amendment to ensure that the inner London councils, when filling their education-related posts, first consider applications from ILEA employees. The Government repeatedly made clear their intention in this respect in another place. Indeed, the words "reasonable preference" were used and these are very similar to the phrase "reasonable priority" used in this amendment.
I am sure that we all accept that it is very important that ILEA's skilled manpower should not be lost to the boroughs. That is one reason why the boroughs should be pleased to consider ILEA applicants first. The other reason is that the interests of ILEA employees need to be protected. If an ILEA employee is fully competent to fill a borough vacancy, then he or she should get the job. It will be for the Staff Commission, as it was at the time of the abolition of the GLC in 1986, to work out with the boroughs the details of how best to ensure that ILEA employees are given this priority consideration.
We have said in another place, and it is repeated in the draft guidance, that the Staff Commission should be in full operation before the deadline of the publication for the boroughs' development plans, which is February next year, 1989. With the reassurance that we envisage the Staff Commission's contribution to resolving staffing issues to be critical, particularly in respect of ensuring that ILEA employees who apply for education-related jobs in the boroughs are given priority consideration, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him why he keeps inserting the
292
words "education-related employees"? I am a little suspicious of that phrase in the sense that it sounds as though the Government are saying that the only employees of ILEA who are important are the teachers and all the administrative, ancillary and support staff are virtually unnecessary and irrelevant. I hope that is not the Government's position. I suggest that a few words from the Minister might help in clarifying the position.
Lord Trefgarne: It is the case that there are very many hard-working, effective and successful administrative employees working in ILEA. But the Government have also made it clear that they believe that there are areas within that particular ambit which may be the cause for some concern as regards ILEA. I dare say that there will be some administrative officials in ILEA who will not necessarily find employment with the boroughs. I hope that they will find appropriate employment in another or in a related field.
As I have said, I am sympathetic to the thought at least behind the amendment. I have said that I do not believe that it is necessary to write that kind of provision into the Bill given the effect of the guidance and of the Staff Commission to which I have referred. I shall be prepared to consider finding words that will put into the Bill in another way the Government's thoughts to which I have referred tonight.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged for that because, as I thought I said—or at least, as I intended to say—one of the fears is that the Staff Commission will be as toothless a tiger as the GLC Staff Commission which could really only offer encouragement. Something more is required, and in view of the Minister's encouraging words I hope he will return with something stronger. In the light of his undertaking I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 agreed to.
Clauses 148 and 149 agreed to.
Clause 150 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 274HZA:
Page 142, line 29, at end insert ("or subsequently acquired by him by reason of a variation in his contract of employment which was intended solely to ensure that, in the event of loss of employment by reason of redundancy, he would be entitled to be compensated on a basis not less favourable than that applicable to other employees of ILEA.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 280F, with which it is grouped. Clause 150(3) and, in so far as it affects ILEA, Clause 185 of the Bill are designed to prevent ILEA from entering into contracts with its employees which would have the effect of enhancing their contractual rights to compensation in the event of redundancy. Both clauses are retrospective to 20th November 1987—that is, the date of the Bill's introduction in another place.
These amendments are not intended to undermine the main purpose of the clauses, but merely to introduce limited exceptions which would enable

293
ILEA to correct certain anomalies in the contractual rights of its employees, so as to secure equality of treatment among them in the event of loss of employment through redundancy arising in consequence of the Bill.
I am advised that under longstanding provisions of the Greater London Council's staff code, GLC and ILEA employees enjoyed certain contractual entitlements to compensation in the event of redundancy. In some respects those entitlements were superior to those laid down in government regulations at the time of the abolition of the GLC. However, Section 53 (3) of the Local Government Act 1985 preserved contractual rights to compensation acquired before 2nd March 1984.
When the GLC was abolished, on 1st April 1986, staff who were then made redundant received compensation from the London Residuary Body on the basis of their GLC contractual entitlement where this was more favourable than the statutory basis. Staff transferred to successor bodies—such as ILEA and the London Residuary Body—by designation order under Section 52 of the Local Government Act 1985, retained the benefit of their GLC contractual terms which will accordingly apply in the event of their subsequent redundancy—whether by reason of ILEA abolition, or otherwise.
Although the vast majority of former GLC employees were transferred to ILEA in the aforementioned way, and in the event of their becoming redundant on ILEA abolition they could claim compensation on the basis of their GLC entitlement, there are some former GLC employees, now employed by ILEA, who will not so benefit. Those employees were not designated in a statutory transfer order and were therefore directly recruited to ILEA on the basis of new contracts of employment.
In the general turmoil attendant on GLC abolition, and on the new ILEA taking over, a process of recruitment had to be hurried through. As a result of this, employees were given contracts which were not in all respects as favourable as they would have been had they merely continued under their GLC contracts. To some extent it was a matter of chance who was transferred to ILEA by statutory order, and who by direct recruitment. Thus certain officers in the GLC architects' department were so transferred; but staff doing comparable work in the engineering department were directly recruited. In some cases the difference could have a crucial effect on the amount of compensation to which they would be entitled in the event of redundancy.
Clauses 150 and 185, to which these amendments relate, overlap in many respects. They would prevent ILEA from correcting the anomaly to which I have already referred, which could operate in a harsh, unfair and discriminatory way. Therefore the object of the amendment is merely to enable ILEA to remove this source of discrimination by raising the redundancy entitlements of all staff to an equal level, but not to a level higher than that already enjoyed by the bulk of existing employees.
The amendments are not intended to enable ILEA, in anticipation of its abolition, to raise everyone's entitlement to a new level; they are intended simply to
294
ensure that in the event of redundancy, staff of like age and service are compensated on the same basis.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me. I am sorry that this is somewhat detailed. Perhaps I may now describe in a little more detail the relevance of these amendments, first to Clause 150 and then Clause 185. Subsection (3) of Clause 150 provides that compensation for redundancy is to be paid only in accordance with the regulations. Subsection (4) creates an exception to the rule by preserving the effect of contractual terms acquired before 21st November 1987.
Amendment No. 274HZA is designed to widen the scope of this exception by enabling rights acquired subsequently to be preserved where they had been acquired under variation of a contract and the sole purpose of the variation is to ensure that all employees are treated alike by improving the terms to a level as favourable as that already enjoyed by the general body of existing employees. I hope I have made that clear.
Clause 185 is wider in scope, but also has the effect of preventing ILEA from correcting the anomalies which I have endeavoured to describe. The clause would render any change in contractual terms designed to remedy this deficiency void and of no legal effect. Again, the amendment has the limited purpose of preserving the validity of terms designed to put disadvantaged employees on the same level as that enjoyed by other employees.
Although Amendment No. 280F does not strike at the main purpose of the clause, it is discriminatory in its effect in that it applies to contracts between a local education authority or certain governing bodies and any person employed wholly or partly by those bodies in connection with their functions under the Education Acts 1944 to 1988. The clause thus applies to all ILEA employees. As regards county councils, outer London borough councils and metropolitan district councils, which are all local education authorities, the clause means that those councils can give improved rights to redundancy compensation to their employees in, say, the social services, housing and recreation departments, but not to employees in their education departments and not to employees in other departments who spend even a small proportion of their time on work for the education service. I suggest that this differentiation of treatment between different classes of employee is discriminatory and unfair. Amendment No. 280F would correct this anomaly.
Because of the detailed nature of the background to these amendments and also because their aim is so limited and, it seems to me, so modest and reasonable, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about them last week, to give the Government notice of what I proposed to say today. I very much hope that as a result either the amendments will be accepted in their present form, or the Government will agree to introduce others at Report stage worded in a way that is not only acceptable to them but also meets the concerns expressed to me by representatives of the employees who are involved. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly support these amendments and I hope that I shall not be too repetitive. It seems to me on the information I have that there are various other points which can be made. It is not only necessary that there should be equity in dealing between various members of staff of the same grade and with the same service. It is obviously wholly wrong that a mere matter of chance should decide whether or not the employment and therefore the redundancy period shall be transferred from the GLC.
But in addition that will affect the keenness of the staff of the Inner London Education Authority to remain until abolition. These people who were transferred other than by the statutory transfer are, I am informed, key personnel in the finance, legal and property services, among others, and they are most at risk in losing what equity would say was their entitlement to redundancy. If they do not have this they are the people most likely to go and find another job before ILEA winds up. If that were to happen it would be very difficult indeed for the Inner London Education Authority to continue to operate until its limiting date, and it is essential that it should so operate.
In addition to that there are the obvious dangers to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has referred of having inequities between staff of the same grade. There is also the difficulty that if it remains as it is the residuary body will have to deal with redundancy payments and have to look at thousands of individual contracts of employment and exchanges of letters which could be disposed of if it were possible to accept at least the thought behind these amendments so that one treats everybody of the same grade and the same length of service in the same way. That is the basic purpose behind this provision. It is an important matter and I hope that the Government will be amenable to looking at it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry that owing to a number of changes in the Front Bench team, or at least in the allocation of amendments, I have not had a chance to see the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. But I hope, nonetheless, that what I say will reassure him, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, too.
There is a category of ex-GLC employees who, because they were recruited by ILEA under Section 52 of the Local Government Act, have lost the more generous contractual rights to redundancy compensation which they had as GLC employees. In this respect they are less well off than the majority of their ex-GLC colleagues who were transferred to the employment of ILEA and so retained the rights to redundancy compensation which they enjoyed as GLC employees.
In addition it appears that some of those GLC employees who were recruited to the employment of ILEA were led to believe by ILEA that they would retain the more generous provisions they had enjoyed as GLC employees. That unfortunately was not the case.
296
Turning to the resolution of this problem, I want to draw a distinction between those ex-GLC employees who were recruited in the belief that their GLC terms would be protected and those who were recruited in the knowledge that their GLC terms would be replaced by ILEA's standard contractual terms. The first group certainly deserve our sympathy. The second group present a rather less good case for they are no worse off than the bulk of ILEA employees.
What we believe is required is a discretionary power to reinstate the redundancy compensation terms of that first group should they be made redundant—those ex-GLC employees who were recruited to the employment of ILEA in the belief that their contractual right to redundancy compensation would remain unchanged. This would be achieved by giving to the London Residuary Body a discretionary power to provide such redress. There is no need to amend the Bill in order to provide this discretionary power; the compensation regulation which we intend to make under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 will provide the necessary vehicle.
With this assurance of the Government's intention to give to the LRB this discretionary power I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we intend to deal sympathetically with the situation which has led him to move this amendment, and I hope that he will withdraw it and also what I believe is in effect the consequential amendment to Clause 185; that is, Amendment No. 280F. I recognise that that amendment does not deal with quite the same point but I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied by the reassurance that I have given.
Lord Rochester: I am not altogether satisfied. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said about those who were recruited to the ILEA in the belief that they were to be accorded favourable treatment. As regards those who did not have that belief, my information, it may be wrong, differs from that of the noble Lord in that they are not in the same position as the general body of employees. For that reason I am disappointed at what he has said.
However, this is a complicated matter. Rather than pursue it further tonight, I shall study closely what has been said. I am sorry that the letter, which I took some trouble in writing last week, has not reached the Minister. Perhaps he can do me the courtesy of reading it and, before Report stage, considering whether, in the light of its contents and what I have said tonight, he is more favourably disposed towards the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 150 agreed to.
Clauses 151 and 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Repayment by London Residuary Body of loans to ILEA]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 274JZA:
Page 145, line 7, at end insert—
("() In making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall provide that the sums deemed to have been borrowed

297
are determined according to common principles to be applied equally to all inner London councils.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 274JZA and 274KZA to which I shall speak concern a minor accounting point dealing with the way the London Residuary Body will deal with borrowing and the calculation of interest. Looking at my amendments and at the text of the Bill, it seems to me that that is obviously what the LRB ought to do. The amendments concern how the sums deemed to have been borrowed are determined—namely, according to common principles—and how the implied or actual interest is calculated. They seem to be obvious and I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is what the Bill means, that we do not have to worry about that problem and that the individual borrowers can count on being treated in a fair way, in the accounting sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord. Clause 153 follows the model of the arrangements established at the time of the abolition of the GLC, which provided for deemed borrowing by successor authorities. The purpose of that was twofold: to provide for the smooth transfer of outstanding liabilities and to protect third parties who were owed money at the time of abolition. We expect the detailed operation to follow the model of the 1985 Act also.
I should first perhaps emphasise that one aspect of the 1985 procedures which we expect to mirror is that of consultation with interested parties before any orders are laid before Parliament. This will of course include the order-making arrangements for deemed borrowing. So the Government will have discussed the proposed arrangements with all the inner London councils before they are put into effect.
It is against this background of consultation that I should like to consider the two amendments. Our basic intention is that all the boroughs should be treated in the same way when we come to determine deemed borrowing. In the case of the GLC—which, as I have said, is the precedent we shall be following—deemed borrowing for all authorities was determined by a common formula based on the population of the council's area. The terms for repayment and payment of interest were likewise set across the successor authorities.
We would not wish to rule out special arrangements in respect perhaps of a particular debt if an inner London council so wished, and after full consultation. But I can assure the Committee that the basic principle will be one of common treatment for all councils. I hope that that provides the reassurance the noble Lord was seeking.
Lord Peston: With the Committee's leave, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 166 agreed to.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 274ZA:
After Clause 166, insert the following new clause:
("The Horniman Museum
.—(1) On the abolition of ILEA the Secretary of State, shall make a recommendation to Her Majesty in Council that the Horniman Museum known also as the Horniman Public Museum and Public Park Foundation, should be vested in a body of trustees appointed by him and supported by monies provided by Parliament, and Her Majesty may then by Order in Council constitute such a body and make further provisions as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the recommendation.
(2) In this section "the Secretary of State" means the Lord President of the Council.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps the Committee will allow me to speak to Amendment No. 274ZB at the same time. The two relate to the Horniman and Geffrye Museums.
In moving these amendments I hoped to be able to say to Members of the Committee that I felt sure that they would all want to wish those two distinguished and imaginative museums a hopeful and bright future. The very welcome and encouraging remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her opening remarks this afternoon lead me to suppose that that is the case. Indeed, her announcement that after abolition both the Horniman and Geffrye Museums would become independent and would be centrally grant aided in some ways goes rather further than my amendments. In the case of the Horniman Museum it echoes very much the amendment which is now before the Committee.
The amendment relating to the Geffrye Museum was different. It suggested that the museum should come under the wing of the Museum of London. It was felt that the Geffrye Museum, not being quite as large or self-sufficient as the Horniman, might need that protection. In fact I think it is very welcome that the Geffrye should also be independent. Who would not rather be independent than under the wing of even so imaginative and well-meaning an institution as the Museum of London, for which I have the greatest possible respect? In that way I think that the proposal is very satisfactory indeed.
That arrangement also removes one possible hiccup whch had occurred to me. Wiser drafters of parliamentary legislation than I had pointed out to me that these two amendments, taken together, amounted to a possible hybridisation of the Bill. What the noble Baroness has proposed does not do so. In that respect it is altogether more satisfactory. The noble Baroness referred to the possibility that the two museums might have to be parked, as it were, with the London Residuary Body in the meantime if arrangements could not be made quickly enough. I am bound to say that if one has to stand in a lay-by the LRB is as nice a lay-by to stand in as any and I have the greatest respect for its work. I think that Sir Godfrey and his colleagues have done with enthusiasm and good sense a job that most people would have regarded as quite beyond the pale. However, I suspect that there is probably time enough for the arrangements to be made without those two museums having to be parked anywhere.
It only remains for me to issue a small warning about the funding of the museum. It is very important that between now and the abolition of the ILEA the

299
levels of funding should not decline so steeply as to endanger the museums, and if they do, those funding levels should not be regarded as the norm.
I should like to make one last small caveat about capital funding. Capital funding is often forgotten because it is so incalculable—one cannot say what it will be from year to year. It is not an academic question because at this moment the Horniman is building one of the most joyous and eccentric extensions to any museum in London. It is in fact putting up the Coombe Hill conservatory. That is a kind of do-it-yourself Victorian conservatory kit which was found some time ago, and with the help of English Heritage the museum has been gradually putting it up. I must say that this conservatory kit is so large that I cannot imagine who could possibly have wanted to buy it as a private citizen in Victorian times. Nevertheless, it is going up. It will be a welcome addition and will be exciting, but we shall need to think about capital funding. So while welcoming very strongly the words of the noble Baroness, I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. It is fitting that this amendment should be moved by a Cross-Bencher since it is one that commands support from every part of this Chamber. I am especially pleased to support the noble Lord since I had the privilege of knowing his father, who was as distinguished for his love of the arts, and literature in particular, as he was renowned in the practice of the law.
When one talks of the press one tends to think in terms of newspapers such as The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent—I hope I have covered myself sufficiently by mentioning those four—and one forgets that a large part of the press is purely local in character. Papers such as the Northamptonshire Chronicle and Echo or the Essex Chronicle are papers by which people are probably influenced in many cases much more than by skimming through more pretentious journals.
I believe that it is the same in the world of museums and galleries. Of course when that phrase is used there comes to mind the British Museum or the National Gallery, but there are other smaller institutions which are not household names but which are equally important in the museum and gallery world. I first visited the Geffrye Museum when I was Minister for the Arts and I found it a most rewarding and stimulating experience. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to Geoffrey Daniel, who was the director at that time and who was so devoted to the work of the museum—work cut short by his sad and premature death.
The Geffrye and the Horniman museums are very popular, particularly among young people. Over the years thousands of children have first made their acquaintance with the world of the arts through those museums. That is something for which we should be deeply thankful. We live in an age of material affluence which at the same time suffers from spiritual starvation, and such institutions offer something of
300
great importance to meet that need. I often think that the Government might reflect further on the fact that there are thousands of societies and institutions which are much smaller than the ones that we are discussing today but which need much smaller amounts of money. In fact, they can survive with very small help from the Government, but without that help they will simply go under.
When I first raised this question in this Chamber in April I received an encouraging reply from my noble friend Lady Hooper. She has been even more encouraging today. She has not been as good as her word; she has been better than her word, and has thrown in some encouraging words about Morley College (which played such a crucial part in adult education) and the City Lit., where I once gave lectures in public speaking when I was struggling at the Bar and was very glad to receive a guinea for each lesson. I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for her encouragement. I should like to refer to her, no doubt out of order, but suitably, I hope, as "Glorious Gloria", in this respect.
We have heard this Bill being debated without the bitterness it might have aroused because in so many ways the Secretary of State for Education has been flexible and reasonable in his response to meeting legitimate needs and points of grievance.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord St. John of Fawsley: Although that sentiment does not seem to command universal consent, it is one which I sincerely feel. We should have been in much more difficulty with this Bill had it not been for that approach.
However that may be, with these amendments there has been a most encouraging response. It is not a matter of party politics. I have seen great changes take place in the party political world, I have not changed but, alas! the world around me has changed beyond recognition. I remain what I always was—an old-fashioned Catholic Unionist! But others have moved in different directions. The Stuarts have been succeeded by the Hanoverians; and the Stuart cause is always lost. I accept that; that is inevitable. But it is worth saving something from the wreckage from time to time, and the Geffrye and Horniman Museums are two jewels which are well worth salvaging.
Baroness Birk: I, too, am delighted to have been joined in this amendment by three colleagues from different parts of the Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, said, they have expressed the views probably of all Members of this Committee, with no party affiliations.
I, too, was delighted to hear what the Minister said this afternoon. It will mean a diminishing amount of anxiety, not only for those of us who are anxious about the museums, but for the directors and the staff of the museums who are most concerned about their future. These are two local London museums, but whose interests are spread much wider; they command large numbers of visitors every year.

301
I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. Perhaps she can answer them in so far as is possible. She stated that the museums may be "garaged", so to speak, in the London Residuary Body, until the arrangements have been worked out. I hope that this may not be necessary. We have seen the situation with regard to Hampstead Heath, which is still rattling around the London Residuary Body. I believe that the quicker the arrangements are made, the better it will be. Also, it will be far more satisfactory for the staff of the museums, and for the visitors. It is true that there will be time enough to get the museums on to their new footing within a year or even sooner. Can the Minister give us any joy by stating that the matter will be proceeded with very quickly?
I should like to know whether the support services— which now come from ILEA—will be supplied by the London Residuary Body. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned the resources support services coming from the body. I should like to know whether the same applies to the museums. It is important to know what will happen in the two years before the transfer about the finances for the museums, because they must be able to keep going.
This brings me to the whole question of core financing from the centre for these museums, which at the moment are pretty stretched at £1½ million costs for the Geffrye and £.1·5 million for the Horniman Museum, and they are still finding it difficult to manage. They have been very worried that the amount from ILEA has gradually been slipping and decreasing each year. It is very important that the changeover should be got off on the right foot and conducted as speedily as possible, so that the museums can go ahead with setting up boards of trustees and can feel that they have security and a very stable future ahead of them.
We wish this every success and, although I cannot join with the noble Lord, Lord St. John, in commenting on the flexibility with which amendments generally have been received on this Bill, on the present occasion this is so and I, too, am grateful to the Minister for giving us the hope that she gave this afternoon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As the fourth signatory I shall try to be the shortest speaker. I am grateful for what has been done. It is pretty sound as far as it goes. I am interested that Professor Dunning's suggestion, that the Geffrye Museum should go to the London Museum, was not accepted. I do not know whether there is any particular reason for that, and I should rather like to know. It seems to me a rather small museum to be entirely independent.
The most important thing is the question of finance. I took down the words of the noble Baroness, which were that the museums should have a secure future as independent institutes with some government support. I do not trust this Government one inch over money, and I do not think many other people do. My noble friend Lady Birk suggested that ILEA has been cutting the income of both these museums over the last four or five years, and I am afraid that they will be given too little to start with
302
and their directors will turn into what directors in this country are always being turned into, which is money raisers instead of looking after the customers.
I should like to pin down the noble Baroness in this way. I should like to get some way of finding out the exact finances proposed as soon as they are arranged, so that we can comment on them here. Then, if they are not satisfactory we ought to make a great fuss. Having said that, I am very grateful that the Government have done what any Government must do, which is to preserve these excellent museums, and I have no more to say on the subject.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Government are well aware of the valuable service provided by the Horniman and Geffrye Museums to the people, particularly the children, of London and the south-east, as my noble friend Lord St. John reminded us. We have said all along that we are anxious to preserve that service. We believe that we have now found a satisfactory way of ensuring their future; indeed, of providing for both museums to improve their standing and service in the community. I am therefore most grateful for the welcome extended from all sides of the Committee to our proposals.
These two museums provide a very distinctive service to the people of the south-east. They have both specialised in meeting the needs of schools and other educational institutions. We believe this particular ethos should be preserved. So we sought a solution that gives the museums financial stability without losing necessarily all their local involvement.
As I announced earlier—and I am very happy that these amendments give me an opportunity to elaborate a little further—we therefore concluded that in the long terms both museums should be run by independent charitable trusts. The Horniman Museum already has such a trust, as has been pointed out, although the trustees are, I understand, appointed by the Inner London Education Authority. A new trust would have to be set up in respect of the Geffrye. We wish to discuss the details of how this should be done, but I hope that ILEA will be prepared to co-operate with us in this so that work can be put in hand well before 1990, as everybody here also seems to wish. We recognise, however, that both museums have been sponsored by local government for many years. So they will need time and help to build up management systems to enable them to stand alone.
That is why we propose that if they are not fully ready to stand alone from 1990 they should pass, if necessary, to the London Residuary Body, which could provide necessary management assistance and back-up until such time as they are ready. I emphasise that we hope and expect that with arrangements being put in hand right away, this will not be necessary. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts proposes during that interim period, if it arises, to appoint consultants expert in the management of museums to assist the Horniman and the Geffrye to prepare for the change.
What is of course critical to the success of any new arrangements is secure funding. We accept that single

303
boroughs are unlikely to be able to provide such security for these museums, faced as they will be with competing education priorities. They will, therefore, be paid a grant in the first instance by the LRB, and in the longer term via the Museums and Galleries Commission, to cover the majority of their running costs. But one of the key advantages of independent status must be the opportunity it provides for plural funding.
Nor do we think that the museums should be taken totally out of the local scene for funding as well as provision. We shall therefore be encouraging the trustees to look for a range of funding from their local boroughs, from other local authorities in the South-East whose residents gain so much from the services of these two museums, and from business sponsorship and other private sector funding. In particular, the Inner London Education Authority has in the past seconded teaching staff to both museums. We believe that this is a function which should properly pass to the successor local education authority. The department will be discussing the practicalities of that with the boroughs of Lewisham and Hackney and other neighbouring local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, specifically asked about support services for the museums. As I explained, these are the kinds of details that we shall wish to discuss with the museums, ILEA and the local boroughs, which we expect will be in the best position to provide these kinds of facilities.
I believe that the package I have outlined provides a secure future for the Horniman and the Geffrye museums. The details are not set in concrete. We wish to discuss them with ILEA, the boroughs and other local authorities in the South-East. There will be a lot of work to do in helping both the museums to prepare for their new status, and, as we said, we do not want to rush this unnecessarily. We shall use the residuary body as an interim home, if it becomes necessary. But we are firmly committed to securing the future of the museums. We are firmly committed to plural funding underwritten by central government as necessary.
I have noted the two caveats entered by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I hope that, with those assurances, it will not be necessary for him to press the amendment.
Lord Birkett: I am sure we all wish the museums every possible success in the future. It looks as though that is the way it is going. I just hope that the plurality of funding to which the noble Baroness referred is not so complicated that the budget falls not between two stools but several stools. That is a danger of the current philosophy of plural funding. We must hope that those running the Geffrye and the Horniman museums are skilful enough to see that properly on its way. I am most obliged to my noble co-signatories for their support on the amendment. In view of the very encouraging response we have had from the noble Baroness, I hope that the Committee will allow me to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 274ZB not moved.]
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment No. 274ZBA:
After Clause 166 insert the following new clause:
("London Schools Music Trust.
On the abolition of ILEA the Secretary of State shall cause to be appointed a Trust to be known as the London Schools Music Trust which shall promote and coordinate those musical activities in schools which need London-wide administration, including centres and junior centres for young musicians, orchestras and other performing groups, special musical courses, concert schemes, and instrumental teaching. The administrative costs of the Trust and of its services shall be financed by monies provided by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to music, and in particular to the London-wide music activities of the ILEA. After the abolition of the ILEA, certain music activities will be able to continue only if some central organisation is estabilshed.
The Minister has made encouraging remarks today, although not exactly in terms of the amendment, which proposes a totally independent trust. However, the amendment and the proposals that the Minister has made relating to Westminster as a central guiding force in putting together a post-abolition London musical scene may not be so far apart after all.
Westminster has a very good reputation for funding the arts. After the abolition of the GLC, Westminster took up its artistic responsibilities with an alacrity and, indeed, generosity matched by few other boroughs. As the Minister pointed out, Pimlico, where the special musical courses now take place, is within the boundaries and therefore forms an admirable focus for a post-abolition musical scene.
It is a complicated issue, and I cannot go into all the details now. To refer to the London Schools Symphony Orchestra as an example, it is very important that that should continue after abolition. Anyone who has heard that orchestra I am sure will agree with me. If one played a record of it "blind", one would not believe that it is school children playing. I find it intensely moving always to hear the orchestra.
One must remember that it is not only the glamorous symphony orchestra that the ILEA runs; there are also the countless ensembles, steel bands, wind bands and early recorder consorts. These require a great deal of putting together. The sheer cat's cradle of scheduling holiday activities for children is very complicated.
There is also instrumental teaching, with special courses of all kinds. There are the activities involved in putting together concerts for young people with a concert plan for the bright and talented young musicians of London to go to other concerts and, indeed, to meet professional musicians, from whom they can learn both in the obvious ways of being taught and simply by contact with the great professional musical world. In that respect, the South Bank and the Barbican will be happy to help and to co-ordinate the activities. Both have professional musicians of all kinds coming in and out constantly. They are uniquely equipped to help in this regard, and I am happy to say that both will do so.
It is a complex musical picture that should be preserved. I am sure that the Committee will agree that these cross-London musical activities must not

305
be lost. Here is an opportunity for them to become even more London-wide than previously. After abolition, the organisation could well include not only the ILEA boroughs but also the outer London boroughs, the private sector and other schools. We may have an even more London-wide young musicians' orchestra than before.
I am sure that the Minister will not be able to say tonight how that will happen. The support of Westminster will be very welcome. I hope that an organisation as powerful as, and even more wide-reaching than the present one, can be brought into being. I trust that the Minister can reassure me that her ambition in this respect is the same as mine.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support what the noble Lord has said, almost in its entirety. I am not nearly as happy about the concessions which the noble Baroness has made in this sphere, which are valuable concessions, as I am about the museums, because it is clearly far more difficult to run a teaching centre which at the moment covers 18 boroughs from one borough. There is only one way in which it can be carried out, and I hope it is the way in which it will be done; namely, that the present staff of the Centre for Young Musicians should be taken over in their entirety and should be given whatever outside runners are required to coordinate the other 17 boroughs. It will not happen unlesss something of that nature is carried out.
I want to be sure that we are told what is to be done. Perhaps the noble Baroness could write to one or two of us to explain how it is proposed that it should be carried out. I believe that it is of first-class importance. The ILEA has produced something which is more or less unique, not only here but also in other countries, and is enormously successful. I am absolutely determined that I shall not let the Government wreck that. They have taken a big step towards trying not to wreck it because Westminster is a competent and reasonable wealthy borough council and the centre of this particular work is within its area. Therefore, this is not unreasonable, but it must be carried out with the greatest care, and I hope that the noble Baroness can either tell us tonight or write to us with an explanation of how it is to be achieved.
Baroness Hooper: The Government have on many occasions paid tribute to the high quality of ILEA's provision for the musically gifted, and in particular the Centre for Young Musicians based at Pimlico School and the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. These have a deservedly high reputation. I know that Members of the Committee share the Government's view that such opportunities for high level music tuition and performance should continue to be available. Under our proposals the inner London boroughs will each become responsible for music tuition generally in their area, as are the outer London boroughs and other local education authorities. But we readily accept that there need to be co-ordinated arrangements for provision of a more advanced nature, since the high standards presently achieved depend upon a large number of
306
receive high level instrumental tuition and, of course, to perform.
This amendment suggests one possible solution. It is a solution which would effectively take instrumental music tuition out of the domain of the boroughs altogether without giving them the opportunity to consider for themselves how best to ensure the continuation of this important provision.
I earlier proposed what I consider to be a more appropriate solution. Westminster City Council, which is likely to become responsible for Pimlico School and thus for the Centre for Young Musicians, has expressed a keen interest in becoming a lead borough in organising advanced music provision across inner London. I welcome the confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that Westminster has proved to be very responsible in that area in the past. The detailed arrangements will need to be discussed further with Westminster and the other boroughs. But in essence we envisage a central team of music advisers liaising with music advisers in the boroughs to ensure that gifted young musicians from all areas of inner London are able to take advantage of the facilities offered by the Centre for Young Musicians and become members of the London Schools Symphony Orchestra and other ensembles.
Other councils and other institutions may also have specific contributions to make to these arrangements; and it might be possible to seek the involvement of one or more of the London music colleges, which I am sure would provide an exciting opening for further developments. Moreover, a charitable trust, which might of course attract private sponsorship, could be established as part of these arrangements.
We envisage that most of the costs of such an arrangement will be met by the boroughs, but the Government would be prepared to consider some modest topping up finance if necessary. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the Government's commitment (as the Committee has indicated that on the whole it does) to securing the future of advanced music provision in inner London, and that the development of arrangements should proceed along the lines I have described as the best way forward. Certainly I shall be happy to keep informed of progress those noble Lords who I know are particularly interested.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for confirming the Government's intention to make the post-abolition musical scene work powerfully, as I was urging her to do. It only remains for me to say that I echo some of the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about that. It is, of course, infinitely more complicated than at first appears. I can only urge upon the noble Baroness that those very talented people in ILEA who at present run these matters and who are the repository of knowledge should be put together with all the likely authorities as fast as possible. They have a huge task ahead of them, and I believe that we should not lose a moment in getting these arrangements in hand. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding earnestly, so I hope that as soon as midnight strikes it will start.

307
In those circumstances, and with that hopeful prospect of the musical education of London continuing as excitingly as it has in the past, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 274ZBB:
After Clause 166 insert the following new clause:
("Funding arrangements for certain institutions.
(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the date of Royal Assent, provide by regulations for the funding arrangements for the institutions to which subsection (2) below refers, after consultation with the governing bodies of each of the institutions concerned and with ILEA.
(2) Provision shall be made under this section in respect of—

(a) the Working Men's College;

(b) the Mary Ward Centre;

(c) Morley College; and

(d) the City Literary Institute.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I declare an interest as the principal of the Working Men's College. I should say at once that that is not a financial interest. The title "principal" refers only to the honorary chairman of the council and was devised by the distinguished Christian Socialist, Frederick Denison Maurice who founded the college in 1854. The real boss is the warden.
The Working Men's College, together with the other three colleges named in the amendment, has been subjected to a considerable degree of worry about the continuation of that part of the funding which came from the ILEA. I hasten to say that the funding of the Working Men's College from the ILEA is marginal. It is not much more than 10 per cent. of its total income, thanks to wise husbandry of its resources over a period of more than a century.
I say with grateful thanks that the colleges will have been much relieved by the statements of the noble Baroness and of the Lord Privy Seal in this afternoon's debate. If I may quote the Lord Privy Seal, he said that those measures will secure the long-term future of four distinguished adult education establishments through a guarantee of central government funding. It is rare for government Ministers in these circumstances to use the word "guarantee". I know that the noble Lord, Lord 'Belstead, will ensure that the guarantee that he gave of continued funding will be kept, and that the more detailed promises given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will be also carried out.
There is an element of unrealism in thinking that there are vast sources of private funding to be tapped for these colleges. That must be a reservation which we have about the Government's proposals. It must also be recognised that the Government gave totally unsatisfactory answers in response to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about maintained adult education. If, as we fear, there are severe shocks to the maintained adult education system in London, that will mean increased pressure on the resources of the independent sector. We may have to come back, and they may have to come back, to the department and to the Secretary of State to ensure that the guaranteed funding is adequate for their new purposes.
As always, we should have liked to see these assurances on the face of the Bill. If the Government had had the foresight to do that at the very beginning perhaps the anxiety which has been felt by those who serve these immensely important and high-quality institutions would have been that much less. We are grateful for the concessions which have been made, so far as they go. Perhaps the criticisms of intent could be thought to be carping.
Baroness Seear: I, too, am very grateful. Because of my association with, and as president of, Morley College, I wish to add to what I said earlier today. We are most grateful that this offer has been put forward. It is more than an offer, it is an assurance given to us by the Government. I noticed that the reference to the idea that the Government were going to guarantee this sum roused the noble Lord the Leader of the House from his slumbers. Perhaps he will confirm that he meant that the Government were giving a guarantee. I should also like confirmation whether it is for a limited period only and until such time as these wealthy benefactors produce the goods. Alternatively, will the guarantee continue indefinitely, assuming that the colleges have made a reasonable effort to get the money even if funds are not forthcoming on the scale that the Government hope for.
I will not dwell upon it at this time of night, but I sometimes wonder when this capitalist Government is going to say that it is just possible that the first obligations of industry are towards reducing prices and paying dividends. It is an unkind note to introduce, but I have heard so many suggestions that everything that we should like the Government to do is to be done by the private sector. At times I wonder what money is going to be left for the running of industry. However, on that slightly ungracious note and in asking for the confirmation I mentioned earlier, that this guarantee is really indefinite and into the future and not merely a temporary bridging allowance, so to speak, I join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in saying that we are most grateful.
Baroness Hooper: I had hoped that between us my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and I had already explained adequately the proposals of the Government for securing the future of these four important institutions. I am glad that in principle the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are able to welcome our proposals so wholeheartedly because we believe that these proposals will also encourage a policy of flexible development, so that the service provided continues to meet the needs of its customers.
I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness questions that my noble friend really means it when he says "guarantee". I can reassure on that point, and also on the fact that the guarantee is not limited in time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the light of those repeated assurances, because I understood the words "long-term" and "guarantee" in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I believe that it is proper that I should ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 167 [Continuity of exercise offunctions]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 274ZC:
Page 154, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The functions of ILEA with regard to child guidance shall be transferred on the abolition date to a Child Guidance Council for Inner London, which shall—

(a) provide those services with regard to child guidance for which ILEA was responsible before the abolition date;

(b) have a duty to consult on child guidance matters with the inner London councils and the relevant District Health Authorities; and

(c) account directly to, and be supported by funds provided by, the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I am speaking about a very useful service provided by the Inner London Education Authority which is not mentioned in the Bill, and it has hardly been discussed today in any of the many references to the wider aspects of the activities of the ILEA. The child guidance service is an important aspect of the ILEA and I believe that many members of the Committee will not be aware of its valuable work, which is done by all the 16 child guidance clinics in London. It is criticised by very few people and it is praised by many who know of its work. It is the envy of many other cities in the United Kingdom and throughout the world.
The service gives support to thousands of children and parents and it relieves pressure on social services departments and schools—both special and mainstream—and also on the long arm of the law, in which I would include not only the police but also the probation service, special schools and units for young offenders. It deals with the types of problems that other people shy away from; for example, child abuse, depressed, suicidal or violent children, delinquents and school refusers, to name just a few. In my view it provides a more constructive answer to the problems of delinquency than some of those which were put forward earlier today.
As a general practitioner I have come to value the work of the child guidance clinics. It is extremely useful to be able to refer such intractable problems to a highly professional, multi-disciplinary team. The team consists of psychiatrists, psychiatric social workers, psychologists, social workers and other specially trained people. They look at the problems, assess them in depth and advise on what sensible steps should be taken in order to tackle them.
It is most difficult to measure such work in terms of cost-benefit. It is highly likely that the main benefit of the child guidance clinics is in what they prevent; for instance, the number of crimes not committed; the number of prison or borstal places not filled and the amount of legal costs not incurred. Of course the crime rate is increasing, as all Members of the Committee know, in spite of all the efforts of the Metropolitan Police. I suggest that that situation is not due to the fact that the child guidance clinics are failing in their work but that, at least in part, one of the reasons for the rise in crime is that their resources are spread so thinly and they are working against a tide of increasing social deprivation in London, which is due to a certain extent to the policies of the present Government. Those policies lead especially to the very high level of youth unemployment.
Schools are not sufficiently attractive to children between the ages of 14 and 16 who are not academically minded, and I see nothing in the Bill which is likely to make them more attractive, in fact, rather the reverse.
I am surprised that as yet no mention has been made by the noble Baroness of this valuable service. I suggest that it would make no sense for each borough to be responsible for providing its own child guidance service. The 16 units are at present most unevenly spread. Some boroughs have none; some have more than one. The cross-borough flow is virtually the norm. As it is now, the organisation provides a valuable network for inter-professional and intra-professional contact of the workers in the child guidance service. It is also extremely useful to have this wide network for the purposes of training and in order to share expert workers between the different clinics. I suggest that if the network is broken up something good will be lost; something that is in the forefront of crime prevention, which is very much part of the Government's policy.
The ILEA network of special schools for physically and mentally handicapped children is an integral part of the service provided by the child guidance clinics. Therefore I hope that we shall receive further assurances that this network will be provided; that is, special schools for children with special problems.
The amendment is designed to preserve this valuable service. The teams working in it have been built up over many years. I feel that they are quite outside the argument about whether or not ILEA should survive. I think it would be a great mistake if, like an innocent bystander, the child guidance service were mortally wounded in the cross-fire which is aimed at the ILEA. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouraging words when she replies. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness David: I should like to give support to what my noble friend has said and hope that we can have a constructive reply from the Minister.
The Earl of Arran: I can well understand and sympathise with the noble Lord's concern. The ILEA child guidance service has a good reputation. It is based on 16 child guidance units which the ILEA operates in collaboration with specialist colleagues in the NHS.
The noble Lord's amendment however would freeze the present pattern and level of service of child guidance in London for some time, besides making it directly accountable to and funded by the Secretary of State. That cannot be right. It cannot be appropriate for the Secretary of State to fund directly the child guidance service in inner London when everywhere else in the country it is planned and financed locally. It must be a mistake to assume that the present pattern of child guidance in London is necessarily the best pattern of provision for what are to become 13 independent LEAs.
It will be for the boroughs themselves in preparing their development plans to put forward their

311
proposals on how best to ensure that an effective child guidance service will be provided in each new LEA.
In preparing their proposals, the boroughs will need help. I am happy to repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend in another place, in response to a Parliamentary Question, that he would wish to discuss the continuation of the child guidance service in inner London with the inner London councils, the ILEA, and the relevant district health authorities. The sooner these discussions can begin, the better. In so saying, I hope that the noble Lord can be persuaded not to press the amendment.
Lord Rea: I do not propose to press the amendment, but I must say that that answer will give rise to a great sense of disappointment among all those who are providing this very valuable service in inner London at the moment. We shall scrutinise the noble Earl's every word in Hansard and decide how we shall come back again at Report stage. However, I must say that I am not very happy with the reply. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 274ZD
Page 154, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Any voluntary body which runs youth clubs for children aged 8–16 years, and which was previously grant aided by ILEA shall continue to be so grant-aided to the same extent by the relevant borough, provided that the youth club fulfills the requirements which were previously laid down by ILEA.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this is the last amendment this evening, thank goodness! The whole idea is to provide an opportunity to see the words "youth clubs" somewhere in the Bill. They are not there at the moment.
On 21st March I asked my noble friend Lady Hooper what the Government's intentions were regarding the funding of the youth service after ILEA had gone. My noble friend has been very kind, both then and since, in trying to educate me as to where I should find references to the youth service. She has said that in the future there will be consultations and dialogue which I think are obviously vitally important. But there are 713 voluntary youth organisations in London. They play a major part for the benefit of a great many children both disadvantaged and disabled.
In the past, ILEA has given grant aid of up to 65 per cent. for these youth clubs which in the main paid for the leaders' wages. Of course large sums also came from the voluntary bodies who raised their own money. But in the change when ILEA disappears the boroughs appear to have no direct commitment whatever. As I have said, I can find no mention anywhere in the Bill of youth service or youth clubs.
However, I have been told that this Bill is to be taken in conjunction with the Education Act 1944. I was informed that in Section 53 of the 1944 Act there is to be found a reference to youth clubs but I am afraid it is not there. It mentions play centres and recreation and other activities but it does not mention youth clubs. It states that a local education authority shall:
312
"have regard to the expediency of co-operating with any voluntary societies.".
But having regard is merely taking into account or considering. There is no duty whatsoever implied.
Finally of course this matter is mentioned in the guidelines which are very appropriate but they are not enforceable; they are not law. So I thought it necessary to try and introduce the words "youth service" or "youth clubs" into this Bill. When I came to examine the Bill at some length I found in Clause 167 the words:
"The abolition of ILEA shall not affect the validity of anything done by ILEA before the abolition date.".
I thought hoorah! If all these grant-aided clubs were valid at the time of ILEA they must be valid in the future because that is what it says in Clause 167. But that is really nothing new; it is just a matter of emphasis. There is no more being asked to be done and no less being asked to be done.
I think there are many justifiable anxieties that youth clubs will receive insufficient money to pay perhaps for the leaders' wages. ILEA had budgeted for about £36·5 million and the new idea is that £13·5 million will be allocated. If that kind of thing happens there is a great chance that many, many clubs—there are 713 youth organisations—will inevitably have to close. This is not a very happy situation. I am sure that the Government do not wish this to happen and I hope they see the point that youth clubs and the youth service should be mentioned in the Bill somewhere to give an obligation to the boroughs, particularly the boroughs who will be strapped for money and who will find this provision a difficult one to operate. I hope that the Government will find a way of somehow including "youth service" in the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Hooper: I fully understand the concerns of my noble friend in this matter. Under the Government's proposals, the inner London boroughs will assume responsibility for youth service provision in their areas after the abolition of ILEA. They will have to set out how they intend to fulfil this responsibility in their development plans. We shall not seek to constrain the boroughs by imposing prior conditions about the type and level of provision they must make. They must take their own decisions based on the particular needs of their area.
The intention of the amendment is, I fully recognise, to ensure that the valuable work undertaken by voluntary youth clubs in inner London is not disrupted or diminished. I respect and indeed share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, to the voluntary sector. But the effect of the amendment would be to oblige an elected authority to abide in perpetuity by the decisions of a predecessor body. That not only conflicts with the principle of local accountability, but it would introduce considerable inflexibility into youth service provision in inner London. I am sure that is not what my noble friend seeks to do.
The Government consider that the present legislative basis for the youth service is the right one. Existing provision is based on sections in the 1944 Education Act relating to the provision by local

313
education authorities of social, physical and recreational training and leisure time activities. One of these, Section 41(b), will be amended by Clause 104 of the Bill but will retain its force in respect of these activities. So we have no expectation of changes in existing provision based on that.
The effect of present legislation is to enable LEAs to assess the needs of young people in their areas and to make appropriate provision, taking into account provision made by the voluntary sector. This means LEAs can make a relevant, flexible response to the needs of the young people in their area, bearing in mind that these may change over time.
We shall encourage the boroughs to pay close attention to the work of the voluntary youth sector in drawing up their development plans. I have no doubt that, by the time the boroughs take over responsibility for education, they will have a clear appreciation of the work undertaken by voluntary youth organisations in their areas, and will place a high value on the cost-effective contribution made by them. I am sure that the boroughs will continue to give substantial financial and other support to this sector. The views of local communities, who use and benefit from clubs, will of course play an important part in securing continued support.
There has also been some concern about the future funding of the London-wide headquarters bodies of voluntary youth organisations which receive support from ILEA. I have had a series of meetings with representatives of many of those organisations to discuss their concerns and to see how we can bring them to the attention of the boroughs. Those organisations will be able to apply to the individual inner London boroughs to contribute to their work. However, the Government also plan to set aside a sum of £1½ million for each of three years from 1990 to assist those aspects of the work of headquarters organisations which the Government believe will support effective youth work in inner London. This gives those organisations breathing space to reorganise their finances on the basis of support from the individual boroughs and increased support from the private sector. The Government will decide nearer the time precisely what assistance is needed and how grant aid would be distributed. However, as the Committee will appreciate, the announcement of the additional aid was made for the first time today.
I hope that on the basis of what I have been able to say my noble friend will accept this reassurance and will 'withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newall: I am most grateful to my noble friend for repeating what she has said to me on many occasions before, apart from the nice £2½ million for those who are entitled to it.
I am still very unhappy with the fact that youth services and youth clubs, which perform such a valuable service, are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. As they do much more than provide recreational facilities, which is mentioned in the 1944 Act, I feel that there is a need for making the matter clearer so that those boroughs which may not be totally
314
sympathetic to the idea will be directed rather than simply helped along.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider the matter again before Report stage. I shall read what she has said; but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 167 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at one minute before midnight.