HL Deb 06 November 1989 vol 512 cc435-48

Read a third time.

Clause 13 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of self-governing status]:

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 1: Page 7, line 18, leave out ("simple").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also speak to Amendment No. 6. At Report stage I accepted an amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, deleting the word "simple" in Clause 16. These amendments are consequential and deal with other references in the Bill to the term "simple majority". I thank the noble Earl for guiding us to consider two consequential changes. As he said, a majority is a majority is a majority. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to the request of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and also the arguments from this side of the House. In a strange way, I believe that the removal of "simple" makes it more flexible for the Secretary of State to make his ultimate decision. In fact a simple majority would have been more specific than merely "a majority". I am grateful to him for his co-operation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Proposals for acquisition of self-governing status]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2: Page 9, line 22, at beginning insert ("Where the result of a ballot held in accordance with section 14 of this Act shows a two-thirds majority of votes cast in the ballot in favour of seeking self-governing status,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss Amendment No. 3 at the same time. The purpose of the amendments is to require that a school board has a duty to prepare proposals for the acquisition of self-governing status only if there is a two-thirds majority of parents in favour. If the majority of parents voting is less than two-thirds, the board should have the opportunity to consider whether there is enough parental support to proceed.

The general argument for these amendments is this. As the Bill is currently drafted, the school board must proceed with the preparation of proposals if a simple majority of votes cast in the ballot is in favour of seeking self-governing status. If the Minister is disposed to accept the amendment, I am sure he will realise that there is a consequential amendment required from him that "simple" be removed from the amendment. We did not anticipate that deletion when we put down this amendment. However, it will be self-evident.

Once a school board decides to have a ballot, the process of acquisition is irreversible so far as concerns the board. The Secretary of State may take account of the size of the majority —that is why I believe that the omission of "simple" may be an advantage —in making a decision on whether or not a school should be allowed to change its status. Experience in England and Wales, however, shows that the Secretary of State has given approval for schools to opt out where less than 50 per cent. of the eligible persons have voted in favour. In one school —Beechen Cliff School, Avon —I understand that approval was given when only 37 per cent. of eligible parents were in favour. In such circumstances it is right for a school board to have the opportunity to reconsider its position.

The Minister will be aware of the Education Alert survey on the views of nominated school board candidates throughout Scotland on key aspects of self-governing schools. I understand that the survey has been sent to the department last month. I also understand that about 1,900 prospective school board members responded to the survey. The results are quite clear. On support for a larger ballot majority —for instance, a two-thirds majority —about 90 per cent. of parents who had agreed to have their names go forward for election at school boards were in favour. On support for a requirement for board members to gain experience for a minimum period before being able to announce an opting out ballot, the vote was as high as 95 per cent. of parents in favour.

We have a certain faith that the Secretary of State will not be silly about this. He is not a silly man. He would not force issues through unnecessarily. In fact he is reported to have said that the department wants to work "with the grain of Scottish opinion". That is the attitude that we hope to have from the Secretary of State. However, it would be a considerable help if the amendments were accepted. They would be an additional guidance to the Secretary of State, in particular the amendments to Clause 16.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I should like to support these two amendments. We have consistently supported the idea of there being more support and a bigger majority required for schools to change their status. If there is a 50 per cent. vote with a 51 per cent. majority of those voting in favour, only just over a quarter of the parents involved would be supporting this rather great radical change to the nature of the school. Surely some guidelines and safeguards are required on this issue so that there is not this danger of a minority making such a big decision.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, it is quite right that this Bill varies in many respects from the English legislation. Parliament is attempting to make it, so far as possible, tailor-made for Scotland. However, the issue on the way that parents vote, on whether the process for applying self-governing status should begin, is a new right for parents. I feel very strongly that this right, which exists in England, should exist in Scotland. The notion that there should be two bites at the cherry seems unfortunate. There would be some turmoil in the period between the two votes if the amendment were accepted. There would be a vote and, if the second stage was then invoked, there would be a pause when everyone was in doubt. The process should be completely simple.

There should be a straightforward vote as there is in England. Then all the other considerations should be taken into account. A later amendment in the name of the Minister seems to help very much in that direction. I hope that the Minister will stick to his guns.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, if we thought that the Bill was tailor-made for the education system of Scotland, we would not be opposing the Bill on all fronts as we have done. Whether the suit will fit Scotland only time will tell. I hope that the Government will understand that the amendment now before your Lordships' House for the third time has the positive merit of giving a specific guide to the Secretary of State when he is considering the matters referred to in Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, to which the Minister will be speaking in due course. We shall discuss them when we come to them. However, the word "simple" has now been omitted from the Bill, for reasons that are not quite clear to me because I do not see much difference between a simple majority and a majority. If the Government are deleting the word "simple" preceding "majority" it could mean that where a school has only a simple majority it will not achieve self-governing status. It is one way in which the removal of the word "simple" complicates the issue even more.

I am sure that the Government will consider seriously—as the Minister has done on all the amendments—taking the amendment on board as a positive attempt to give not only guidance to the Secretary of State but information to parents of children at the various schools. In that way they will know on what numerical basis a major decision has been taken with regard to the schooling of their children.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I have not yet spoken on this matter. The more I listen to what is said the more in favour I become of such an amendment. We are not certain about how the Bill will operate in Scotland. I do not believe that the English experience is necessarily valid although the Welsh experience may be. However, there is a great variety of education in Scotland.

I fear that decisions may be taken and voting carried out before people have considered the effect on a particular school. Therefore, anything which gives a further opportunity for the consideration of a proposal to move to self-governing status is well worth examining. It will be helpful to the Secretary of State because he is left with a wide discretion when deciding whether to confirm the status.

The Government will be well advised to write into the Bill this or a similar amendment. We wish to draft a statute which will work. My fear is that as drafted the Bill will create great difficulties. It will leave the Secretary of State in a difficult position, one in which he should not be placed. The statute should make clear his responsibilities. We cannot leave him with a discretion so wide that he is virtually given the authority of making up the law.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to my comments at the time of accepting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Perth. His noble friend Lord Macaulay is right in saying that "majority" is the important word in this legislation. However, the removal of that word does not change the position as regards this Bill.

These amendments were not moved during Report after I accepted an amendment from my noble friend Lord Perth which had been grouped with them. These amendments do offer a new approach to the use of the two-thirds majority test. Where a two-thirds majority of parents voting in the ballot say "yes" the procedure of publishing proposals is to run forward as intended. However, where between a half and two-thirds of parents are in favour the decision on whether to move forward is remitted back to the school board. That is as I understand the meaning of the amendment.

I suggest that in fairness these amendments should go further. Their logic is that unless there is an overwhelming view among parents in the ballot, the decision on what happens next is left to the school board. Surely the members of the school board should have a similar discretion in the case of a marginal "no" result in the ballot; indeed, with anything short of a two-thirds majority against the change.

Put that way, I suggest that the real purpose of the ballot of parents is made clear. It offers parents an indisputable right of veto on any move to self-governing status by the school—I repeat, "an indisputable right of veto". If a majority of parents is against self-governing status that is an end of the matter. The members of the school board cannot overturn that decision; neither should they be able to do so when the majority in the ballot is in favour of a change.

I must repeat once more that a positive ballot result is not a guarantee that the school will become self-governing. It does allow matters to move forward to the next stage. The school board, whatever its collective view on the principle of self-government, is required to produce formal proposals. These proposals are exposed to detailed scrutiny and comment from all with an interest. The Secretary of State then has the final decision. At that stage the views of parents recorded in the ballot are one factor that he will take into account, but only one factor. We shall be coming on to further amendments dealing with this.

The final decision rests with the Secretary of State partly because he is best placed to weigh up the range of representations from the school, from the neighbourhood affected and from the education authority. But he also has the final say because it is the Secretary of State who will have the obligation to fund each school accepted for self-governing status. Consequently he must give close attention to the likely continued viability of the school and its prospects for long-term success. No Secretary of State will wish to accept a school which is clearly unattractive to parents generally.

Should a self-governing school ever begin to fail at some future date, perhaps because large numbers of parents choose to send their children elsewhere, the duty is on the Secretary of State to ensure that remedial action is taken by the school. Procedures are set out in Clause 33 of the Bill, in particular at subsection (3). At the end of the day the Secretary of State would have to move to withdraw grant and close down a self-governing school which continued to operate in a wholly inefficient way. It follows that the Secretary of State will pay close attention to the degree of parental support in all cases. There will be schools rejected by him despite an overwhelming vote by parents in favour of self-governing status. I drew attention to English examples during our debate in Committee and repeated the details in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned the details of the Beechen Cliff School. The result of the ballot was declared on 13th March; the pupil roll was 1,007; the turnout was 69 per cent.; the "yes" vote was 55 per cent.; the "yes" percentage of all eligible votes was 37 per cent. That school received approval.

To sum up, we should leave this ballot with its twin roles offering a parental veto on change and providing a measure of the degree of support where a majority of parents support the principle of self-governing for the school. For these purposes a simple majority is the correct test.

I have to say again that this House has already considered very thoroughly indeed the whole issue of requiring more than a simple majority of those voting when we discussed last year the Education Reform Act for England and Wales. An amendment by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London was passed requiring a majority of those eligible to vote. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Baker, who was then the Minister in charge of that Bill, undertook discussions with some of the Peers concerned in the hope of finding an acceptable compromise. When Lords' amendments were considered in the other place he brought forward proposals for the second ballot machinery already in this Bill. The Opposition in another place rejected the change and there was a Division. However, when the issue was then brought back to your Lordships' House on 25th July 1988, the compromise was accepted without demur.

We have covered the ground most thoroughly. I understand the views of noble Lords opposite. However, I cannot change my mind. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, we have had a long and detailed argument about the question of majority. There is nothing wrong in that because it is a big decision for Scottish education. We believe that in certain areas the opting out of only a small number of schools could have a serious effect on the rest of the schools in the neighbourhood.

We have made our case as well as we can. The Minister has given his replies which are the best that the can give. He has done so with great charm and logic. He will not be surprised to learn that he has not convinced most noble Lords on this side of the House. However, in view of the fact that it is unlikely that we shall get any further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Rejection or approval of proposals]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 4: Page 11, line 34, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8. These amendments deal with the final decision by the Secretary of State on proposals for a school becoming self-governing or for an established school altering any of its characteristics. They place on the Secretary of State an explicit requirement to have regard to the turnout in the ballot of parents which preceded the publication of proposals. The amendments make it clear that this will be one among a series of factors to be weighed up by the Secretary of State in reaching his decision.

These aspects of the amendments discharge the undertaking I gave at Report to my noble friend Lord Perth.

Since turnout is picked on as being one facet of the ballot result deserving attention by the Secretary of State, I believe it is appropriate that the amendments also mention the percentage of voters who favoured the change as equally deserving consideration by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I recognise what the Minister says in relation to these amendments. I also recognise that he is attempting to adopt an equitable approach to the consideration of these very important issues in the educational system of Scotland.

Unfortunately, looking at the amendments as they stand, they have a beginning and a middle but no end. Amendment No. 5 says that the Secretary of State, after taking into account such other matters as he considers appropriate including … the percentage that the total votes cast in the ballot which occasioned publication of the proposals … and the percentage that the votes so cast which were in favour of seeking self-governing status for the school constituted of those total votes". However, the amendment does not say what the Secretary of State is supposed to do in given circumstances. That takes us back to what I referred to earlier. Would it not be sensible once more —and I make no apology for coming back to this matter —to give the Secretary of State a guideline such as was suggested in the two-thirds majority approach? To use a shipping analogy, I wonder whether the educational ship has a Plimsoll line above which the Secretary of State cannot go or above which he has to remain in order to make an equitable decision. With respect to the Minister —and I know that he is doing his best to accommodate everyone involved in this difficult exercise—I do not believe that this amendment adds much to the consultation process or to the process of making a decision on the acceptance or rejection of the proposals.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not think so, and I am sorry that the noble Earl is not here with his views on the government amendment brought forward as a result of his amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is entitled to his view.

I made it perfectly clear on Report that the Secretary of State must take into account very many factors before he gives approval or otherwise for self-governing status to be granted to a school. However, I understood the feeling in the House to be that this particular matter of the ballot and the percentage voting and so on should have pride of place and should be on the face of the Bill: hence the amendments before your Lordships today. Under those circumstances, while I fully accept that the noble Lord is entitled to his view, perhaps the noble Earl may be more pleased then he is.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 5: Page 11, line 35, at end insert ("and after taking into account such other matters as he considers appropriate including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the percentage that the total votes cast in the ballot which occasioned publication of the proposals constituted of the total number of persons eligible to vote in the ballot and the percentage that the votes so cast which were in favour of seeking self-governing status for the school constituted of those total votes.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 30 [Change in characteristics of self-governing school]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 6: Page 21, line 13, leave out ("simple").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:

Page 21, line 32, leave out ("and")

Page 21, line 36, at end insert ("and after taking into account such other matters as he considers appropriate including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the percentage that the total votes cast in the ballot which occasioned publication of the proposals constituted of the total number of persons eligible to vote in the ballot and the percentage that the votes so cast which were in favour of the change sought constituted of those total votes").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 81 [Commencement]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 9: Page 55, line 44, leave out first ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 10. On Report paragraph 10 was added to Schedule 10 to the Bill to provide in school boards legislation for continuing payment of allowances to members of appointments committees in individual schools when new arrangements for allowances are introduced in local government. The new provisions contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill affecting the payment of allowances to committee members do not come into force until next year. There is no need for paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to come into force immediately and these amendments provide for it to be brought into effect by commencement order in due course. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is an important piece of legislation as is recognised by all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussions on it. Although it deals with a number of areas including further education, testing in primary schools and the machinery for recruitment and dismissal of teaching staff, attention has rightly focused throughout on the creation of the new right for parents to seek self-governing status for their school. Where parents wish to exercise the option and where the Secretary of State agrees to detailed proposals a wholly new form of school will be created in Scotland.

Self-governing schools will be subject to much of the general legislation dealing with education authority schools. Certain fundamental characteristics of the school will not change as the school moves out of local authority control. Within this broad statutory framework a self-governing school will enjoy a very real degree of independence. By their very nature self-governing schools will be dependent on the continuing support of parents choosing them for their children.

I have heard that no one desires such a change. That is the view of some people in Scotland and perhaps it is one held by some Members of your Lordships' House. I have heard it said that everyone is happy and that in regard to the structure of the Scottish education system, everything in the Scots educational garden, so to speak, is all right. I believe that such arguments are weak. I repeat that no school is being compelled to opt out and if there is no desire so to do, none will. We should be suspicious of those, like shopkeepers, who tell us that there is no demand for something. Perhaps even those Scots hostile to England would not deny their fellow Scot s a right and a freedom because it is enjoyed by some Sassenachs.

Again, as regards those who would seek to have schools devolved to be run by themselves and other like-minded parents, it surely is offensive to suggest that what works in the independent sector cannot possibly work in the maintained sector.

I think I can fairly say that this Bill has received close scrutiny during its passage through this House. I believe we have made 96 amendments to the Bill since it reached us from the other place in June. Inevitably, perhaps the great majority of these are technical and drafting changes, but of course they represent real improvements to the legislation for all that.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that, at least on this piece of legislation, the Government have resisted the temptation to bring forward substantive new material for the Bill during its time here. I have however accepted that a number of changes of substance should be made in response to points raised by noble Lords in our debates.

There are probably nine or ten examples in all. Among the more significant improvements made in this way have been provision for a school board to pass two separate resolutions before holding a ballot of parents on self-governing status and writing it into the Bill that in normal circumstances there should be two years between successive ballots at a school. A ballot on self-governing status is a serious matter for parents at any school. Neither school boards nor individual parents will wish to embark lightly on the route provided by this new legislation. The minimum period of one month between successive resolutions by the school board is a valuable opportunity for the education authorities and others to put across their views before the board commits itself to a ballot.

In a number of areas amendments have improved the Bill by clarifying what has been the Government's policy intention all along. Most important have been the adjustments to the Clause 30 procedure for handling any suggested future changes in the characteristics of a self-governing school. We do not expect self-governing schools to rush to change their character, as we made clear in the draft circular. It is altogether more likely that parents at a self-governing school will be anxious to preserve and safeguard its existing general character while seeking the benefits of greater independence through local management. In any event the Bill now makes it clear that at least five years should normally pass before a self-governing school moves to seek any change in character. When the Secretary of State comes to take his decision on a change, the Bill is now explicit that he will take into account both the details of the ballot result and representations from the education authority about any impact on its wider duty to provide for all children in the area.

In addition to the amendments made during the passage of the Bill we have had useful and constructive exchanges on a range of important items. We have been able from the Government Front Bench to make clear, for example, the point of making general regulations which will extend to self-governing schools provisions which already bind education authorities in managing their schools.

I believe that the Bill leaves this House improved and we have carried out our duty as a revising Chamber. I consider that a number of your Lordships have contributed greatly to our various debates. One or two from south of the Border, like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, have been helpful. They have pointed out important differences which characterise education in England compared with Scotland. The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Macaulay of Bragar, have carried the major burden of providing constructive opposition and probing comment on the Bill. I thank them most warmly, as indeed I do the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Addington.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, as a supporter of the general principles of the legislation, has been anxious at every stage to put forward, and often to secure, useful improvements to the Bill. From the Cross-Benches the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has contributed his usual well-aimed barbs and carefully considered comments.

I must thank all those outside this House who have been active in producing what I would consider to be constructive criticism.

To conclude, this is now a better Bill. Its main aim remains that of offering a new right to parents in Scotland. Where schools and education authorities are sensitive and responsive to the wishes of parents it may be that few will choose to exercise their new rights. No school is being compelled to change its management. That choice is for parents.

This Government believe in trusting parents to act in the best interests of the schools attended by their children. Time alone will tell how far parents will wish to go in making use of the new opportunities conferred on them by the Bill. The most important point is establishing a right so to do, which is something that should not be denied to parents, least of all in Scotland, where we believe very firmly in freedom of opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he has dealt with all our amendments. I associate myself and this side of the House with what he said about the number of people who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Macaulay, who has borne a great deal of the weight of this Bill. I take this opportunity of thanking him for that.

I should state that we on this side of the House are certainly not opposed to experimentation in education, although we believe that this is not the basic purpose of this Bill. The Bill is ideologically oriented and without that aspect it may have been a much better Bill.

In some respects the Secretary of State has been left with so much discretion that the Bill could turn out to be an illusion for certain parents who think that they should be able to opt out. Perhaps that is as it should be, as we have been dealing with the fickleness of one group of parents, who may be the people who are entitled to vote at a particular time; they may be involved in the school for a matter of only two or three years, and the school will go on for many decades after that. I emphasise again that the Minister has been very helpful within his powers. His summing up of the Bill has been most helpful for those who wish to study it. It is much easier for him, he will admit, with the help that he has, to make this summary than it is for some of us to go through the Bill painstakingly to try to find the import of the 96 amendments which the Minister says we have passed.

I do not doubt that the Bill is better than it was when it arrived here. We should be grateful to the Minister and to all others who have taken part in showing the Minister occasionally that the House was fairly firm on certain points and that his best line was to take the proposal away, argue the case and bring it back. For the success that he had in these arguments with his colleagues, with the Secretary of State and with his staff in explaining the feeling of the House on a few occasions at least we should be grateful.

As usual, dealing with the Minister within the parameters of a Bill is always a pleasure. I thank him for his great courtesy during the passage of the Bill.

Lord Addington

My Lords, from these Benches I add our thanks for the courtesy and consideration which have been shown by the noble Lord in the handling of this Bill. The Bill deals with a concept which on these Benches we find hard to stomach; that is, the fact that the local authorities of Scotland will lose part of their educational structure for the assistance of pupils. They can potentially lose part of the schools' provision which now provides options for parents and for the authority. However, if it is to be that this Bill has to pass, I can only hope that we are wrong and that the Government have the answers in a form that will help. I do not think they have, but I hope I am wrong.

As regards the structure of the Bill, I am grateful for the way that the changes have been made. People have added to the debate and the Bill is now more responsive to what is needed. Certain safeguards and checks have been introduced even at this late stage, which will improve the Bill. Having said that, I resume my seat in the hope that the Bill is a success.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, we do not know how many schools will avail themselves of the right to apply to be self-governing. I said at Second Reading that to begin with it would probably be very few, but time will tell. What is important is that this new right exists. It is good for schools, for parents and for staff to know that they have the possibility of applying for self-government. It is very good indeed for the local authority to know that if it is incompetent or unsympathetic in relation to a particular school that right exists.

As ever with legislation involving an increase in the rights of ordinary people, there has been considerable discussion of the Bill in Scotland. Views have been expressed, as my noble friend said, by groups representing parents, teachers, local authorities and others outside this House, There has been much practical advice given by those most closely involved. That discussion was in my view well reflected in the discussion in this House.

My noble friend the Minister paid close attention to suggestions for enabling the Bill to work better. He stood firm on the principle but has persuaded his colleagues to make a large number of changes to enable the Bill to work better. I am most grateful to him for responding to the amendments I moved so positively. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who was good enough to move some of my amendments at Committee stage when I was not able to be here.

This is an important Bill for Scotland and I hope that it will very soon pass into law.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the amount of work which he has put into this Bill. Unfortunately I could not be present at the Second Reading because I was taking part in an educational occasion; that is, the conferring of degrees. I confess that I am wholeheartedly in favour of involving parents to a greater extent in education but I am less enthusiastic about introducing new divisions into Scottish education.

One of the advantages is that in Scotland there is a more unified system of education than in England and on the whole that is a good thing. I also believe that the Bill could be much better drafted. It is a Bill that is meant to be read by ordinary parents on the very important matter as to whether or not they wish their school to be self-governing. Parents will get the Bill and find that it applies to certain public schools. They will wonder whether or not it applies to the public school for their children, but they will not get much enlightenment.

They will then expect to read what a self-governing school is and what kind of schools can be made self-governing. They will look to see what the method of self-government is to be. Clause 1 deals exclusively with the duty on the Secretary of State to maintain self-governing schools. The parents will then turn to Clause 19 and then go to Clause 16 and so forth. In future Bills I beg the Government to try to draft legislation which ordinary people can understand. It is important to explain to them the main effects of the Bill and how it affects them. I do not believe that this Bill does so.

I come to a particular matter that I raised on Report. I am most grateful to the Minister for having written to me again on the subject of further education in Orkney. I fully agree with him that Orcadian people are sensible people and no doubt they will make this legislation work. However, we are passing legislation that is meant to set out clearly what it is that Parliament intends to happen. The Bill should not depend solely on the discretion of a sensible Secretary of State or on the good sense of the people involved.

The letter that I received from the Minister says that he entirely agrees that the integration of ordinary and further education is very necessary in Orkney. He continues: This can be achieved under the legislation by arrangements for the board of management of the self-governing schools to act as agents". That is no doubt very sensible, but I am not quite clear what it means. Is there to be an agency agreement between the board of management and the local authority? Who is to have the deciding word on the matter? I hope that the agency will be given some firm basis if it is necessary, because it is very important that further education in Orkney should continue. The letter then states: The board would receive recurrent grant from the Secretary of State … and the education authority would finance them to provide an appropriate level of further education". I am not quite clear that it would have to finance the schools. It seems to me that the whole matter is left to the good sense of the education authority and the board. If they fell out there is no statutory obligation on them to finance further education. However, the letter goes on to say Such arrangements need not be left wholly to the discretion of the board of management". One notes there the words "need not". The letter continues: They could be set out in the original proposals". The Bill does not state that they must be set out. Surely that is what Bills are for; namely, to state what must be done and not what might be done. We must rely on the Secretary of State to insist that, if any such proposals for self-government emanate from Orkney, an acceptable arrangement is reached.

My real point is a general one. I do not believe that this Bill is a satisfactory way of devising legislation. The real safeguard for the whole matter is that the people of Orkney and Shetland are far too sensible to follow this Bill. I do not believe that we shall be faced with a self-governing board in Orkney. When I stood for Parliament I was occasionally confronted by infuriated Tory hecklers who had obtained some obscure resolution from a Liberal council or committee. They would read it out and say, "Is that what is going to happen?" Thereupon I would say, "If you vote for me, you can be quite certain that there will not be a Liberal government after this election. Therefore you can ignore with impunity nearly all the things that the Liberal Party has said in its councils". That is a very telling argument but it is not one that should come from the mouths of Government. They must pass Bills that can be put into force. As regards this Bill, I very much doubt whether they have achieved that situation.

I wish the Bill well if its real purpose is to involve parents more deeply in education. Its main purpose is admirable. I doubt whether one need go so far as to alter the whole system of Scottish education and make the schools self-governing. I am also somewhat doubtful about the side effects of the Bill and whether, as drafted, it will be intelligible to many of the people who have to decide whether or not to follow it.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have said nice things about the passage of this Bill and those who have taken part in it. It would be churlish of me not to offer again very many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who brought forward many of the amendments that we have debated.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will be conferring degrees for many years to come and that some of the pupils from both self-governing and non-self-governing schools will be capped by him. I believe it is very unlikely that parents—who might include people like myself—will read the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to do as we have done before and what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has been asking us to do for many years: namely, to produce in layman's language intelligible draft circulars describing the various measures passed in order to put into practice what the Government intend.

However, Bills are difficult to follow even for those of us who have to study them from a standing start. Therefore I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond says about the Bill. However, I believe that we have done a great deal to make interpretation easier for those who have to interpret it later. Unfortunately, the noble Lord was not present at the Second Reading, but I did say then that this Bill was permissive legislation. As I have certain responsibilities for the Highlands and Islands I am very well aware that the Orcadians will do what they want. I shall watch the situation to see whether or not they wish to go down this road.

However, that is not the point. The point is that this Bill gives parents the chance to decide what they want for their children, and that must be good. I now invite the House to pass the self-governing schools Bill.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.