Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill

HL Deb 26 October 1989 vol 511 cc1575-616

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

4.26 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4: Page 6,1ine 40, at end insert— ("; or (c) a School Board has not been established for at least 2 years or until such time as it has gained competence and experience of operating as a School Board, other than with the consent of the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apologies for raising this subject again. It is an important point. It also arises in particular, as the Minister will be aware, because of what has happened recently in Jordanhill School in Glasgow. A board of management has had to run a school essentially in its spare time, with concern for the school inevitably taking second place to job and family. It is therefore essential that members of any new school board should have some experience of their new role before seeking to acquire self-governing status.

A group has written to me. It stated that in one local school it knows of two candidates who are standing for election with the express purpose of firing a particular teacher. They are completely ignorant of the fact that they will not have such power until the school becomes totally independent. We are not sure whether they will be able to accept such power then.

The experience of Jordanhill School should give the Government pause for thought. The Minister will be aware of the area, which is very close to the area that I represented in another place for a long time. It is an area of extremely high expertise in comparison with almost any other part of Scotland. I believe that there are more graduates than in most other areas. There are accountants, educationists, physicists, scientists and so on. They found running the school too onerous a job. The convener—to folks south of the Border, the equivalent of the chairperson —and the vice-convener have both resigned.

I have had many dealings with Ms. Waldron, who was the convener in another capacity. I found her an extremely able woman. She stated: The ultimate issue is whether a school managed like a local voluntary community organisation or a disparate group of local volunteers with widely differing abilities, backgrounds and perceptions, can realistically take the place of a local education authority. My experience for two years as convener of the school— has led me to conclude that they cannot. The recurring problems of the past 18 months have not simply been teething problems. They are symptomatic of a flawed and inappropriate medium for the management of a school". In other words, we want parents to have a great deal more participation in the school. We believe that that is best achieved within the ambit of a local authority's general education committee, which provides so many of the services required in a school.

When the point is reached where a local school wishes to opt out we beg the Minister to consider seriously the proposal that, together with the concessions already made—and we are grateful to him for that—there should also be a minimum period of two years before the school board can say, "We think that we can go on our own now". It is merely a precaution. Two years is not very long, and if after that time a school board believes that it can opt out it will be aware of some of the difficulties. I believe that it is the minimum length of time for which we should ask. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, the Lothian Parents Action Group, a letter from which the noble Lord quoted, was also kind enough to write to me setting out its points of view. It requires serious consideration because its views are sincerely held.

It is true that a school can go wrong, as clearly was the case with the arrangements at Jordanhill. However, I do not believe that what happened at Jordanhill will necessarily happen at another school should it decide to go self-governing. One can envisage a school which takes advantage of the new right to go self-governing quickly being perfectly able to cope with the arrangements.

It is true that people have been and are standing for school boards without knowing about all their legal responsibilities. However, it will not take too long for a good school board to learn of its legal responsibilities and of the possibilities for the school. It is unnecessary to legislate to prevent a perfectly capable school from taking advantage of the new right for two years. The Secretary of State will be able to consider the viability of the school and decide whether the board is likely to be able to cope with its management after becoming self-governing fairly quickly once the legislation is passed. I believe that this is an unnecessary restriction. I respect the comments of the Lothian Parents Action Group. It is right to raise the issue, and I am glad that the noble Lord has done so, but I hope that the Government will not accede to the amendment.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I believe that it is sensible to provide for a minimum period of 24 months before a school board can take such a big decision as to opt out of the local authority and the framework within which the school has previously existed. The noble Baroness said that school boards may well be capable of doing so but there is a danger that they will not be capable. They will not know either way. We are not saying that they will not be capable but that they should have an opportunity to find out for themselves.

I suggest that the proposed measure is sensible. The amendment contains a provision for the Secretary of State to make a special case. Therefore, it would not be the end of the matter if it were thought that self-governing status would be to the advantage of the school. Two years is a sensible and possibly necessary safeguard.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I heartily endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, demonstrate the problem being faced by the amendment; namely, that administration within the school process is a learning process. The amendment merely seeks to give people a reasonable chance to learn how to run a school board before they are let loose on the education system within a self-governing school.

In case there is any misunderstanding outside your Lordships' House, I wish to say that in raising the question of Jordanhill school no one is suggesting any irregularity or dishonesty on the part of any members of the board. It may be that two members resigned from the board because of a certain degree of incompetence within the board. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that not all boards will necessarily follow the unfortunate path taken by Jordanhill.

It is difficult to obtain information about what happens behind the scenes of a school board. However, in testing what is happening in Scotland and taking its sociological basis Jordanhill School, allied as it was to the principal teacher training college in Scotland, should have been the flagship of the fleet of self-governing schools. It has run severely aground. Continuing the sea-going analogy, it would be prudent, to say the least, for the Government to take on board the suggestion that prudence rather than haste should prevail. Let us proceed slowly on the matter.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, we return to the arguments that the Bill should indicate a two-year delay before any Scottish school is permitted to move towards self-governing status. If anything, the amendment brought forward here is even more restrictive than the simpler version tabled in Committee. That provided for a two-year period with a power for the Secretary of State to allow exceptions. Here we have a period of at least two years but this is then extended to some longer period when it is to be judged that the school board has gained adequate experience and competence. We must assume that the Secretary of State is to be the judge of this in every case.

Let us look at the effect. With this amendment, before any school can hold a ballot of parents it must go to the Secretary of State and satisfy him that it is sufficiently competent and experienced to be allowed to make use of the Bill. Until then the parents will have no more choice and no greater rights than they have at present before the Bill becomes an Act.

Once a ballot is held and proposals are brought forward the competence of the school board and its experience of running the school will be factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding on proposals. Indeed, I would expect the parents themselves to take account of those issues when deciding how to vote in the ballot. If parents are not satisfied that the school would be competently run by a board they are hardly likely to allow proposals to go forward.

I have made it clear that I do not expect a flood of early applicants for self-governing status. My honourable friend Mr. Forsyth, when Minister for Education, also said that most schools, would be well advised to wait for a couple of years and get used to having a school board". Without question, that is the position. Nevertheless, it should be for the school board and the parents to decide in the first place whether they consider themselves ready to assume self-governing status. We should not limit their right to call a ballot.

The position is quite different from that under Clause 30 where I accepted in Committee that it would be sensible to write an expected five-year delay on the face of the Bill. The point is that, as a matter of policy, a self-governing school is not expected to change its characteristics. It cannot do so as part of the move out of local authority control. Schools are expected to go on serving the same sorts of pupils. Clause 30 provides a power to deal with changing circumstances in the future. A delay on the face of the Bill is entirely sensible. To impose a delay on the fundamental right for parents under the new legislation is quite another matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the case of Jordanhill School, which has recently appeared in the press. I should like to quote from a letter written by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place to the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland in regard to Jordanhill. The letter states: Jordanhill School is not a school which has left Local Authority management and in that respect is entirely different from schools which might seek self-governing status under the terms of the current Bill. As I understand it, neither Ms. Waldron or Mr. Cowie questioned the role of the School Managers in the running of Jordanhill School during the time when they were Convener and Vice-Convener of the Board. I understand that they were not re-elected to these posts earlier this year and it may be that they now hold different views from their colleagues about the conduct of the school's affairs. They are entitled to their individual views and have exercised their right to resign from the Board". I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, says. Looking at Jordanh ill should one make haste slowly? That is a view which some may take. The statement from the governors at Jordanhill School on 25th October stated: The Board remains totally committed to the aims and objectives of the School which are set out in the School Prospectus". That gives me heart because we are dealing with 1,000 pupils being provided with primary and secondary education and the board states that its purpose is to ensure as far as possible the provision of a high standard of education relevant to the needs of today's pupils. The board has every confidence in the excellent work being done by the rector, the primary head teacher and all members of the staff.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will understand that I have looked closely at this. I have taken on board much of what he has said and also the views of the Lothian Parents' Action Group which has written to other noble Lords and myself with its views. On this occasion I cannot accept the line of argument of the noble Lord and would have to reject the amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking so much trouble to reply. I am also grateful for the fact that he has built in a number of safeguards and has conceded the question of the two ballots. It seems to me the the expression of the Minister of State in his letter to the EIS raises a number of very serious implications. For example, it suggests that the non-election was the reason for this matter. I have not made any inquiries and I make no apology for that because I did not wish to become involved in the details of what happened at Jordanhill. We know that it is the talk of the streets in that part of the world and that things are not going as well as the Minister suggests. As far as I am led to believe, the reason for their non-re-election was not a fit of pique which Mr. Lang's letter almost suggests it could have been.

Be that as it may, Jordanhill was merely the instance which made us realise how big a potential step was the decision for a school to opt out.

Considering all the help which the Minister has given, I am sorry that we feel that we must make this a beacon. We believe that this is something about which we should not forgive ourselves if there were any difficulties—and we hope that there will not be—in the future because a school has too quickly jumped the gun. Therefore, I believe that we should test the opinion of the House on what is basically a fairly modest amendment.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I was very much struck by what the Minister said when he pointed out that the amendment as drafted does not wholly reflect the purpose behind it. The amendment provides for "at least two years" whereas earlier it was just two years. When one comes on to the next part, "or until such time", I assume that that means for a lesser period. Am I right in now thinking that it means a longer period? If so, I think it is difficult to go forward on this and I ask for elucidation on that point.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Minister has given his interpretation which is possibly correct. If the Minister had been willing at least to take away this amendment and redraft it as we had intended to draft it, because we do not have the expertise which parliamentary draftsmen have, that would perhaps have made a difference. However, even with its flaws, which are not desperately serious, I still wish to pursue the matter.

4.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Boston of Faversham, L.
Airedale, L.	Broadbridge, L.
Annan, L.	Bruce of Donington, L.
Ardwick, L.	Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Attlee, E.
Aylestone, L.	Carter, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Birk, B.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Blease, L.	David, B.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Dean of Beswick, L.

Ennals, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.	Prys-Davies, L.
Fitt, L.	Rea, L.
Foot, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Gallacher, L.	Rochester, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Seear, B.
	Shackleton, L.
Grimond, L.	Stallard, L.
Hughes, L.	Stedman, B.
Hunt, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Jay, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Jeger, B.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Tordoff, L.
Kennet, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Kilbracken, L.	Underhill, L.
Macaulay of Bragar, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.	White, B.
Nicol, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Phillips, B.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L.	Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Lothian, M.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Alexander of Weedon, L.	Lyell, L.
Ampthill, L.	McAlpine of Moffat, L.
Arran, E.	Malmesbury, E.
Auckland, L.	Margadale, L.
Beloff, L.	Marley, L.
Belstead, L,	Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Bessborough, E.
Birdwood, L.	Merrivale, L.
Blatch, B.	Mersey, V.
Blyth, L.	Milverton, L.
Borthwick, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Morris, L.
Butterworth, L.	Mottistone, L.
Caccia, L.	Mountevans, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Moyne, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Munster, E.
Carnock, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Nelson, E.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Nelson of Stafford, L.
Craigavon, V.	Norfolk, D.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Orkney, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Orr-Ewing, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Oxfuird, V.
Ellenborough, L.	Pender, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Penrhyn, L.
Erroll of Hale, L.	Perth, E.
Ferrers, E.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Pym, L.
Gainford, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Reay, L.
Gisborough, L.	Renton, L.
Goold, L.	Renwick, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Rippon of Hexham, L.
Gridley, L.	Rugby, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
	Shannon, E.
Halsbury, E.	Strathclyde, L.
Havers, L.	Strathspey, L.
Henley, L.	Swinfen, L.
Hesketh, L.	Teviot, L.
Hives, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Hood, V.	Thurlow, L.
Hooper, B.	Trefgarne, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Trumpington, B.
Killearn, L.	Ullswater, V.
Kinnaird, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Kitchener, E.	Westbury, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Wise, L.
Lawrence, L.	Yarborough, E.
Long, V.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.53 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8: Page 7, line 12, after first ("a") insert ("first"). Page 7, line 12, leave out from ("resolution") to ("or") in line 13 and insert (", and again on a second resolution, being passed by the school board"). Page 7, line 14, leave out ("the school board") and insert ("them"). Page 7, line 17, after ("and") insert (", except where the notice is of a first resolution,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I move these four amendments en bloc. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 14 [Ballot of parents on question of acquisition of self governing status]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 9: Page 7, line 32, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as promised, I have given further consideration to the concerns expressed during Committee that schools should not be subject to the disruption of repeated ballots. I have concluded that two years would be an appropriate period to put on the face of the Bill. This amendment extends the time between ballots required by Clause 14(2) from 12 months to two years.

In Committee I gave examples of circumstances where a second ballot one year after the first may be entirely appropriate, and that is still the case. The Bill therefore continues to provide that the Secretary of State has the power to allow a new ballot to be held within the minimum period. A period of four years between ballots suggested in Committee is too long; two years is much more reasonable and I hope this alternative proposal will meet with the approval of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 12: Page 7, line 38, after ("(b)") insert ("any"). Page 7, line 45, after ("(6)") insert ("either of a first resolution or of a request"). Page 7, line 47, after second ("the") insert ("second").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these three amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 13: Page 8, line 16, leave out ("any") and insert ("such").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 14. The second amendment makes the effective change in this case. It restricts the liability of an education authority under Clause 14(6)(b) to reimburse legal expenses incurred by a school board in relation to a ballot. Only such expenses as the Secretary of State considers were reasonably incurred need be reimbursed by the authority.

As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in Committee it is right that there should be such a restriction. With this amendment a school board will still be able to take legal action against interference with its handling of a ballot or defend itself against legal action by others. Board members could not however maintain legal action unreasonably. They would be expected to take into account any general guidance from the Secretary of State and if necessary seek advice on the specific circumstances facing them. I beg to move.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking note of what was said in Committee on a clause which could have important financial repercussions on local authorities. We on this side of the House are glad to see the word "any" disappearing and the word "reasonable" coming in. In the circumstances there is no opposition to this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 14: Page 8, line 23, at end insert (", as appear to the Secretary of State to have been reasonably incurred by that board").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Arrangements in Respect of Ballot of Parents Regarding Acquisition of Self-Governing Status]:

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 15: Page 62, line 23, at end insert ("including information about the arrangements which the school proposes to adopt with respect to the admission of pupils and any special emphasis which will characterise the provision of education at the school.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment intends to ensure that certain in formation is available prior to the ballot and not after it so that parents are able to form a proper and reasoned judgment on whether self-governing school status should be sought for the school. Parents must be made aware of the major issues in the proposed nature of the school if it is to become self-governing before they vote in a ballot to decide whether such status should be sought. Of particular relevance are the arrangements which the school proposes to adopt on the admission of pupils and any special emphasis which will characterise the provision of education at the school. I believe that is a requirement of the board which must put forward these matters in proposals to the Secretary of State.

The amendment is an attempt to widen the area of information. If such vital information is included once the ballot has taken place it is possible that parents who have voted for self-governing status might find themselves opposed to the idea when they have seen the full proposals of which they were not initially aware. The answer on the ballot paper has to be yes or no, and that is why it is important that as much reasonable information as can be put to the parents should be available before the ballot.

The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, expressed the view in Committee that the amendment then being debated would raise as many problems as it attempted to solve. The present amendment is intended to meet the Minister's fears. We recognise that complexities may arise from time to time; but this amendment does not require a full prospectus to be available before a ballot. The point remains however that parents should have some idea of what self-governing status will mean for their children before they vote—whether those children are at the school or coming through Primary 6 or 7. It is not unreasonable to ask that fuller information should be given to parents. I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment for the very simple reason that it enables parents who have to make a decision about the future of a school do so from a position of knowledge. Surely that is reasonable and essential if such decisions are to have proper grounding and a good effect.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I am delighted to hear of anything which would give the voters more information on what they are voting about. Candidly, I think the vote is going to be one of the most confused, even in our parliamentary history. How are they to know how the school governors will behave in the future?

This amendment deals with one matter of great importance, that is: any special emphasis which will characterise the provision of education at the school". There are many parts of Orkney and Shetland and other parts of Scotland where the school is the only one possible; there is no question of choice. If the school opts to be private all the pupils in the area must go to a private school. So if this Bill were to take effect in Orkney it would be very important to know what would characterise the provision of education. For instance, in many parts of Orkney it is extremely important to teach something about navigation. I suspect that those who are voting would like to know whether when the school is privatised, it will teach navigation and other useful subjects which are widely taught in the Orkney schools at present.

Therefore, while I think that even with this amendment there will be great difficulties concerning the election and the ballot, I hope that the government will make it as mandatory as possible that the voters should be given the widest information.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have slightly misunderstood what the amendment is about and what the Bill says. We are not privatising schools in any way. They are self-governing schools paid for by the community charge payers, so they are not being privatised. There may be a case for suggesting that any changes which may take place in the near future should be indicated to the parents in the statute, but any essential characteristics of the school cannot be changed at this stage. That comes later, as would any changes in admission practices.

I know that the local authorities' concern is that the parents in the school should understand before they vote what it is that will happen to the school if they vote in favour. I have talked to a number of people about the matter since the last stage. The general feeling seems to be that any school which cannot persuade its parents that what will happen as a result of becoming self-governing will be in their interests will certainly not get a majority of people voting for it to become self-governing. If the parents are suspicious and in doubt they will either not vote or a majority will not vote in favour. It is perfectly reasonable to leave it to the school itself to persuade the parents that it is in their interests to go self-governing, and provide the information. It would be wrong to say that two particular things—admission and any special emphasis—should be put in the statute and that they should be required to talk particularly about that. It is not necessary to stipulate that admission policies should be required by law to be stated to the parents because in fact they cannot change. The same applies to any essential characteristics. So this is an unnecessary amendment.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, while it may be true that the amendment is not necessary, it is one which I think would help the parents. It may be very important for them to know whether the board have in mind any change in admission policy or, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, some special direction in which they plan to go. I see no harm in accepting that those two matters, which seem to be about the most important for any future of the school, be put down as guidance at the present time. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment, in some form or other, favourable consideration.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords this amendment is an attempt to oblige a school board which is calling a ballot on self-governing status to anticipate elements of the proposals—which are very important at the end of the day—which it would be obliged to publish after the ballot if the ballot result is positive.

We debated a very similar amendment in Committee and I need not repeat what I said then, except to emphasise that the intention embodied in the Bill, to which we still adhere, is that the ballot should take place on the simple question of whether the school is to become self-governing. It is not a ballot on questions of school policy: The later stage of publication of formal proposals gives a board adequate scope to develop and reveal its ideas on those matters and for parents and others to respond to them at that stage, when the proposals are with the Secretary of State. It would be open to the Secretary of State to modify the proposals, in response to representations received and in consultation with the school board. Clearly, if there is something in the proposals which is giving widespread cause for concern the Secretary of State will have to take account of that and take up the matter with the school board. It will make no sense for him to accept proposals which do not command clear parental support, since it is on that support that the future of the school will depend.

Mention was made of admission policies. As I think was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, in the first place, the scope for a school board to alter the school's admission arrangements or its character when it becomes self-governing is limited in a number of very significant respects. The basic characteristics of the school, as defined under Clause 16 of the Bill, simply cannot be varied at that point. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. If a school is non-selective, non-selective it must stay. Nor will a school be entitled to introduce any kind of discrimination on religious grounds, no public school in Scotland is entitled to turn away a pupil because of his or his parents' religious affiliation; and that provision, the so-called "conscience clause" will, by virtue of Schedule 10, paragraph 8(4) of this Bill apply equally to self-governing schools. And, more generally, the Government have repeatedly made it clear that parents will have the same right to request that their children be admitted to self-governing schools as they do to make placing requests to an education authority. Schedule 2 to the Bill guarantees that.

The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, put the point that parents may change their mind after the ballot when they see the proposals. I suggest that that is not a real fear. If parents in large numbers find reason to change their minds they can make representations to the Secretary of State. Indeed that happened in England. Large scale defection by parents would be a serious matter in the final decision of the Secretary of State. I think this is some reassurance for the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who quite rightly pointed out the difficulties that may occur in this area as far as may concern Orkney and Shetland.

The noble Lord also asked me whether the school would continue to provide the teaching of navigation in Orkney as it is important that most children in Orkney should understand about that. My answer to that is that, no school board promoting self-governing status will be in the business of alienating parents; they will frame proposals to attract and reassure parents. Otherwise, the whole point of seeking self-governing status would be lost.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. We put forward the amendment because of our concern that once this step is taken the chain of events which leads ultimately to self-governing status will be set in motion and parents will lose control. It will then depend on the good will of the Secretary of State to take note of objections. We have found that the use of the term "self-governing" has tended to beg questions as the debate has proceeded. However, the noble Lord has given a full reply. If notes for guidance as to what is to be published are to be given to the school boards, I would hope that, in keeping with his approach to the Bill, the Minister will bear in mind the terms of the amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 [Fresh ballot]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16: Page 8, line 42, leave out ("(other than a ballot held by virtue of this subsection)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in considering this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Amendment No. 17. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where there is a fresh ballot because of a low turnout at the first ballot, the result of the fresh ballot shall not be decisive if the turnout continues to remain low. If at the fresh ballot the turnout is less than 50 per cent. of eligible voters, a simple majority of votes cast in favour of seeking self-governing status will represent considerably less than a majority of eligible voters. If the result is accepted as decisive, it has to be assumed that those parents who abstained are not opposed to the change of status.

The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Consumer Council has made some comments on this matter. It says: Parents should have a right to abstain. A genuine inability to decide if opting out is desirable or not should not necessarily be termed apathy. Nor should abstentions be counted as support for opting out or opposition to it. Abstentions should be counted as abstentions". Surely therefore where a majority of parents has abstained and less than a majority of eligible voters has voted in favour of self-governing status, this is not a sound basis for a school board to proceed with proposals for the acquisition of self-governing status. For a school to succeed as an independent unit it must surely have the active support of at least a majority of the eligible parents.

We have often debated what abstention means. I wish to cite the case of the referendum in Scotland over devolution. It was quite clearly stated by all those who were opposed to devolution that an abstention was a vote against. I hope the Minister will not try to suggest that parents who were particularly keen not to have self-governing status would vote. Those who were really keen would not vote. There may be a large number of abstentions. In the devolution referendum, roughly one-third abstained. They were considered by many people, particularly by noble Lords on the Benches opposite, to be against devolution. It was one of the points that brought the devolution argument down. This is a fairly important amendment and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, the provision in the Bill, whereby there is to be a second ballot if the turnout at the first ballot is less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote, was inserted by the Government in another place in response to just the kind of concern that has been expressed by the noble Lord. It is common ground between us that the second ballot should be final: and nobody wants an indefinite series of ballots. Indeed, as a result of the amendment to Clause 14 which your Lordships agreed earlier, after a negative ballot result the matter cannot be re-opened for two years, and not just for the 12 months as proposed in this amendment.

The defect in the amendment however is that it gives a vote of apathy. It is in effect an incitement to abstention; and the problem about that is that it makes the result hard to interpret. If this amendment were made, any Secretary of State would be perplexed to know what to make of a result on a second ballot which yielded a high yes vote on a low turnout. He would have no means of knowing how many of the abstentions represented genuine indecision or mere apathy and how many represented real opposition.

I can assure the House, if assurance is needed, that the Secretary of State would have to take full account of the ballot result, not only in the sense of looking at the percentage voting each way, but of the turnout too. A low turnout on a second ballot could well be an indicator that there was not sufficient general positive support for the idea of self-governing status to give grounds for confidence that the school really had a future as a self-governing school. It is in just such circumstances that a Secretary of State might well decide not to give the school self-governing status. I cannot say too often that the Secretary of State will have to weigh up all relevant factors in coming to his decision. The Government, after all, want self-governing schools to be popular and successful. It will be in nobody's interest to take on schools which do not command strong and enthusiastic parental support. The ballot result will not itself be the sole or necessarily the main determing factor in the Secretary of State's decision, although it is an important consideration. But a low turnout on a second ballot may well be a factor influencing the Secretary of State towards rejection. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will understand why I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may say that the Minister's replies seem to place on the Secretary of State the most extraordinary onus. We are told again and again that he will have to weigh this consideration with that consideration and that he will have to take this into account and that into account. We shall need a special Secretary of State to run this Act alone. It is highly undesirable that Parliament should pass a Bill which entails such an extraordinary breadth of examination by a Secretary of State.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord says. We have been here before —last year —and we can now look at the book rather than look at the crystal. We can see that in England and Wales the Secretary of State for Education and Science has, on turnouts as high as 88 per cent. rejected schools with yes votes. This is a complicated area. We are dealing with children's lives and with their education. No responsible government can possibly do other than take into account all factors for this permissive legislation—and that is what it is.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, we all have in mind the wonders of various Secretaries of State; but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who has been in Parliament for a long time, is not so naive as to think that the Secretary of State sits up at night working out whether this or that should happen.

The Minister has to some extent answered the question. It was important to discuss yet again the question of minorities being able to decide. I hope that by our raising it at each stage the Secretary of State will be more aware than he would have been otherwise that a keen eye is watching all these decisions and all the results of ballots. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

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

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18: Page 9, line 3, leave out ("simple").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, let me assure the House that there is nothing sinister in my moving this amendment. However, it seems to me that the adjective "simple" is unnecessary and should therefore be omitted, unless there is some hidden reason for it of which I am totally unaware. The Oxford English Dictionary supports me in my contention. Under the word "majority" it says, "of votes" and then the definition reads: more than half of the number of electors or actual votes". Therefore, that is enough; there is no reason for the word "simple". I recall Gertrude Stein whose words on a rose were: A rose is a rose is a rose". However, I would paraphrase the wording and say: a majority is a majority is a majority. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, this is another way of trying to express general anxiety over the question of the role of the number of parents voting. Although I am sure that the Minister will probably have something to say about the actual wording of the amendment, I am totally in favour of the spirit which lies behind it. We all know what that spirit is. However, whether it is possible to place this in a Bill is perhaps another matter. But, if the noble Earl wished to press the matter further, I should certainly support him.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, may I ask whether we are discussing Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 at the same time?

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I think that the noble Earl was speaking t, Amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 21. I think that was the grouping which was advised.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, to assist matters perhaps we could dispose of Amendment No. 18 and then move on to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

I always listen to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as regards matters of drafting. He is absolutely right in what he said. We, being simple souls, decided that we would put the word "simple" into the Bill to ensure that there was no difficulty as to what was meant. However, the noble Earl is right and, if it is the wish of the House, I should be quite agreeable to accept that amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I must say that that makes me wonder why these two amendments were originally grouped together. This has rather put us off. However, I certainly see the point and I am pleased with what the Minister said. Moreover, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will feel the same.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, yes.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 19: Page 9, line 6, at end insert— ("( ) The Secretary of State in reaching his final decision will take into account the percentage of parents voting out of those eligible to vote and except in very exceptional circumstances he will not grant self-governing status unless the percentage is substantially greater than the majority of parents eligible to vote").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I find myself in some trouble here with the grouping. Amendment No. 19, is totally different from Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. We find the same problem as regards Amendments Nos. 27 and 38. I shall certainly want to move Amendment No. 19, Amendment No. 27 or Amendment No. 38. They are all similar but with slight differences in drafting as they refer to different parts of the Bill. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendment No. 19, providing that we discuss the other two amendments which I have mentioned at the same time.

In Committee many of us supported the idea that there should be a two-thirds majority of those voting or of those eligible to vote before there should be a change in the status of a school. The Minister explained why he was unable to accept that proposition. I have attempted, by way of Amendment No. 19, to find a compromise which might achieve what we wanted earlier and which might also make it possible for the Government to accept what is proposed.

Our proposition does not lay down any statutory obligation that these majorities should prevail before anything happens. It is up to the Secretary of State to decide the weight given to the majority. However, in so doing we ask that unless there are very special circumstances he will take into account the majority of those eligible to vote, and only if that was considerable would he decide one way or the other.

I should like to stress two matters: first, we ask that the majority of those eligible to vote should be a determining factor; and, secondly, we ask that in the last analysis we leave it to the Secretary of State to decide, but that we should try to give him some guidance in the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, speaking for myself I should briefly like to say that I support the spirit of the amendment: but, unfortunately, it would be very difficult, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to put what is proposed into operation because the phrase, "substantially greater" could perhaps mean all things to all men. As I understand the Government's position, in their simplicity they will never move from the word "simple". I take it that the amendment will not be acceptable to the Government, albeit that it is moved in the spirit of ensuring that an element of democracy will be maintained within the school system.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

My Lords, the noble Earl said that he was giving guidance to the Secretary of State in the matter. However, is it not rather more than guidance if one puts into the statute that, he will not grant self-governing status unless…"?

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for proposing this amendment. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I should find it most difficult to accept the amendment as it stands. I understand what the noble Earl is aiming for and I am indeed attracted by the wording of the first part of his amendment which reads: The Secretary of State in reaching his final decision will take into account the percentage of parents voting out of those eligible to vote". I think that we have already said that the Secretary of State will be doing so. If it helps the noble Earl I am prepared to look at that wording to see whether we should put this on the face of the Bill. Of course, it pulls that particular consideration out from all the other considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said would be many arid various. However, I am quite prepared to look at that part of the amendment; but, as to the wording thereafter, such as, except in very exceptional circumstances", and, "substantially greater" and so on, I am afraid that I cannot agree to giving that further consideration. I must therefore turn down the noble Earl's offer, despite his good intentions.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I think that half a loaf is better than none. Nevertheless, before I withdraw the amendment in the light of the Minister's remarks, I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that I accept in certain circumstances that the Secretary of State could decide otherwise. However, l am only explaining my point and it is not important.

I thank the Minister for what he said. In my view it is most important that we should know that the part concerning those who are eligible to vote is something with which the Government go along. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 20: Page 9, line 7, 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, I must apologise to the House and, in particular, to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for getting the groupings mixed up. The Minister will be aware that they were easy to mix up. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which are grouped together, deal with ballots. We have dealt with the ballots fairly exhaustively. I understand from the Minister's reply that he is unlikely to change his views on whether the majority should be two-thirds and so forth, and so I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 22: Page 9, line 21, leave out ("5") and insert ("4").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which replaces an incorrect reference. My noble friend Lord Balfour was correct when, during the discussion on parental majority, he warned us of the pitfalls involved in adding new paragraphs to Schedule 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Ballot expenses]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24: Page 10, line 38, after ("received") insert ("from a school board"). Page 10, line 39, leave out ("from a school board") and insert ("either of a first resolution or of a request,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 19 [Rejection or approval of proposals]:

[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 26: Page 11, line 24, at end insert ("and in rejecting or approving proposals in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection, he shall publish reasons for his decision").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to publish his reasons for accepting or rejecting proposals for a school to become self-governing. Representations from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Scottish Consumer Council are in favour of the amendment. I seem to recall that those are the two bodies upon which the Minister called for assistance at an earlier stage of the Bill as justification for his opposition to an amendment moved from these Benches.

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council put the matter in this way: If the parents of a school have voted in favour of applying for self-governing status and that application is rejected, it would be in the interests of all parties concerned and particularly those parents, to know why the application had been rejected. If the Secretary of State approves, or approves with modifications proposals for self-governing status, it would be in the public interest for the criteria he used in reaching his decision, to be known".

The Scottish Consumer Council put it another way: Parents and others with a stake in the school concerned have an interest in understanding the reasoning behind the Secretary of State's decision to grant or reject an application for self-governing status—as indeed have other schools which might be considering whether to seek self-government. Although the Secretary of State will want to consider each case on its merits, knowing the reasoning behind his decisions is likely to be of considerable help to schools resubmitting proposals or to other schools drawing up proposals for the first time".

That is a fairly simple proposition. It is another part of what I call the information process. It will assist the public to understand what is going on in the education system. On that basis, I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I support the amendment on the simple ground that public knowledge is generally a good thing. Anyone who is considering taking a decision to opt out, or any decisions related to it, should know what has happened before in other circumstances. I suggest that the amendment is a good idea.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, as usual, the point is not as simple as it might appear. I see the thrust of the amendment and take note of the bodies which came forward with the proposal.

Where the Secretary of State is empowered under statutory provisions to take decisions which affect the rights of others, it is not usual specifically to require him to provide reasons, but it is established law that he must take his decision reasonably. In other words, he must not act in an arbitrary manner and must base any decisions he takes on relevant, and not irrelevant, considerations. In order to demonstrate that he has acted in accordance with the law, the Secretary of State will need to show that he has taken account of any representations he has received and any other relevant information known to him when he gives his decision. His decision will be communicated to the school board concerned, which is the body having a direct interest in the decision in question.

The amendment is unnecessary; nor would it be desirable to write in such a provision. If it were to be added to the Bill, it would not be clear whether it would be imposing some duty different from that already imposed under the general principles of administrative law. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to suggest that the courts would not, if required, be vigilant in their review of the reasonableness of any decision taken by the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows more about the law of Scotland than I do. I have no doubt that he will recall cases on that point. There are one or two important cases to which he could refer. I hope that on reflection he will understand that while the spirit of the amendment is understood, the fact remains that I have to reject it.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. One of the reasons for moving the amendment is that when dealing with self-governing schools we are dealing with a special point of public involvement. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the more people who know what is going on, the better it is for the community as a whole. It is not clear from the Minister's answer whether the school board will be given a bland yes or no from the Secretary of State, and rejects, accepts or modifies without giving reasons. However, like so many things in the Bill, we shall have to wait to see what comes out at the end of the day. Having heard the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Clause 21 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of self-governing status on proposals for alteration etc. of schools]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 28: Page 12, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("either of a first resolution or of a request").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of self-governing status on appointment etc. of staff]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31: Page 14, line 6, after ("received") insert ("from a school board"). Page 14, line 7, leave out ("from a school board") and insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request,"). Page 14, line 23, at end insert— ("(aa) in a case where the notice received was of a first resolution, forty-six days have passed since the date of that resolution without the education authority having received written notice, under subsection (6) of section 13 of this Act, of a second resolution;")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 32: Page 20, line 4, after ("board") insert ("held, subject to subsection (1A) below, not less than five years after the incorporation date").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. These amendments impose a delay of five years after it is set up on a self-governing school using the procedure in Clause 30 to alter the school's fundamental characteristics, with the provision that the Secretary of State may waive the normal requirement. That is in line with the policy we have already expressed in a recent draft circular which was issued by the Scottish Education Department on self-governing schools. It also discharges another of the undertakings that I gave in Committee.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister for having agreed to this point in Committee, and for having found a way to express it in the amendments which we support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 33: Page 20, line 8, at end insert— ("(1A) With the prior written consent of the Secretary of State a motion for such a resolution as is mentioned in subsection (1) above may be determined at a meeting of the board of management held at a date earlier than subsection (1) above would require.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 34: Page 20, line 28, after ("State") insert ("and to the education authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. These two amendments require copies of certain formal proposals by a self-governing school to go to the education authority and in the second case also to any denominational body connected with the school.

It is appropriate that an education authority receives from the board of management a copy of proposals, whether they are in respect of a change of characteristics or the discontinuance of a self-governing school. They will have a real and immediate interest in both cases and the Secretary of State will look for comments from the authority before reaching any decision. Proposals for discontinuance should also be sent to any denominational body connected with the school, as has been the practice in earlier clauses. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 36: Page 20, line 39, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. These amendments deal with the final decision by the Secretary of State on proposals from a self-governing school to change its characteristics. They place on the Secretary of State an explicit requirement to have regard to the likely impact of the change on the general provision of school education made for the area. This is achieved by reference to the basic duty placed on an education authority by Section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to secure adequate and efficient provision of school education for their area. The Secretary of State will be required to have regard to any representations made by the education authority about the effect of proposed changes on the discharge of their duty.

The amendments discharge an undertaking I gave in Committee to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for that amendment. Some of us felt that it was somewhat overdue when we discussed it last time. I am sure the House will appreciate that this is an enormous improvement to the Bill. It will be a great relief to the local authorities who particularly wished to see the provision inserted.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 37 is under discussion. I wish to take advantage of that in order to return to a point I raised in Committee. I apologise to your Lordships for this manoeuvre, but my excuse is that in Committee the Minister kindly said that he would contact me about my remarks.

I have received a letter from Mrs. Lovell of his department, but I received it only yesterday so I was unable to put down any amendments. I preface my remarks by stressing that I meant my earlier suggestions seriously. We cannot leave everything to the discretion of the Secretary of State. We must ensure that in the Bill there are adequate and firm commitments in the name of Parliament. We have learnt to our bitter cost that in spite of discussing the community charge for days on end it has turned out that there is considerable confusion over it, to say the least.

The point I raised in Committee affects Orkney and Shetland, where ordinary school education and further education are deeply entwined. They are conducted by the same staff in the same building; they are administered by the same administrators. The people who clean the classrooms and open the doors are the same. I wished to know how this situation would fare under the new Bill.

I understand that the Minister approved the letter I received, so we must take it that he knows all about it. It talks about colleges of education, which I am not concerned about. It then states: further education could be run as an integrated whole, by a single governing body". I should be very grateful for a further explanation of that. Would the single governing body be the governing body of the school? Would it be an ad hoc body? How would it be appointed?

The letter continues with what I found to be a very alarming statement: Naturally it would be for the Board of Management of such a self-governing school to decide whether to continue to provide further education, and for the education authority to decide whether to fund it". That means that if Kirkwall Grammar School became a private school, the whole of education would be at the mercy of the decision of the board of management. I do not think that that can be right.

Kirkwall and Stromness conduct all further education between them. It cannot be right that their board of management decides whether or not the children of Orkney as a whole should have further education. It is clearly the will of Parliament that they should have further education. It is not for the board of management to decide to cut it out. However, it could do so under the Bill. From what the Minister says, it is the Bill that counts. The board could do that, and we must ensure that under the Bill it is prevented from doing so, however sensible we may assume it to be.

The letter further talks about, a determination which may be made when assigning the property". I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that. What is "a determination"? Perhaps we should consult the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I suspect that "determination" is a learned word from the repertory of the Scottish Bar. The letter then says that it will be decided by the new body—whatever it is —what facilities will be available. Again, I think that we must make it clear that there is a duty to provide facilities.

At the very end the letter states: The alternative to continued use of these facilities by the authority might be the building of a new further education college". I cannot believe that the Government contemplate building a new college of further education in Orkney for 25,000 people when at present that is perfectly satisfactorily carried on at little cost under the present system.

To my mind we need firmly written into the Bill a provision which states that further education shall continue in Orkney; which explains how it is to be controlled; which explains what the breakdown is to be between the local authority and the board of governors; or, if that is not the case, then who is to have sole control. It is generally agreed that the local authority should have some say in the matter. According to the letter sent to me, it might have none at all. It could also be that the Government are involved in enormous expense in creating an entirely new form of further education in Orkney and Shetland.

I realise that the whole of this speech is out of order but I should be most grateful if at a future date when I am in order the Minister would explain rather more fully and clearly how further education in Orkney is to be catered for.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the noble Lord, whether he is out of order or not, is entitled to some explanation from me. I apologise for the fact that the letter reached him only yesterday. We have not had much time between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I apologise for that.

I wish to make clear that I approved the letter and that it covered every possible avenue which the noble Lord might pursue with me at a later date. Perhaps I should indicate to the noble Lord that the letter makes clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has such a strong interest that he would wish to see a firm agreement before allowing such a school to become self-governing in the first place. He himself makes that clear. I doubt very much whether my right honourable friend would want a new building for further education in Kirkwall when the building used for the school at present is perfectly satisfactory. That is covered in my letter. If Kirkwall School wished to become self-governing, it would have to present a prospectus to the Secretary of State.

The letter says: It would also be possible for the articles of management of a board of management to include an obligation to have regard to further education interests, and for a further education representative to be co-opted to the board". That covers that point. The board of management will have the responsibility for school education, and will be funded by recurrent grant under the Bill. The board could by agreement provide further education and have that funded by an education authority. In other words, I think it is highly unlikely that if my right honourable friend were presented with a case for self-government of Kirkwall School—that school covers such a big area of secondary education —he could possibly do anything other than accept the point which the education authority would rightly make, which is that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide that further education continuity is maintained. I believe when the noble Lord considers the letter, he will see that it points to the fact that on the face of this Bill the worries he expressed are covered.

Schedule 8 paragraph 2 provides the Secretary of State with a means of resolving disputes between an education authority and a self-governing school as regards the division of property and facilities which are presently used partly by the school and partly by the authority for purposes such as further education.

I shall look carefully at the points that the noble Lord has made to see whether the letter has not covered explicitly enough the concerns the noble Lord raised at a previous stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 37: Page 20, line 40, after ("subsection") insert ("and after having regard to any representations from the education authority as to the probable effect of the proposed change on the fulfilment by them of their duty under section 1 of the 1980 Act (duty to secure that there be made for their area adequate and efficient provision of school education)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Schedule 7 [Arrangements in Respect of Ballot of Parents Regarding Change in Characteristics of Self-Governing School]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 39: Page 66, line 38, at end insert — ("(aa) without prejudice to subparagraph (a) below, given such information about the consequences for the school of the proposed change in characteristics as may resonably be expected to enable him to form a proper judgment as to whether the change should be sought for the school;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this gives effect to an undertaking I gave in Committee on information to be supplied with a ballot. The amendment ensures that voters in a ballot for a change in characteristics will have adequate information to make a reasonable judgment. It mirrors the wording in paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 3 on ballots for acquisition of self-governing status. It is reasonable and logical to have similar wording in Schedule 7, and this amendment puts this in place. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Discontinuance by board of management]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 40: Page 21, line 28, after ("State") insert (",to the education authority and, where the school is a denominational school, to the church or other denominational body in whose interest the school is managed)".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I did not attend the Committee stage of this Bill and I have been content to sit quietly and be interested a nd educated as we proceeded on Report. However, I wish to refer to the words "denominational school" in the amendment. The amendment proposes that the education authority will be advised of the measure and that where: the school is a denominational school", notice will also be given: to the church, or other denominational body in whose interest the school is managed. I did not think the schools were managed in the interests of a denominational body. I wonder whether the phraseology is correct in this case. I know that we shall discuss later the relationship between denominational bodies and education in general in Scotland; but I wonder whether the phraseology is appropriate in this case.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I am interested to note that the noble Lord picks up terminology. My understanding is that a denominational body will have a real and immediate interest in both cases. The Secretary of State would look for comments from the authority before reaching any decision. In appropriate cases, he would also look for comments from a denominational body.

We have indeed used the same terminology as was used in the 1980 Act. I shall look carefully to see whether there is anything sinister about the wording; but as your Lordships passed the 1980 Act, I cannot imagine that that is the case.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I wish to console the noble Lord who has raised this matter. Having been chairman of governors of a Catholic school, I can say that it is certainly true that that school dealt with the interests of the Church, often before anything else, as some of us know to our cost. However, perhaps things are different in Scotland.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 [Transfer of land, moveable property and obligations to board of management]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 41: Page 26, line 6, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Reduction of disposals of property by education authority]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 42: Page 29, line 5, after ("Act") insert (",either of a first resolution or of a request").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Prevention of disposals of property by education authority]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45: Page 29, line 24, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request"). Page 29, line 32, at end insert— ("(aa) in a case where the notice received was of a first resolution, forty-six days have passed since the date of that resolution without the education authority having received written notice, under subsection (6) of section 13 of this Act, of a second resolution; or"). Page 29, line 45, at end insert ("mentioned in subsection (1) above").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 45 [Reduction or setting aside of disposals made in contravention of section 43]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 46: Page 30, line 31, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Removal of property from school by education authority]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 47: Page 31, line 17, after ("Act") insert (", either of a first resolution or of a request").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 48: After Clause 53 insert the following new Clause —

("Making of attendance orders

In the event of any dispute arising between the education authority and the board of management as regards the reasonableness of an attendance order requiring a child to attend a self-governing school, the matter may be referred to the Secretary of State, whose decision in that regard shall be final.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 59. The purpose of this new clause is to allow an education authority to make an attendance order requiring a child to attend a self-governing school, without having first to obtain the consent of the school's board of management, and to enable a board of management to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if it felt a particular attendance order was unreasonable.

We have discussed this matter before because, as it stands, the Bill would only allow the education authority the right to make an attendance order in relation to its own schools. A self-governing school could be designated only if the managers of that school agree to take the child. There are very valid reasons for being concerned that a board of management of a self-governing school may wish to exclude permanently those pupils who do not co-operate with the school authorities. Where for example there is a child in a class who has behavioural problems, it is not uncommon for the parents of other children in the class to put pressure on the school to exclude that child. In addition, more staff time is required to deal properly with a child who has behavioural problems, and the school may prefer to allocate those additional resources elsewhere.

The problems which will arise if a self-governing school in a rural area seeks permanently to exclude difficult pupils are obvious. Alternative educational arrangements are likely to be difficult to organise and are also likely to be costly. Problems of a different nature could also arise in urban areas. For example, where there is an education authority school close to a self-governing school, the former could find itself the recipient of unwanted recalcitrants from the opted out school. I apologise for using that term in connection with young children. The education authority school could find itself the recipient of children from opted out schools who did not fit the pattern of those schools.

It must be recognised that in such circumstances reasonableness should prevail. However, it would not be right for an education authority school to find itself in the position of having to take on a disproportionate number of difficult pupils. It is therefore appropriate that legislation provides for such a situation to preserve the balance of interests.

While it is hoped that education authorities and the managers of self-governing schools will manage such matters in a sensitive and reasonable way, the inclusion of the new clause will ensure that neither education authorities nor boards of management will act in a high-handed manner. I am sure the Minister understands the drift of our argument. We discussed the matter on 12th October, although perhaps not as fully as we would have wished. I know the Minister will have considered that debate and will have given the matter serious consideration. If the words of our amendment are not suitable, perhaps he can suggest a new form of words. I beg to move.

6 P.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. It is a genuine concern of the local authorities that a self-governing school might abuse its position. It is tempting to remove difficult pupils from the school roll because it costs more to contain a difficult pupil within a school. That is particularly so in a small school or where there is a group of pupils who present a problem for the school. As the noble Lord said, it could be a particular problem in a remote rural area.

I am not clear—perhaps I should know—what recourse is available to a local authority if the position is abused. I hope that my noble friend will explain the situation. If it would be difficult for the local authority, the possibility that the matter might be referred to the Secretary of State is an appealing one. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to my noble friend's reply.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, this is a difficult area and it is one that we discussed in Committee. Perhaps I may try to paint the picture again, and I apologise for going back to the matter. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for bringing forward such an amendment. We shall look at it in detail. The fact that it has been tabled at rather a late stage and covers a tricky area means that when I have finished I shall tell noble Lords what I should like to happen to the amendment.

It would be unprecedented in our legislation for a school to be obliged to admit a pupil against the judgment of its own managers. The situation of self-governing schools will in that respect be no different from that of the former grant-aided schools. There is, however, a difference from the situation in the days of the grant-aided schools in that we now have the "parents charter". That is the legislation defining the right of a parent to have his child admitted to an education authority school of his choice. Similar provisions will apply to self-governing schools. That is relevant to the point we are discussing because, as I explained to your Lordships in Committee, the normal procedure where an attendance order is to be made is to give the parent an opportunity to nominate the school which his child shall attend.

An education authority, or in future a self-governing school, can refuse such a request if either the child has already been excluded from that school or his admission would be likely to be seriously detrimental to order and discipline in the school. Furthermore, there is provision under the 1980 Act, and will be under this Bill, for appeal against any refusal of admission, first, to an independent committee and ultimately to the sheriff.

That means in practice that if the parent nominates a self-governing school in connection with an attendance order the onus is on the school to show good reason why it should not admit the child, and if it refuses admission the matter is subject to appeal, ultimately to the sheriff. In that respect the self-governing school is essentially in the same situation as the public school.

I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for drawing this matter to our attention. I should certainly hope that the kind of case to which the amendment refers would be rare and that where such a case arose it would be dealt with by reasoned discussion between the education authority and the board of management of the school. If a self-governing school were arbitrarily and unreasonably refusing to take a pupil then, as I have shown, there is an avenue of appeal already establised for the parents. However, just as an education authority has the right to bar a child from one of its schools because of his record of disruptive behaviour, so it is right that a self-governing school should have the same power.

The fact that a school has become self-governing, and a pupil has been excluded from it, will not in essence change the position as regards the education authority's obligations. If the pupil has been excluded from one of the authority's schools, the authority would be in the same position of having to find some suitable alternative school for the troublesome pupil.

It is the Government's intention to provide for self-governing schools regulations on the exclusion of pupils from such a school. These will mirror those currently applicable in respect of education authority schools (power to provide regulations will be under Clause 7(7)). A board of management w ill, therefore, have to observe the same criteria for the exclusion of a pupil from its school as in the case of an education authority. Moreover, parents will have the same rights of appeal against a board of management's exclusion as they would were they dealing with the education authority. Provisions in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill already deal with that situation in a way comparable to that provided for under the 1980 Act.

I hope that it can be seen that any board of management will in practice have to act in accordance with the law on the exclusion of pupils. That will be in line with the same strict criteria for exclusion which apply to education authorities themselves. It is, moreover, appropriate that a similar structure of parental rights of appeal be maintained in this context, as will be the case with placing requests. That is currently achLeved under the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Ultimately, the courts should be the arbiters of the legality, and thus reasonableness, of a board of management's decision to exclude a pupil.

I am attracted by the suggestion which the noble Lord has presented as to how the education authority will be placed once the Bill becomes an Act. In this very difficult area, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to take the matter away. At this stage I am not persuaded that the existing provisions in the Bill and other statutes are insufficient to meet the points raised. I also want to be assured that a self-governing school does not become a "dustbin" for an education authority, just as the education authority does not want to have difficult negotiations with the self-governing school. It is a question of getting the balance right. If we find that the solution proposed by the noble Lord merits further consideration I shall be in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat perhaps I may intrude a thought which he might consider. I have not taken part in the various stages of the Bill—for a good and proper reason from my own point of view—although I made a minor contribution at Second Reading. The Minister may recall—and if he does not I shall remind him—that I view the Bill with distaste. I regard it as a Bill of the utmost partisan prejudice on the part of a very' Right-wing Conservative Administration. I regard it as one which will go a long way towards ruining the essential comprehensive nature of the Scottish educational system, the inherent nature of which I have long supported.

Be that as it may, if the Minister is to take this matter away, perhaps he would consider this thought. It is likely, although not inevitable, that the prejudice and bias of a board of management will be in marked contrast to the prejudice and bias of an education authority. Where one goes from that point might be a very interesting thought for him to consider as he comes back to your Lordshsips' House.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and my noble friend for giving some backing to the amendment. Considered together with the seriousness with which the Minister viewed the matter that suggests that we have touched upon something rather important.

Leaving aside the basic objections which my noble friend Lord Kirkhill expressed about the Bill, which we have expressed throughout the discussions, we are left with a Bill which we have tried to improve. With the help of the Minister I believe that we have made a number of improvements.

However, there are still problems. There is the possibility of a school being used as a "sump" by the local authorities or schools which have opted out. I am concerned that a troublesome pupil might be pushed around between schools. Within a matter of, say, two years so much damage could be done to a troublesome pupil because there was a way out for the opted-out school that he would never recover.

I am also concerned about who may make an appeal. I do not think that it is fair that only an independent school should be enabled to reject a pupil. It is asking a great deal for the parents to then take up the matter. Surely the education authority, which is responsible for all the other schools, has some right to say, "No, we think that you are unfairly refusing that child and sending him to our school or forcing us to look after him. We believe that your school would be better".

I am grateful to the Minister for looking at the matter and wish to ask him whether the education authority will also have some rights to appeal at the very least to defend its own system. The school might be ringed by a group of independent schools which continually send to it those children whom it considers troublesome or perhaps just not academically good enough, thus raising its own status. It is important that the education authority, as well as the parents and the independent schools, should have a right to appeal. I hope that the Minister will look at these matters when he tries to find another form of words to satisfy the amendment.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—I am glad to see him in his place—that I remember his major speech at Second Reading. His views are well known. It is also well known that there are at present very good academies of knowledge, which are not unconnected with the independence of education, in the city of Aberdeen. However, we shall leave that matter on one side.

I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, an assurance that guidance to self-governing schools will make it clear that they have a wide responsibility to accept pupils and draw particular attention to the need for a self-governing school to pay careful attention to the regulations governing the exclusion of pupils which will be extended to cover self-governing schools. However, I accept that the area of concern to the noble Lord is that of the education authority which may be put in a difficult position. That is why I have agreed, without commitment at this stage, to look at the matter and see whether his amendment helps us to deal with a difficult situation in a difficult area.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66 [Transfer of staff to companies formed by virtue of section 65]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 49: Page 44, line 44, leave out ("made") and insert ("agreed").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 50

These are drafting amendments to ensure consistency of usage in references to schemes for companies to manage colleges of further education. Under Clause 65, it is clear that any such scheme must be agreed by the college council, the education authority and the Secretary of State, and the term "agreed" rather than "made" is used in references already in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 50: Page 45, line 21, leave out ("made") and insert ("agreed").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 69 [Testing in primary schools]:

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 51 Page 47, line 21, leave out ("as to the testing") and insert ("for diagnostic assessment, as an integral part of teaching across the whole curriculum,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 to 55. The amendments all form part of an approach to the question of testing children in primary schools which we debated before at some length. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that reserve powers would be used to set out regulations about diagnostic assessment rather than nationally standardised tests.

As is probably well known to the House, the Government's proposals for the revision of curriculum and assessment arrangements for Scottish primary schools include the introduction of a nationally standardised test in English and mathematics at primary stages 4 and 7. That issue was debated at length in Committee and I do not propose to go over that ground again.

It is considered that the proposals for national testing should be if not abandoned certainly watered down more than somewhat, and that encouragement should be given to the development of good assessment practice in primary education. The essential requirement is for what is called diagnostic assessment as an integral part of teaching across the whole curriculum, the object of diagnostic assessment being to find out the cause of pupils' difficulties and about their progress as a basis for constructive action by the parents and the school relating to the needs and progress of the child.

There has been at least one survey showing that 67 per cent. of primary school parents were not against the issue of testing as such and preferred it to the harsher regime of the examination. But it was found that, on balance, parents preferred the diagnostic and continuous assessment of the child rather than the stage-posts of primary 4 and primary 7. It is for that reason that we have tabled the amendments.

It may be—the Minister may wish to consider this point—that the nationally standardised tests in English and mathematics could still be applied at primary 4 and primary 7, but only as a parallel form of assessment with the more individual diagnostic assessment of each child. Given the pressure of the primary 4 and primary 7 stages in only two subjects, there is a danger that, if a diagnostic and individual assessment and a continual assessment are not part of the educational system, the needs of the individual child may be lost in the general testing of the two stages. I beg to move.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I should like to add my support for the amendment from these Benches. The term "testing" has a somewhat prescriptive and authoritarian connotation and is definitely ominous in sound to the less able children, for whom I always feel inclined to say a word, and may well start them on their downward spiral of self-devaluation.

After all, the object of education is to look at the whole child and to discover his or her strengths as well as his or her weaknesses. It seems to me that that object is much better expressed by a term such as "diagnostic assessment" than just by the bare word "testing". The object of testing should ultimately be to provide an individual profile, not to place a child in a league table, which is what this sounds rather too like. I support the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I find that the discussion of diagnostic assessment becomes almost a theology when it enters the school system. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that it is considered testing should be abandoned. He did not say by whom. There is a fear among the teaching profession of the idea of testing at those two stages. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has put that fear into words.

However, to balance that, one must recognise that all over Scotland ordinary parents feel that they have a right to know what a child—the average child at a certain age—should be able to do and know, and whether their child can do those things, is perhaps a bit of a late developer or is advanced in his or her development or is about average. People want to know those things and, in my view, they have every right to do so. That is all that the tests are set to do. There is no question of a league table. We do not want to have all that discussion all over again.

However, it is quite wrong to say that there is something wrong with that proposal just because the teaching profession is afraid that it might be noticed that one class is all behind and another class is all ahead. There is no harm in teachers' performance being diagnosed as a result of testing, as well as that of individuals. It seems to me that assessment of the progress of individual pupils in all good teaching will continue. There is nothing to stop that. Of course one cannot teach well without doing that. One must look at individuals to see whether one is succeeding.

However, one cannot deny parents this particular type of testing. Apparently 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of parents said that they would like it; but then, when asked whether they would want individual diagnostic assessment as well, they said that yes, they did. They are quite right. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

I hope that this amendment will be resisted by the Government because I think that people deserve and want what is being offered in the Bill.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, once again I must rise in support of the teaching profession. Teachers are constantly under attack by the Government who have stimulated a general attack now throughout the community. A good comparison can be made with the police. We are always looking for a whipping boy for the evils of our society. The right reverend Prelate seemed a little more thoughtful and chose the pharisaic attitude.

There is no doubt about it. My words may sound rather harsh but when I taught in primary school what one might call diagnostic assessment was always done. It was an automatic action taken every term. The teachers sat round a table and discussed each child. There is nothing very revolutionary about that process.

As regards constant testing, the noble Baroness suggested that teachers did not want it because it might make them look as though they were bad teachers. I have said over and over again that if one is teaching (as I have taught) children who are dull and backward—as they were then rather brutally called—the results will be totally different from those of the next class which consists of highly intelligent children. However, I defy anyone—any education authority or inspector—to say that one teacher is better than another. I do not believe that such tests can be applied. All sorts of factors come into the equation, including the surroundings and quality of the people involved.

I think that that is very important. In the measure for England and Wales there was too much about assessment of teachers. They were to be paid a little more if they were found to be better than some other teacher.

Teaching is a very proud profession and if that is the only reason that can be advanced for not accepting this amendment, I must say that it is not a good one.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she accept from me that teachers are certainly not whipping boys for anything in Scotland? Teachers are enormously respected. There is a very wide respect for the teaching profession in Scotland among ordinary people. I was simply questioning the removing of this testing, nothing else.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness as an aside that I heartily agree with my noble friend on this matter, and perhaps I can give evidence of that.

We want tests to sit naturally with the curriculum as the teacher will plan and deliver it. We do not want tests to be seen as alien or intrusive.

For that reason we think that the best persons to write the tests are the teachers themselves. Accordingly we have invited them to participate and I have to say that the response has been very enthusiastic, almost overwhelming. Every education authority in Scotland has responded positively as well as many from among the colleges of education, university departments and research institutes. The result is that we have about 170 volunteers, and a training conference was held for those volunteers in Dunblane this very day.

This is a most encouraging start to the testing programme and, if this Bill is passed, suggests that the teaching profession at least regards the testing programme as a challenge to which it wants to rise rather than to consider it as an imposition. However I take most seriously what has been said on this issue, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, with his knowlege of the subject. Diagnostic assessment is an important and valuable part of the assessment process. We have never denied that. Indeed, we wish to encourage it and make it more effective. I understand that it has been carried through in Fife with great success in far more detail than in our proposals. Hence, one of the important outcomes of the major development programme which has been instituted in Scotland for the 5 to 14 stages of education is the production of national I advice to schools on assessment policy and practice to bring about those improvements.

But diagnostic assessment is highly specific. It attempts to diagnose the causes of particular learning difficulties which have been encountered by an individual child. In my view it is not a blanket process. It should not be applied to all children indiscriminately.

Our proposals for national testing are broader and provide a necessary prelude to more specific forms of assessment. They will indicate to teachers and parents as well—that is very important—how every child at primary 4 and primary 7 is progressing in language and mathematics in relation to nationally agreed and commonly understood criteria. They will provide a yardstick for teachers to check their own assessment of pupils' progress; and for parents to gauge how well their children are doing in terms which are comprehensible and common to all schools in Scotland. The assumption that these national tests will be a threat or threatening for teachers and pupils is totally misplaced. We have made it clear that they will be integral to the normal assessment programmes of primary schools. The difference is that they will provide additional security for teachers and also for parents.

I honestly believe that, in the context of the Scottish education system, where indeed much of what we are proposing is already practised in the schools—and particularly in Fife and other regions—we should be wrong to accept these amendments. I ask the noble Lord to consider what I have said and perhaps withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will recognise that in any good school in Scotland the kind of proposal that he is laying before this House today is certainly not practised at the present time. In fact the only people who will be seriously disadvantages will be the parents who will become excessively competitive about nothing.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

My Lords, this is obviously a matter which occasions some degree of serious consideration on the part of us all. In his reply the Minister appeared to be saying that diagnostic testing will, as I suggested it might, have its place alongside the national testing in primary 4 and primary 7. I took that from his reply, and certainly that the development to diagnostic testing will not be stopped, so to speak, by the existence of the national test at primary 4 and primary 7. It gives hope to those who inspired these amendments if it is not to be excluded from the system.

When the regulations are being made, it is perhaps not too much to assume that due attention will be given to the question of diagnostic assessment and guiding the education authorities. It will be interesting to see how things develop in the future. As I have said more than once in these debates, time will tell. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 not moved.]

Clause 74 [Appointment of teachers]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 56: Page 51, line 4, leave out (", other than on an acting basis,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small but rather important point. It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider together Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.

Together the amendments provide for the possibility of an education authority not having to advertise nationally a principal teacher post where the intention is to fill the post by a principal teacher already employed by the authority. If the amendment is accepted it will allow an education authority to redeploy principal teachers where there is a surplus as a result of falling rolls.

The Minister will appreciate that it is not only a matter of falling rolls, which is a very important factor in all schools in Britain and particularly in Scottish schools; it is also a matter of movement of population. Sometimes it would be a great help if a principal teacher could be moved to the same position in another school without the rather expensive need to advertise widely and perhaps prolong a vacancy in a school longer than necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, this pair of amendments worries me. I know that in Strathclyde region, which is seeking to reduce the number of schools and staff, it would be helpful if it could always promote from its own staff. It has done so in the past, as have other regions. However, one has the rights of teachers to consider. If one is a principal teacher in the Western Isles, Orkney, the Highland or the Border, where the scope for promotion is fairly small, one may well wish to apply for a principal teacher's job in Strathclyde. It is a genuine desire of teachers to move from a smaller into a larger region to gain experience.

The amendment precludes that. I do not know whether the amendment emerges from Strathclyde. I speak entirely for myself on this subject. It may well be in the interests of Strathclyde to advertise internally but it is not in the interests of teachers in smaller regions. The principal teacher's post should most certainly be nationally advertised so that everyone has a chance to apply and the best person can obtain the job. Any disadvantage to a region that is trying to reduce staff is worth it for that purpose.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, the amendment by the noble Lord would allow an exception to the rule that principal teacher posts should be advertised nationally. I can appreciate the problem of authorities who have staff surplus to their requirement. My noble friend indicates how this may be occurring. However, the 7,400 principal teachers in secondary schools are a vital tier of middle management at the core of every effective secondary school. They are important posts carrying salaries in a range from £17,000 to nearly £20,000 per year. It is therefore important that when a principal teacher post falls vacant it must be filled by the best person for the job. Only open competition can safely ensure that objective. The amendment would allow authorities to redeploy teachers for administrative convenience which would not necessarily be to the benefit of a school which would wish to have its vacancy filled by the best candidate available.

We covered this ground fairly fully last time. I have to say that I have not changed my mind.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the Minister will realise that I have to say that I am disappointed. I know that there can be unfairness in such a matter as this. I take the point that the noble Baroness made about rural areas, such as the Western Isles, and people wishing to move. So far as I know, the amendment is not motivated by Strathclyde although it may be the area with the greatest need as it has the most schools.

We are asking that a principal teacher should be able to move to another school if there is a vacancy. The amendment may not be properly worded. I was assuming that the vacancies would be caused by a drop in school rolls. If a vacancy were created, having anticipated a drop in the roll, one could use a teacher who was already in position. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to go further. I am sure that he has considered it thoroughly. Time will prove that it would have been an eminently sensible method of handling a difficult problem. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]

6.30 p.m.

Schedule 10 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 58: Page 75, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—("and (b) for the words from ": Provided that—"to"(ii) subject" there shall be substituted the words— (2A) A teacher appointed to any post on the staff of any such school by the education authority shall satisfy the Secretary of State as to qualification and shall require either—

1. (a) to be approved as regards his religious belief and character by representatives of the church or denominational body in whose interest the school is managed; or
2. (b) if they decline to give such approval, to have this appointment consented to by the representatives.

(2B) Where as respects a proposed appointment the representatives—

1. (a) decline to give the approval mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) above they shall state in writing their reasons for so declining; and
2. (b) where they also withhold the consent mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection they shall include in the statement their reasons for so doing.

(2C) Subject".").

The noble Duke said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the amendment is intended to give denominational bodies the power of consent to the appointment of teachers whom they are unable to approve in terms of religious character and belief. It requires them to state in writing their reasons for withholding their consent. The amendment is intended to clarify the position of teachers who will fall into that category.

I accept entirely that the arrangements for the management of denominational schools should not be a matter for political controversy. With that in mind I was happy to accept the invitation of the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment when it was discussed in this Chamber last week at Committee stage, in order to allow him time to undertake consultation with a number of interested bodies. I am happy now to reintroduce the amendment. I should be most grateful to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in the light of the consultations that he has undertaken.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I spoke to this amendment at the previous stage. I shall listen with interest to my noble friend. However, we have not heard the reason why my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk wishes for two categories of agreements. When he replies perhaps he will tell us the precise reasons why two categories of agreement are required, one wholehearted and the other less than wholehearted. What will be the grounds for the less than wholehearted agreement? If they are not grounds of religious belief and character—I believe that he indicated that it would not be on those grounds—what will the grounds be? Will the consent be on professional grounds? If it is, I do not think that the intention of the Bill is to give a religious body the possibility of turning a teacher down on professional grounds. Therefore what will the grounds be for the less than wholehearted approval?

Has my noble friend considered that a religious body may well not be the Roman Catholic Church, with its well-known attitudes and track record on the appointment of teachers—I called some of that track record into question at the earlier stages—but a very fundamentalist Christian body? It may be the Muslim community. It may be a range of religious bodies. I should have thought that widening the question of consent is opening a new Pandora's Box.

I have three questions. What is the reason for this second category of consent to the appointment of a teacher? What will be the grounds on which that consent is given or refused? Has my noble friend taken into account the fact that a variety of religious bodies may run a school in the future; and what will be the effect?

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I should also like the Minister to look very closely at the amendment. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, in our last debate was fairly typical of what happens in a number of schools. The educational standing of a number of denominational schools in Scotland is low. The teacher in question wanted her children to have a better education. I believe that a situation in which a religious body can question the fitness of a man whom it has previously accepted for promotion—for example, a physics teacher—does not make sense and would not be for the good of the Catholic community in terms of education. That is why I view the amendment with less than enthusiasm.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do so because it makes absolutely clear that the starting point for recruiting a teacher is that he should be professionally qualified. Secondly, there is no confusion about the conditions for approval for the consents. Subsection (2A)(a) of the amendment provides that the teacher must, be approved as regards his religious beliefs and character by representatives of the church or denominational body in whose interest the school is managed". In other words, if it is a Roman Catholic school, Roman Catholics will wish to satisfy themselves that the teacher is of that persuasion or happy to teach and able to sit comfortably with the philosophy of the Roman Catholic school. The same applies to the Church of Scotland, or whatever. I do not believe that there will be a plethora of religious denominations consenting to teachers in any school other than the denomination which is managing a particular school.

I believe that to be perfectly acceptable. The starting point is that the teacher must be professionally qualified. Secondly, where there is a particular religious denomination the teacher should be of that denomination or be happy to work in such a school. I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I recommend that the noble Duke withdraws the amendment. We are talking about Scottish education and I can tell him that it is a most sensitive area. In our education system there is provision for denominational schools, and that is observed. Sometimes it is at great cost to the local ratepayers because there may be a duplication in communities of denominational and non-denominational schools. That situation is provided for and taken care of.

However, I warn the Roman Catholic community not to abuse its power because considerable resentment could be caused. I suggest that as regards the case which was discussed in Committee there was a serious abuse of power. The professional qualifications of the teacher for promotion were rejected because, although she was a Roman Catholic, she had sent her children to a non-denominational school in the interests of their obtaining a better education. I regard that as a serious abuse of the privileged position of a minority group in Scotland.

I believe that if one pushes the issue too far one will create resentment and objection and perhaps a great deal less tolerance of the position that now exists. I certainly recommend that the noble Duke should not proceed with the amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during the discussion of my noble friend's amendment at Committee stage I asked him to withdraw his amendment and reintroduce it at Report stage in order to allow me the opportunity to seek comments on this proposal. I pointed out at the time that the Government had no wish to make the management of denominational schools a matter of political controversy and that we should need to be clear that the proposed amendment commanded wide support.

As your Lordships will recall, I explained that there had been wide formal consultation on the provisions already included in this part of the schedule and that there was clear and strong support from all quarters for these changes. While the further amendment now proposed appeared to provide a logical tidying up in existing arrangements, I needed to have a clear view of interests outside the House before proceeding in this sensitive area. In proceeding cautiously in this matter the Government are not seeking to question the sincere wish of the Catholic hierarchy to clarify and tidy up the existing provisions which date from 1918. Our concern is to ensure that any innovation is soundly based and will not occasion still greater difficulty.

Following our debate last week my department sent copies of the noble Duke's proposed amendment to CoSLA, education authorities, teachers' associations and the Association of Directors of Education, I have now had the opportunity to consider the responses we have received. Having considered those views carefully I have come to the conclusion that the introduction of an arrangement whereby a denominational body would have the right to refuse consent to the appointment of a teacher on grounds which are not defined in the statute would be unsatisfactory.

My first reason for that conclusion is that there is no clear consensus of support for the principle underlying my noble friend's amendment. In the views we received, there was a clear recognition that the Catholic hierarchy was attempting in good faith to clarify the existing procedures. In their responses, education authorities referred warmly to the good relations that they enjoy with the Catholic authorities. Some authorities directly supported the concept of consent. But I fear that there were other authorities and bodies which expressed strong reservations. Those included CoSLA, and most important, the Association of Directors of Education and the Educational Institute of Scotland.

The second reason for concluding against the amendment stems from these views. In these responses there were various reflections of what seems to me to be the key argument. The terms of my noble friend's amendment repeat the existing power of denominational bodies to approve appointments. This power is exercised on the grounds of a judgment about a candidate's religious belief and character. The amendment adds to that a further power to consent to appointments where a candidate is not approved. The objectors point out that this would lead to the position that a denominational body could, in law, prevent the appointment of a member of staff to a denominational school on grounds of a judgment of his or her professional competence or suitability. These areas are properly the province of the employing authority; and I have no doubt that the Catholic hierarchy would be among the first to agree that it would be inappropriate for denominal bodies to make judgments about candidates on these grounds.

The Government recognise that this amendment seeks to address an issue of particular significance to the Catholic community. We will continue to look carefully at the question in consultation with the hierarchy, and if further legislation is the answer we will be prepared to consider that on a future occasion. But I cannot recommend to your Lordships an approach which tidies up one possible difficulty but opens the prospect of others which would be much more serious. Meantime, the provisions which have in practice worked well since 1918 can continue, improved by the widely agreed amendments already in the Bill.

I hope my noble friend will understand that in the short time available we have done our best to get to the root of an important matter. I believe in genuine consultation on the subject, and that cannot be partisan or done in a hurry. I hope that my noble friend will understand the reason I must take that line of argument and reject this amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have spoken. I said that I would conduct some consultation. I have not had the facilities of the Minister to do that. Therefore my observations are based more on a discussion with people. However, I am sure that the noble Duke is aware that in the west of Scotland it is easy to get a cross-section of opinion on this matter, particularly as I have been in the political world for a long time and therefore have a broad spread of acquaintances and close friends in all communities.

Even in the Catholic community, I did not find a great deal of enthusiasm for this amendment. It may be that that was because I did not explain it very well or that it was not understood. However, I am grateful to the Minister in that he has cut through the problem by saying that he has not turned his back on this. The idea is a continuous process. It is over 70 years since the much needed 1918 Act which was very important. I believe that the community which the noble Duke suggests would benefit from this has already gained a great deal from this Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I hope that this matter will not be pushed too far because I believe that there will be a reaction even within that community itself. We do not wish to see a disturbance caused. For 99 per cent. of the time relationships are good. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who comes from Govan, and myself, from the east end of Glasgow, can say how delicate these matters can be at times. Therefore, these measures can only be carried out with the absolute consensus of the people.

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, I speak as a very ecumenical Catholic layman. I am very conscious that the Reformation started because we provided Anne Boleyn, the niece of the Duke of Norfolk who led Henry VIII astray, and this unfortunate division began. We have suffered on Tower Hill for doing that frequently, and in 1829 my ancestor, the twelfth Duke, managed to get Catholic emancipation through your Lordships' House and he was the first Catholic Peer to sit here. I am very glad to be sitting here now in these liberal, ecumenical times.

Perhaps I may say immediately that the Mrs. Ruddy case was quite wrong. I am sure that the Catholic laity regretted that taking place as did the Catholic hierarchy in Scotland.

I now turn to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The intent of this amendment is to clear up the little problem which exists. In the previous amendment in this Bill, which is an amending Bill, it talks about the Catholic hierarchy or denominational bodies having the right to approve of a teacher and to agree to his religious character and belief. If in a denominational school there is no Catholic, Episcopal or Presbyterian teacher available, then the religious character and belief cannot be approved of so perhaps a teacher of another denomination is produced. In that case, the Catholic hierarchy wishes to be able to consent to that teacher, as opposed to approving of the religious belief. There are non-Catholic teachers in Catholic schools which is very sensible and welcome. This was an attempt to try to clear up that problem.

I hope that I have answered the questions of the noble Baroness. She mentioned the case of a Mohammedan school—and I gather there is none in Scotland—or a Presbyterian school. I am getting out of my depth as to what happens north of the Border although I go there frequently and I am not talking about the Battle of Flodden or anything like that. As regards Church schools of other denominations, I was only recommending that they should be able to consent to teachers not of that denomination. I hope I have answered my noble friend.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, my noble friend said that in the case of Roman Catholic schools, they did not wish to approve the appointment but to consent to it. I should like to know what are the grounds for consenting or not consenting. My noble friend may wish to answer that in the context of the Catholic Church. Also, has he taken account of the fact that there would probably be different grounds for different religious groups? He may find that last point difficult to answer. What would be the grounds on which the Roman Catholic Church would consent or not consent to a non-Catholic teacher?

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, I do not wish to labour the point but the question is simple. At present the word "approve" is in the Bill—that is, to approve of the religious character and religion itself. If a teacher from a different branch of Christianity was to come to a Catholic school, then the hierarchy want to be able to consent. They cannot approve of the religion because that religion is different so they want to be able to consent. Presumably they would not consent if a teacher has some unpleasantness in his moral character. They want to have a safeguard on whether or not to consent.

This is becoming an awkward matter which I do not wish to pursue. I am very ecumenical. I should love to be taught by people of other religions. At Ampleforth, where I went to school, I was taught by other religions, and not entirely by Catholics. The word "consent" was merely put in as a second category where the teacher was not a Catholic. They would consent to Presbyterians, Episcopal or Church of England, atheist or agnostic teachers, Mohammedan teachers or Chinese teachers if they are to be taught Chinese. We have spent long enough on this matter. However, having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 60: Page 77, line 45, at end insert—

("The School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988

10. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 (appointment committees), after subparagraph (a) there shall be inserted the following subparagraph— (aa) in respect of the performance of his duties as a member of an appoinment committee, a person—

1. (i) shall not, under or by virtue of that Act, be entitled to receive any allowance or expenses;
2. (ii) shall be entitled to receive under this subparagraph from the education authority such allowances and expenses as may be determined by the Secretary of State;".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment, necessary as a consequence of new provisions contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill which affect the payment of certain allowances to members of local authorities, their committees and sub-committees. The amendment ensures that allowances in respect of financial loss and travel and subsistence will be paid to members of appointment committees considering the appointments of senior promoted staff in schools by the education authority in accordance with such rates as may be determined by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.