Lords Sitting of 2 March 1992

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

Motorways: Condition
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been a deterioration in Britain's motorways, and if so, what steps they intend to take to improve them.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, Britain's motorways are maintained to ensure a high level of safety and serviceability. There is no evidence of any deterioration in these respects. Detailed investigation of the underlying strength of motorways in England has revealed that maximum life is not always being achieved, as it can be through timely maintenance work. The problem is being addressed through new survey techniques and improved arrangements for collecting and analysing survey data. Those will allow more effective planning of maintenance operations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In spite of what he has said, do not the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee show a saga of neglect, incompetence and waste as regards our motorways? Is it not a fact that many of our motorways resemble cobbled streets and dangerous switchbacks rather than major highways? Will the Government under-take to carry out a proper emergency repair programme in order to ensure that our motorways are put in proper order?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is exaggerating a little about Britain's motorway system. I do not say, nor is it borne out in evidence, that there is a saga of neglect, incompetence and waste, or that our motorways resemble cobbled streets. Despite meeting year-on-year targets to keep on top of the required strengthening programme, those targets have proved to be inadequate in the face of faster than expected growth in heavy goods traffic. Therefore, there has been a deterioration in the roads' structure. The Government have responded fully to the Public Accounts Committee report on the motorway section and we aim to increase our maintenance programme in that respect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as the Minister who introduced the motorways programme in February 1955, I have been immensely impressed by the way in which the motorways have stood up to the vast increase in traffic? Is he also aware that many of us believe that that reflects great credit on those responsible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the part that he played in introducing the motorway network, which has proved to be of inestimable benefit to this country. The growth in heavy goods traffic in particular has exceeded forecasts and therefore there is a necessity to increase expenditure on maintenance. That is why the Government have more than doubled the amount of money spent on trunk road and motorway maintenance since coming into office in 1979.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply that he has come to the conclusion that there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest, as have the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office, that the deterioration of the motorways represents a saga of poor planning, shoddy construction standards and failure to monitor the state of the motorways, and that the Department of Transport bears heavy responsibility in that regard?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord back to his place. It is good to see him. Of course, I do not welcome his question as much as I welcome his presence but he will understand that. As I said, to describe the motorway system in terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is an exaggeration. I do not pretend that there is not a need for increased maintenance of motorways. That is why we have more than doubled expenditure on motorway maintenance.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to tell us what progress is being made on the movement of the bridge across the M.4?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I had anticipated that there might be some interest in that particular operation. Of course, the department is sorry for any delays that have been caused to traffic. The operation has been most complex and technical and it has always been recognised that there might be unexpected problems. Other methods of demolishing the bridge would have been most difficult too. My best information is that the motorway is likely to be reopened this afternoon.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, even at this late hour will the Government reconsider the decision to drive a motorway through Twyford Down in view of the great importance of the site? Even at this last minute will they do something about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that that is another Question.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, following on the question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, will the Minister advise the House of the load-bearing specification of that section of the M.4 just east of the Severn Bridge and whether the removal of the bridge—not the Severn Bridge—is likely to cause any deterioration in that section of the motorway?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend asks an extremely technical question to which I do not have the answer. The planned method of demolishing

567
the bridge was carefully considered alongside other methods of removing it. The method chosen was found to be the best way of doing it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words on my return. I am sorry that he does not like the question that I asked. However, will he not be gratified to know that very shortly my colleagues and I will not be asking questions but will be answering them from that side of the House?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not wish to have an angry exchange with the noble Lord on his first day back. I hope that that does not happen. I do not believe that it will. If it does, the noble Lord risks inheriting the motorway programme which we inherited in 1979. Government spending then was half that which is now spent in real terms.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, as regards the roads in Scotland, will my noble friend look at the road from Prestwick to Glasgow and the roads leading to Skye along the west coast of Inverness? They are in a terrible state.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend may correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that those roads are motorways. If they are not motorways, they fall outside the scope of this Question.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, have the Government considered installing street lighting on all motorways in this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, lighting is an interesting matter as regards motorways. Lighting is installed on motorways when the predicted night-time accident savings due to lighting outweigh the installation and future maintenance costs, taking account of possible environmental effects.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister accused me of exaggeration. Will he tell that to the people who live alongside the M.27 who are bombarded by noise day and night? Will he also tell that to the motorists who have the prospect of 30 per cent. of lanes being cordoned off in the next five years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I say, a programme of maintenance is being undertaken at present. There are always good reasons for sections of motorway being cordoned off. However, under the Citizen's Charter it is our policy to make absolutely certain that only the minimum necessary amount of motorway shall become cordoned off.
I remind noble Lords that in 1988 we reviewed the standard of motorway construction. New motorways built under those standards should not need to be overlaid for at least 20 years and there should be no need for their reconstruction for a further 20 years after that.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I must apologise because my question also concerns motorway lighting. Does my noble friend agree that the best investment
568
which could be made in regard to motorways on road safety grounds would be to illuminate all unlit sections of motorways throughout the country as soon as funds become available? Is he further aware that, by doing that, he would, first eliminate the headlamp dazzle from the opposing carriageway; secondly, he would turn night into day and therefore reduce many accidents which take place in the hours of darkness; and, thirdly, the heat from the lighting would dissipate fog, which my noble friend will know, unhappily brings about many accidents?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I referred to the criteria which the department uses in deciding whether or not to light a particular stretch of motorway. If my noble friend is interested in this subject, I refer him to an article published in the Journal of the Institution of Highways and Transportation in 1987 which deals fully with that matter.

Prescription Charges: Increase
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make further arrangements to help those in financial difficulties to meet the cost of National Health Service prescriptions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, extensive arrangements for charge exemption on grounds of health or status, the availability of prescription prepayment certificates, together with the separate scheme for the remission of NHS charges on the grounds of low income already ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication for financial reasons. In 1979 one item in three dispensed in the NHS attracted a charge. Today only one item in six does so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she not aware that the increase runs at twice the rate of inflation? It is another attack on the principle that all NHS costs should be met by general taxation. Is she aware also that the dental and medical associations are deeply upset at the proposed increase in prescription charges because they are afraid that many people who cannot afford them will be deterred from seeking treatment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the increase from £3.40 to £3.75 is comparable to the percentage increase in the National Health Service drugs bill overall. In that context, it is fair and reasonable. The charge continues to represent less than half the average total cost of a prescription item to the National Health Service. As regards the final point made by the noble Lord, we believe that across the board payments do not provide a fair solution. If someone can afford to pay £3.75 for a medicine which may cost something like £90, then that person should do so. The income received as a result—estimated for

569
1992–93 at£240 million—could pay for the building and running of five district general hospitals or over 268,000 surgical operations in the acute sector.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was a Labour Government which introduced prescription charges and that ever since they have been passed through both Houses of Parliament by negative resolution?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that prescription charges were introduced in 1949 and that categories relating to them were increased in 1968—both occasions during the tenure of a Labour Government.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is anxiety among parents in Glasgow and Edinburgh whose children are being sold drugs by senior citizens who obtain them free on prescription? They are being used, mixed with other substances, for drug abuse. I refer to tranquillisers and sleeping pills.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware of that. I shall certainly pass on that information to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister happy that prescription charges have increased by 1,775 per cent. since 1979? Is she aware that as a proportion of what it costs the NHS, the Government are recovering nearly 50 per cent. as compared with 22 per cent. in 1979? Is the Minister happy with that arrangement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that both she and her colleagues are right to say that it was a Labour Government which first introduced charges in the National Health Service? The authors were described by the then Minister, Aneurin Bevan, as a bunch of dessicated calculators. He has been proved right ever since. Is the noble Baroness also aware of the views of the BMA and the doctors' associations which say that the extra money brought in would amount to £240 million? Many people who can barely afford the 35p increase will be making a contribution towards that. Therefore, would it not be wise for some consultation to take place with all the dental and medical associations to arrive at a more sane and just appreciation of the situation? In the final count they are more responsible than any government department.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the medical profession, together with any right-minded person, is well aware that only those who can afford to contribute towards the costs of their medication are asked to do so. If that is seen in the context that since 1979 the number of items for which exemption is claimed has increased by 100 million, noble Lords can draw their own conclusions.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness repeat the answer given to my noble friend Lord Desai? He asked whether she approved of the
570
enormous real increase in the cost of NHS prescriptions. I thought that the Minister said yes. If so, if those costs doubled so that the drugs budget was fully met by people who were ill, would the Minister say yes even more strongly?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, any further increase would be a hypothetical issue. The point to which I replied in the affirmative was whether or not I approved of the fact that people who could afford to pay prescription charges should do so. The fact that the overall amount being spent by the National Health Service on prescription costs is much higher than it was in 1979 means that the amounts involved are of considerably more consequence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the increases to be paid by those who are sick are intended to contribute to the tax relief the Government have promised to the well off if they win the next election? In other words, is the money being obtained from the poor and the sick intended to make a contribution towards tax reductions for the well off?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord should be aware that the Government intend to spend over£34 billion on the National Health Service. The prescription charges form part of that figure. I have already quoted the uses towards which the money received from the modest payments of the small percentage of people required to pay those charges will be put. Any right-minded Member of your Lordships' House will agree that money is better spent in that way than on any across the board arrangement.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the issue of escalating health care costs is a major and increasing problem throughout all advanced countries in the Western world? There is now a real need for a complete reassessment of the ability of any party to fund health care and meet increasing demands on the present basis.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. Escalating costs, due to new techniques and technology and increased expectations, mean that we must justify spending money in the best possible way.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, while we are grateful for the exceptions, the charges impose a great burden on lower-paid families when sickness comes. Are we not reverting to the position in the 1930s in relation to prescription, dental and optician charges, where people do not receive the treatment they need because of the cost?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the fall-back in the matter is that people on low incomes can claim exemption. In addition, there are a number of aids, including prescription prepayment certificates. As well as the annual season ticket, a four-monthly one is available. No one needs to be in difficulty in that regard.

Atlantic Fish Catch Statistics: EC Regulation
2.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in respect of the submission to the European Communities of nominal fish catch statistics by member states fishing in the North-East and North-West Atlantic, as required by Council Regulations 3880/91 and 3881/91 of 19th December 1991, they will provide the estimated cost, and the administrative steps necessary, to ensure compliance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the United Kingdom has been compiling this information both for its own purposes and to submit to international bodies for at least 20 years. These regulations convert long established practice into Community legislation so that the Commission can meet its obligations under certain international conventions. It is not envisaged that compliance with the regulations will require additional costs or administrative steps for the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's explanatory memorandum on the original proposal stated that:
"The purpose of the proposal is to convert into Community legislation the Statlant 21A questionnaire adopted informally several years ago and used since then by member states to report annual catches to international organisations"?
Is he further aware that what happened was that a number of underworked bureaucrats decided to convert an informal arrangement into legislation requiring 31 pages, oceans of paper and thousands of man hours, all for a completely redundant purpose which was already being served? Does that not provide a further example of the cascades of regulations descending upon this country and other member countries from the European bureaucracy, at least 50 per cent. of which are redundant and quite useless and should never have been incorporated in any statute book?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that the arrangements in the United Kingdom were adequate. But within the Community there were member states whose arrangements were not operating successfully. The regulation was introduced not to catch out Britain but to catch out other countries.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be pleased to hear the points raised by my noble friend and the replies of the Minister. It is an important issue. Can the Minister say whether the proposed enhancement of the scheme for joint international inspection adopted last September by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission will reduce the need for fish catch statistics? That is especially so because the aerial surveillance promised by the Canadians will be provided free. Will that not
572
allow the statistics to be incorporated into the scheme of international inspection and make it much simpler than it is at present?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the offer by the Canadians to introduce free aerial surveillance will be useful. However, that is only half the story. It will help to show who is fishing where and in what boats but it will not provide a statistical return of what is caught. That is why the regulation was introduced.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what a nominal fish catch is?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that that is the word to describe fish which are measured as whole fish as opposed to gutted fish.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are so many generalisations and let-outs in this mammoth regulation that any figures which are produced and made available are probably completely worthless? Will he tell the House what has happened to what has euphemistically been called "the deregulation initiative" which I understand has been in operation for some time? Is the noble Lord also aware that its objective is, as stated, to get rid of useless and redundant regulations? Can he tell the House whether this kind of regulation will be included in that new initiative?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, clearly this Government have been very successful in getting rid of redundant legislation introduced by the Labour Party when it was in government. This is European legislation and we are committed to it under our international obligations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have been very charitable in not referring to the Government. However, if the noble Lord cares to treat this matter on a partisan basis I am more than equal to the challenge.

British Technology Group
3.1 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in disposing of the assets of the British Technology Group they will ensure that the core, and effective control of the business, remains in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Government have applied rigorous criteria in the privatisation of BTG in order to safeguard the continuation of BTG's core business of technology transfer. These include a government special share for a five-year period entrenching limitations on individual shareholdings and asset disposals. In addition, the Articles of Association will provide for a CVCP director and another director experienced in commercialising public sector research. Beyond that, it would be up to the newly privatised company to

573
select the board and management it judges most suitable to promote the commercial future of the company.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I am mildly grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety among those most closely concerned and knowledgeable about this affair that, in handling what is a very valuable asset, the Government will disregard the long-term aspects of the matter and will be unduly influenced by short-term issues? I hope very much that my noble friend will inform his right honourable friend in the department and perhaps his right honourable friends in the Treasury of that anxiety.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to give my noble friend an assurance that I shall pass on to my right honourable friend my noble friend's intervention. We have always made it clear that we intend to sell BTG to the right consortium—that is to say, one which will take a long-term view and which satisfies us that it will continue BTG's traditional technology transfer activities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that, when the Bill was before your Lordships, a value of about £50 million was placed on BTG? Is it not the case that the Government have received three bids—for £13 million, £17 million and £23 million—none of which comes to even half the estimated value when the matter was before your Lordships' House? Given those facts and all the worries about the whole matter, would it not be better for the Government to call the whole silly thing off?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. There are two consortia bidders with whom we are now negotiating. I cannot reveal any further details as the discussions are continuing and they are confidential.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am rather surprised at that reply. Why will the Government not give details of the bidders? Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we should know exactly who they are, what they are and what they intend to do? Are not the public entitled to the utmost information?
Lord Reay: My Lords, each individual consortium is free to disclose who are its individual members. It would be wrong for me to do so prematurely. I believe that the composition of each consortium is not yet firmly agreed in each case and the discussions must remain confidential.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little more forthcoming? Originally there were three consortia and one of them has a strong American influence. Has that particular consortium now been ruled out?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, there are two consortia bidders with whom we are now negotiating. One consortium is led by the management of BTG and the other is an Anglo-American consortium.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not want to add to my noble friend's difficulties, but can he imagine any foreign country disposing of a similar asset to our benefit and allowing us similar participation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, BTG is being sold to a consortium and not to a single company or institution so no individual member of a consortium will be allowed to have overall control of BTG. Perhaps I may add that even today 80 per cent. of BTG's licensed income comes from overseas. Therefore it could be argued that it is in BTG's interests to have an overseas involvement.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord's original Answer be summarised by the simple word "no"?

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education (Schools) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill will be taken.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 7,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 8 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 16,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 17 to 34,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 38 to 63,

Schedules 8 to 10.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Brigstocke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of this Bill proceeding to Committee, and the fact that it will not be possible for us to complete it if there is a General Election on 9th April, does that mean that the Government have now decided that there will be no election on that date and that the earliest date for the election will be 7th May?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we proceed with the business of the House until we know there is to be a general election.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Inspection of certain schools]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I call Amendment No. 87. If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call amendments Nos. 88 to 99 inclusive, or Amendment No. 111A.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 5, line 13, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 20 and insert:

("(a) of every local education authority as respects every maintained school in their area;

(b) of the Chief Inspector for England as respects every school in England to which this section applies (other than a maintained school); and

(c) of the Chief Inspector for Wales as respects every school in Wales to which this section applies (other than a maintained school);

to secure that the school is inspected under a scheme of inspection approved by the Chief Inspector, at such intervals as may be prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(1).").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108B, which is consequential. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 115B which has been grouped with them because I was too late when I complained and said that I wished to speak.
This amendment stands as a statement of broad principle, intended to find out the Government's view of the role of local education authorities. This has produced very contradictory statements from Ministers during the progress of the Bill. The Bill as drafted seeks to remove the power of LEAs to inspect the schools they maintain. This amendment would, instead, insert a positive duty for LEAs to arrange for the inspection of all the maintained schools of their area, but under a scheme of inspection approved by the chief inspector.
The main points which this amendment seeks to address are: that all schools should be inspected at regular intervals within sound national arrangements, that is,
"under a scheme of inspection approved by the Chief Inspector, at such intervals as may be prescribed".
Much of that is common ground. In particular, the LEA should have the leading role in arranging inspections of all maintained schools in its area. It is on that point that the Minister's response would be most helpful.
Mr. Eggar said in a meeting with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 18th December that it would be for the LEA to determine the order in which its schools could be inspected. Is that still the view of the Government? In slightly more detail, the amendment would thus have the schools being inspected by registered inspectors at regular intervals, the choice of registered inspector being the responsibility of the LEA; although that could perhaps be delegated to governing bodies under safeguards including those provided by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which were accepted a week ago. The inspection of every maintained school in an LEA's area would be conducted consistently under a local scheme of inspection approved by HMCI. Most importantly, this would permit some initiatives or policy concerns to be pursued by the LEAs, though subject always to HMCI's approval.
The crucial point is whether the LEA is empowered to inspect aspects of educational provision in maintained schools other than those which are likely to be laid down by HMCI generally for all schools and other than those which the governing body of each school wish to have inspected. On that point, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, appear to be inadequate, since HMCI's assessor, in helping the governing body to reach a sound decision, would not necessarily have the particular local knowledge and understanding possessed by the LEA. Furthermore, we believe it is proper for the LEA to be empowered to inspect educational matters that it judges to be particularly important for its local area, perhaps in connection with some additional resources that have been provided by the LEA.
One of the consequences most likely from the reduction of HMI numbers has appeared to be that HMCI would not be able to maintain the liaison with LEAs currently undertaken by HMI. That current system provides HMI with a measure of local knowledge and understanding. It might be that the Minister feels able to explain whether the increase in HMCI's staffing of perhaps a further 40 inspectors, announced in connection with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, will also provide sufficient staff to maintain close working links with each LEA. Would the assessor be able to assist the governing body, in particular, by reflecting the local priorities and educational concerns of the LEA? Nevertheless, we believe that the LEAs themselves should be empowered to pursue, through school and inspection arrangements, their priorities and educational concerns.
A subsidiary point is the position of grant-maintained schools, which have received financial inducements to opt out, and which receive preferential financial treatment after opting out, at the expense of the local education authority's budget for other maintained schools. We believe that the new inspection arrangements should examine value for money so that published reports of neighbouring schools that are maintained in one way or another from the LEAs' budgets offer comparisons which are scrupulously fair.
A further subsidiary point is the inspection of independent schools under Clause 9, which this amendment proposes should be arranged by the appropriate chief inspector in place of the proprietor. This may appear controversial, but independent schools do have a great number of assisted places in their schools and these are paid for by the taxpayer. However, there is a particular technical point about the apparently limited scope that HMCI's assessor would have under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for providing constructive advice based on an understanding of the school's needs. Whereas the new provisions provide, sensibly, for attendance of the assessor at a meeting of a governing body, there is no parallel provision for a consultative meeting with a sole proprietor. Perhaps the Minister in her reply could say how HMCI's assessor could
578
otherwise be enabled to provide constructive advice, rather than a blunt veto, in the instance of an independent school. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The noble Baroness has raised a number of interesting questions. However, I should like to point out the consequence, as I see it, of adopting Amendment No. 108B, which is grouped with this amendment, in which reference to the appropriate authority—that is, the board of governors of the school—is deleted. That would have serious consequences for other parts of Schedule 2, which deal with the consequences of the inspection procedure, because the appropriate authority—that is, the governors—has a number of other responsibilities in this respect.
Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 the governors have to organise a meeting and notify parents of that meeting, which is to be held in relation to the inspection. Under paragraph 9 they have the obligation of passing on the inspector's report to parents. Those requirements would still be there within Schedule 2 but the concept of appropriate authority would be seriously undermined by the removal of the definition of appropriate authority in the amendment under discussion. Then, of course, the appropriate authority has the responsibility for preparing action plans in consequence of the registered inspector's report. I see that there are other amendments in that respect so I shall not speak to the issue of action plans now because those will clearly be discussed under those amendments.
Under paragraphs 6 and 9 of Schedule 2 there are responsibilities of some significance assigned to appropriate authorities which would be considerably undermined if the concept of appropriate authority is abolished by the implementation of the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment, which also has my name to it, and emphasise two points. First, in our view it is highly desirable that the local authorities should have the power to inspect, which they have always had in the past. That at least gives the authorities some continuing contact with the schools. They have the local knowledge and experience. One suspects that there is a good deal of animus against the local authorities which is leading to their exclusion. That should, in our view, be removed. The local authorities should still have powers to continue.
Secondly, we also support the idea that there should be inspections of independent schools; and not only where taxpayers' money is involved—after all, the country's children are attending those schools, whoever happens to be paying for them. While some independent schools are undoubtedly of an extremely high quality and well able to look after their own standards, we all know that there are others that are not. Therefore, inspection should be extended to independent schools in the interests of maintaining high quality education.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I welcome this amendment as well. It would bring a degree of

579
independence to the business of inspection which is very much needed. There is something fundamentally wrong about an establishment, through its governors or proprietor, choosing its own inspectors. I think it was the noble Baroness the Minister who at an earlier stage compared it to the diners choosing the inspectors of a restaurant. But it is really not like that. From my experience as an education officer at countless governors' meetings, I can testify that in both formal and emotional terms governors are much closer to being the managers of the outfit and as such they have a strong interest in a positive outcome.
The amendment put forward last Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, goes some way to improving the position, but I find some difficulty in seeing how it would work on the ground without a lot of bureaucratic input on the part of HMI, whose expertise, I feel, could be better employed than in second-guessing governing bodies on criteria that will not be at all easy to formulate. But, when it is taken together with this amendment, HMI's monitoring role would of course remain, since that is what your Lordships' Committee has agreed. But it would be greatly facilitated—indeed streamlined—by dealing with LEAs rather than individual schools. I think that HMI would need a much lighter touch in such circumstances. For these reasons, and given that we are to have commercial inspections, this amendment offers a more satisfactory way of doing it, although I acknowledge the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that there may be difficulties over the appropriate authority. I am not quite sure at this stage how we resolve that.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment although I have not risen for that reason. I have risen to deal with the technical point of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which seems to me to be rather more serious than he himself may have realised. Subsection (5), to which the grouped amendment refers and which we wish to delete, states:
"In this section 'appropriate authority' means".
It does not state, "throughout the Bill 'appropriate authority' means". It occurs to me, having listened rather carefully to what the noble said, that in that regard the Bill may be fundamentally flawed since it does not say that the "appropriate authority" applies anywhere else in the Bill. It may well be that it does and therefore that the matter can easily be dealt with technically. However, subsection (5) simply states "In this section".
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The term "appropriate authority" is also used in Part I of Schedule 2. Part I is headed "Inspections Under Section 9". Therefore, the definition of "appropriate authority" given in Section 9, unless deleted, applies to Part I of Schedule 2.
Lord Peston: The question I raised is precisely whether it does mean that. That is why I think it was useful for the noble Lord to raise it. Subsection (5) states "In this section". It does not state "In this section and the consequential schedule". Therefore we
580
need at the very least to be absolutely certain that the Bill is drafted correctly. The substantive point is the point that the amendment is all about—whether a school should be allowed to chose its own inspectors—but in raising his objection, which is nothing to do with the substance of the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has raised an important point.
I intervene simply to ask the Minister to clarify the position so that we are absolutely certain that the Bill is drafted correctly. As I said, I do not think that it has anything to do with the substantive point, which is that, whatever the authorities are called and however they are defined, it is irrational to suggest that they ought to choose their own inspectors. That is what the amendment is about.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say at the outset that for a Bill that has a near record number of groups of amendments to be dealt with today it is extremely disruptive to have had not one change but two changes to the groupings, one of the changes coming as late as almost the point when I walked into the Chamber this afternoon. Perhaps I may also say, to clear up the point that has just been made—
Baroness David: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I do not know when there was a first change to the groupings. As I understand it, the three amendments were grouped together until I tried at about one o'clock to ungroup Amendment No. 115B. I did my best. I rang up the Government Whips' Office to say that but was told that the groupings had already been printed and could not be deleted. However, I left that message.
Baroness Blackstone: I wonder whether I may add to what my noble friend has just said. The rules of the House are that any Member of the House can ungroup a group of amendments at any time if he or she thinks that it would make more sense to do so. We of course always want to be helpful but I am rather puzzled by the Minister's remarks just now.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I am not referring to rights or to what we can or cannot do. I am simply referring to the fact that the changes were so late that it has become very difficult to respond to what is a record number of amendments today. Until one o'clock today the grouping agreed by noble Lords opposite was Amendment No. 87 with Amendments Nos. 108B and 115B. It was only as I arrived in the Chamber today, and even as I picked up the groupings that had been agreed and had been printed by the Printed Paper Office, that I found that there had been another change and that this amendment was to be taken separately. I simply make the point that it makes life very difficult; and not only for those responding at the Dispatch Box but for those following the debate who have in writing now a grouping of amendments which is not consistent with those with which we are having to cope during the course of the debate. Perhaps I may also clear up the point about the definition of "appropriate authority". The answer to that is defined in Clause 18 for the purposes of the whole Bill.

581
Amendments Nos. 87 and 108B are quite simply wrecking amendments and ones which seek partially to substitute the Labour Party's policy, as set out in its policy document, for the policy of the Government. The amendments would retain the LEA monopoly of school inspection for the schools LEAs maintain. They would, it is true, require inspections to be carried out at intervals to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. They would require all inspectors to be registered by the chief inspectors. Both of those important provisions of our Bill, which the party opposite would retain, represent at least welcome improvements to the policy as set out in Labour's own document, but they are simply not enough to make that policy acceptable.
Whatever may be said, the amendments do not seem to me strong enough to establish national criteria for inspection. They would require Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to approve schemes of inspection LEA by LEA and not, as under our plans, to establish a national scheme and national criteria which all inspectors will be obliged to use.
We have had considerable debate about the need for strong central criteria if national comparability and standards of inspection are to be guaranteed. We are agreed that the success of the Bill depends on the chief inspectors having the power, authority and, if I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, independence to set and monitor those standards. I do not think noble Lords will be impressed by amendments which would in fact seriously weaken the chief inspectors' role.
The power to approve a scheme—to haggle and negotiate with more than 100 authorities about the criteria and the methodology they each think suitable—is not good enough. Those authorities still fundamentally opposed to the need for rigorous external inspection of schools—and there are some—could well string out such negotiations for a very long time. Are there to be sanctions if the scheme of inspection is not approved? We are not told. What if the authority cannot offer candidates good enough for registration by the chief inspector? That is not clear.
Nor do I think that noble Lords will be impressed by a system which leaves the employment and direction of inspectors entirely in the hands of those authorities which have failed so evidently to use their existing powers in this area. I know that there are beacons of excellence in a few authorities. I keep referring to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, but he has referred a number of times to one authority that ranks among the highest in the country for effective inspection. I do not want to belittle their considerable achievements, but I must remind the Committee that only nine authorities have what HMI regards as strong and effective systems. They will have no difficulty in playing a full part under our proposals. But under the Labour Party's proposals even the worst authorities will not just have a major role but a monopoly one.
In defence of the amendments it may be claimed that the chief inspectors' role will not be weakened. With a standard cycle of inspections, and the chief
582
inspectors' power to approve inspectors, there will not be that much room for manoeuvre. There will be quality control as tight as under the Bill as drafted.
In that case we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the amendments really is. It goes well beyond the desire to keep the decision on who should do the inspection out of the hands of the governors. We discussed that question last week. Rather than take choice away from the governors, the Committee decided to strengthen the Bill, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, to help governors to make a wise choice, and monitor their decisions. So the justification for these amendments must simply be the doctrinaire desire to see local authorities left unchallenged as providers of school inspection. That is directly contrary to the scheme of the Bill. That is why I repeat my view that these are wrecking amendments.
Local authorities will have the power to take part in the inspection system. They will have the power to monitor their schools as necessary—in later debates, we shall have a chance to set the record straight on that score—but they will no longer have a monopoly on inspection. Our Bill is designed to replace that with a more open system. I believe that the amendments must be rejected.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness concludes, perhaps I may point out that on these Benches we have no interest whatever in promoting the policy of the Labour Party. I did not think that we were discussing that issue today; I thought that we were discussing the amendment. I implore Members of the Committee to concentrate on the amendment. The straying off into discussing party manifestos which have yet to be published is an irresponsible waste of time.
I said that I support the amendment. I do so because I want to keep a role for the local authorities, not because I want to give them a monopoly. I want them to have a role in the matter. I hope that we can forget about the manifestos of all parties—even ours, which I believe is coming out today.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to that point. The amendment is not about a role for local education authorities; it is about a central monopolising role for local education authorities. As that is part of a very specific pledge, we have seen it in that light.
Lord Glenamara: I listened with amazement to what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of what the amendment would do with regard to county schools. Clause 9 would read:
"It shall be the duty of every education authority as respects every maintained school in their area … to secure that the school is inspected under a scheme of inspection approved by the Chief Inspector".
Would that not include who shall inspect it? Of course it would. The subsection would conclude with the words,
"at such intervals as may he prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(1)".

583
How on earth can it be a wrecking amendment? It is strictly in line with what the Government propose. How can the noble Baroness argue that it is a wrecking amendment?
Baroness Blatch: We do so because it gives the local education authority the power to evoke the whole process.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I believe that we were given a new definition of the word "monopoly" by the Minister in her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She said that the amendment would provide a monopoly for the local education authority. Surely, monopoly in that context means that it would be the only organisation involved. There could be no other interpretation. But the amendment talks about the power of three different organisations: first, the local education authority; secondly, the chief inspector for England; and thirdly, the chief inspector for Wales. How on earth can that be a monopoly?
On a separate point, although we have seen many statements since 1979 in which the Government have stated what little faith they have in local government, surely an elected local authority has a role to play even though it is not a monopoly. Moreover, in local education—which, after all, is the most important function that local government has—surely a local authority must be given a statutory and proper role as defined in the amendment.
Baroness White: Can the Minister tell the Committee what attitude the Government have towards people standing for election to local authorities? How can she expect candidates of any worth to put themselves forward for election to local authorities when the Government are so determined here to deprive local authorities of any functions which are worth the while of any good citizen to maintain?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness highlights a fundamental difference between Members of the Committee opposite and those on this side of the Chamber. For the purposes of the Bill, we consider the proper authority to be, in the main, the governors. I was a member of a local authority. During that time, I did as much as any authority member in the country to push operational autonomy down to school level. In the 1988 Act, we took that policy further. It is about devolving operational autonomy, not simply from government but from local education authorities down to the school where we believe it belongs; namely, with headteachers, staff and the governing bodies.
Lord Glenamara: I should like to press the Minister on one point. If a local authority thinks that one of its county schools needs inspecting, why should it not be able to initiate the process? It may not carry out the inspection; that is for the chief inspector to decide under the scheme. But if it decides that a school needs inspection, why on earth should it not be allowed to initiate the process?
Baroness Blatch: If the local education authority has good reason to believe that a school needs inspecting, it has every right to do so under the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There is perhaps some confusion about various aspects of the amendment. So far as I can see, it would place in the hands of the local authority the responsibility for organising the inspections. The inspections would still be carried out in accordance with Clause 10(1) so, no doubt, there would still be periodic inspections—a four-year period or whatever—but if we are also discussing Amendment No. 115B—
Baroness David: We are not.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It is on the groupings list which was made available.
Baroness David: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I said at the beginning of my remarks that I had removed that amendment from the group. I did so at 1 p.m. Unfortunately, it was not reported by the Whips' Office to the Minister. However, I made mention of the fact when I rose to speak.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister did not comment at all on her definition of the word "monopoly". I believe that that is very germane to the amendment. Will she comment on it now?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, indeed. The amendment would take away the obligation for local governors to exercise their requirement for an inspection under the provisions of the Bill and put it in the hands of the local education authority.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I apologise to Members of the Committee for rising to speak again. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for informing us that paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 would remain in the Bill under this raft of amendments. But the paragraph says:
"Before entering into any arrangement for an inspection, the appropriate authority for the school concerned shall invite tenders".
The term "appropriate authority" is proposed to be deleted by Amendment No. 108B. Therefore, I am somewhat confused because, on the one hand, the noble Baroness proposes to delete the term under the latter amendment—to which I understand we are speaking—but when we come to the section which it was the original intention to delete but which is now to remain in the Bill according to the noble Baroness, we find that it contains the term, "appropriate authority". How then am I to interpret the terminology "appropriate authority" in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 if the noble Baroness has deleted the definition of it from Clause 9? I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness can explain that to me.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I should just like to refer to an earlier point made by the Minister in order to clarify that a number of us have no problems. I certainly have no problem with devolving powers to

585
schools. I think that that is right. It is simply our case that this particular power is one that it is not right to devolve to schools.
Baroness Blatch: As I said before, that confirms a fundamental difference between us.
Lord Glenamara: I must press the noble Baroness further. In reply to my first intervention she said that it was a wrecking amendment because it allowed local authorities to take the initiative. I believe she said exactly that. However, in reply to my second intervention she said that of course local authorities can take the initiative. Well, if they can take the initiative, what is she objecting to? How can it be a wrecking amendment? Surely local authorities know their schools and know when they need to be inspected. They are the people to initiate the process in county schools.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misunderstands me. We have put the obligation on the "appropriate authority" which, in the main, means the local governors. We believe that that is right. The amendment would take that obligation away from governors and put it in the hands of the local education authority. There is a fallback power—indeed, an overall longstop power—for local authorities to have an obligation to see that education is effective under the 1988 Act. Once the inspections, which are required by the appropriate authority, have taken place, if a local authority is still concerned that there may be a problem in a school, it has the right of access to enter that school and to invoke some mechanism for ensuring that it is called to account.
Lord Glenamara: Perhaps the Minister can tell me where in the Bill a local authority is empowered to do that.
Baroness Blatch: That power is given in the 1988 Act. It is not invalidated by this Bill.
The Earl of Selkirk: Is it intended that there should he a Chief Inspector for Scotland? If so, who would be responsible for his appointment?
Baroness Blatch: There is to be an inspector for Scotland. Although I cannot give the precise terms for the appointment, I shall write to my noble friend on that point.
Lord Peston: Although I am sure that it was not done on purpose, the Minister has left me rather confused. Assuming that this provision is still in the Bill, "the appropriate authority" has no voice about whether to have the school inspected; it is obliged to have the school inspected. Therefore, that is not the issue before us. The appropriate authority must have the school inspected at the prescribed intervals. The only question is, "Who chooses the inspectors?"
Whatever else one says about that—and let us not in any sense deny the fact that we totally disagree on this point—I cannot see why this would be a wrecking amendment. There is no choice about the inspection; the school must be inspected. If the regulations refer to a specific number of years, that specific number of years must apply. If the appropriate authority has to
586
choose from a list that is approved by the chief inspector, then it must choose from the list that is approved by the chief inspector. The only difference is that the local education authority does not choose from the list; someone else chooses from the list. I can see that that is the difference and that we profoundly disagree, but I cannot see that this is a wrecking amendment. It is simply a disagreement, as we often have when considering Bills in your Lordships' House.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may interpose again. That might have been the effect if Amendment No. 115B had been added but if that amendment is not added Schedule 2(2) holds and,
"Before entering into any agreement for an inspection, the appropriate authority for the school concerned"
shall invite tenders for various things. I am afraid that the amendment leaves us with an anomaly.
Baroness David: I do not think that I have ever heard so much misrepresentation as has come from the Minister on this occasion. This is not a wrecking amendment. As has been pointed out, no monopoly is being set up. The Minister did not answer my question about Mr. Eggar, the Minister, who said in a meeting with the AMA on 18th December that it would be for the LEAs to determine the order in which schools would be inspected. The Minister did not answer that point. Is that still the Government's view? If so, it seems to take away a lot of the sting about what the Minister said in reply to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It will be necessary to determine which 6,000-odd schools are to be inspected each year and for local education authorities to fund the specific schools that will be inspected in any one academic year. Therefore, it is important that the LEAs fund the specific schools that are designated for inspection.
Baroness David: I understood from Mr. Eggar's statement on that occasion that it would be for the LEAs to decide which schools would he inspected that year. The whole point about which the LEAs are worried is that if they know that something is going wrong in a school they want to be able to put in an inspector fairly quickly to try to get things put right. That will take a long time if they have to wait four years for the four-yearly inspection. The authorities are worried about things going wrong and about what to do if, say, a young teacher needs help. There are all sorts of occasions on which, at the moment, the LEAs can send assistance into schools. They want a little flexibility. The amendment tries to give that flexibility, but it has been grossly misrepresented. It is not a wrecking amendment.
As I said, Ministers have made many contradictory statements. On 30th January, during the Report stage in another place, the Secretary of State said that an LEA had a right to send in people and to inspect a school. However, that is not the same as what was said earlier by Mr. Fallon. I have just given the Secretary of State's latest statement on Report, but there is still a lack of clarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has repeatedly made his point about "the appropriate authority". When one tables an amendment in Committee in this

587
place it often needs to be tidied up afterwards. Therefore, while denying everything that the Minister said about "monopoly" and "wrecking", perhaps the best thing for the moment would be for me to take the amendment away and tidy it up so that when it returns it will, I hope, give satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may pose a straight question, which may throw some light on some of the answers that have been given. Am I wrong in understanding that the role that is given to the governors, which is central to the Bill as proposed, would be invalidated by the amendment? In other words, are the requirements to secure an inspection and to select from at least two tenders still allowed under the amendment? That is not my reading of it. Indeed, if that is the case, it wholly invalidates the provisions that are central to the Bill. I refer to the role of the governing bodies as the appropriate authority.
Baroness David: I think that the Minister is wrong. Under the amendment the governors can still initiate an inspection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 5, line 15, after ("inspected") insert ("having regard to any information published in relation to "value added" at the school and").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190, 194, 195, 203 and 203F. I shall focus on Amendment No. 203 in particular and shall leave my noble friends and others to speak to Amendments Nos. 190, 194 and 195. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak at some length on this group of important amendments. This is the crucial debate on Clause 16.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that we on these Benches are committed to the publication of more information about schools and how they are performing. There are a number of reasons for that. First, parents deserve to have that information both when deciding to which school to send their children and so that, while their children are attending a particular school, they can be informed of just how effectively that school is performing. Secondly, head teachers and teachers should have such information as a guide to their own school's performance in relation to different age groups and different ability bands. Only when they have high quality information of that kind can they take well-informed decisions on how to improve the standards in the schools in which they are teaching. Thirdly, head teachers and their governing bodies must be accountable to the wider community for the standards achieved in their schools. High quality information on pupils' achievements helps to make that possible. Fourthly, local education authorities, which I know the Government dismiss and regard as being of no importance, need such information when monitoring standards and intervening where there are problems.
Therefore, we support the collection and publication of data about the performance of pupils school by school. I say all this because I want to pre-empt the Minister getting up to ask what the Labour Party's policy is or casting aspersions on the Labour Party's policy instead of dealing with the amendment, as happened in Committee last week and as began to happen when we discussed the previous amendment.
For further clarification, the Labour Party is not saying that the raw data about schools' performances should not be published. We are saying that it must be published, but along with further information, showing not only the crude results of testing and examinations but also the progress that has been made by pupils. In other words, we are concerned about the value that the school adds, taking into account pupils' academic achievements on entering the school. That is the purpose of this group of amendments.
Amendment No. 203, upon which I wish to focus especially, is couched in a moderate, tentative way. All it requires is that the Secretary of State should obtain advice from HMCI on the appropriate method of providing parents with objectively assessed evidence showing the value added by schools. It therefore places on the face of the Bill an obligation to pursue the matter, which does not exist as the Bill is currently drafted.
There is considerable surprise and disappointment that Ministers still appear to be committed to requiring the publication of raw examination and assessment results only. Raw data give little, if any, information about the quality of education provided by schools. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary stated the Government's view in another place when he said:
"Our view is that parents have the common sense to judge the [raw] data provided".
I believe that I have a reasonable amount of common sense. Some may disagree. My children think that I am terribly lacking in that department, because I cannot set my video. However, I could not judge the quality of a school just by looking at raw data; nor could I tell whether it was especially successful at obtaining good results from clever children, from children of average ability or from the less able. That is the kind of information that common sense tells me parents want. The Government must come up with a better argument than that if they want to convince people that what they propose is acceptable.
A consensus has now emerged that we must provide a genuine measure of quality, not merely a measure of the quality of the intake of the school, which is all that the raw data will provide. Just doing that will, I regret to say, seriously mislead and therefore be totally irresponsible. Let me make it clear that those who hold those views go right across the political spectrum. I am not talking merely about criticism from the Labour Party. They include Conservative as well as Labour-controlled local authorities, the independent Audit Commission, the teachers' unions, the National Commission on Education, academic researchers who have expertise and work in the field, organisations representing head teachers of state schools, and all the organisations representing the independent schools.
I should like to quote one or two representatives of that last group, the organisations that represent the independent schools. I shall begin with Averil Burgess, the past president of the Girls' Schools' Association, who said:
"I do not favour league tables which are brutal and over-simplified".
Mr. David Woodhead, the director of the Independent Schools Information Service, said:
"It is disappointing that Mr. Clarke is content with raw results rather than a presentation which allows intelligent comparisons to be made between schools with different intakes. He should think again and concede that the quality of information is just as important as the quantity of information in helping parents decide their children's future".
I refer next to Mr. David Jewell, the headmaster of Haileybury, last year's chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, who made the following comment on a league table of A-level results:
"It is totally valueless. It tells you nothing at all except the degree of the selectivity of the schools in question. I hope that parents are not foolish enough to take it on board".
Finally, I quote Mr. Peter Owen, chairman of the Independent Schools Association Incorporated, who said:
"I am all in favour of publication, provided it is clearly understood that comparison can only be made if there is an equal comparison of the entry requirements and intakes of particular schools. A non-selective school or special school may have less good percentages than a selective school but may have done a much better job in educational terms".
In the light of those comments from right across the political spectrum, will the Government now concede that the Bill must make some provision for taking into account intakes through the measurement of value added? Will they concede that some schools full of clever pupils may not be doing a good job for those pupils, and other schools, with far fewer such pupils, may be doing a much better job, but that raw data will not reveal that?
As I said on Second Reading, the danger of raw results is that they lead to complacency. We must not let our teachers get away with that. Schools with an intake of high achievers can cover up poor performance because they have "good" examination results. On the other hand, schools with poor examination results may justify poor performance because they have an intake of lower achievers. Those schools doing well with a large intake of low achievers in a disadvantaged area will not be given the credit that they deserve and will become demoralised. Only by assessing the value added by the school, using statistical analysis, can school effectiveness be measured properly. The overwhelming consensus now is that multi-level modelling is the best means of providing such information. That is why the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has recently set up a major study which focuses upon that approach on the reporting of examination and assessment results. It is being conducted across the country by Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities and is supported by LEAs in a variety of areas.
The work is being carried out by leading academics in the field. The first report of the study has been published. I am sure that the Government must have been sent a copy. That is not the only study of value
590
added that has been or is being carried out. The Audit Commission is making similar studies of post-16 examinations and recently published its first report on schools' and colleges' A-level performance. This month the National Commission on Education published its first briefing paper on measuring added value in schools.
All those studies confirm earlier work by academics such as Professor Peter Mortimer and Professor Harvey Goldstein of the Institute of Education; Professor Tomlinson at Swansea University; and Professor Gray at Sheffield University, showing that with the use of modern methods of computing data analysis, it is now relatively easy—I do not say as easy as publishing raw results—to go beyond those crude measures. Until recently, however, the Government appear to have shown little, if any, interest in the provision of information which indicates value added.
However, we saw a little chink of light on this matter in July of last year in a debate in this place initiated by my noble friend Lady David which focused upon the importance of multi-level modelling as a means of ensuring that tables of examination and test results are truly comparable. In a letter to my noble friend following that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that the Government had not rejected the multi-level modelling technique of the statistical analysis of examination results and noted that it was a research tool that now had widespread acceptance and was of value in helping to discuss factors that underlay the observed results.
More recently, in a speech at the North of England conference in January of this year, when setting out his proposals for changes in teacher training, the Secretary of State said that in selecting partner schools for the schemes,
"I believe that value added indicators could well be applied to exam results … because it will be important for student teachers to experience schools that are successful in difficult circumstances".
I was delighted at the time to hear that the Secretary of State at last appeared to be coming round, having realised that those new and sophisticated methods of statistical analysis make it possible to get at the real performance of schools. On Report of the Further and Higher Education Bill in this place the Government moved an amendment, further amended on Third Reading to widen its effect, relating to the information that the Secretary of State may require the governing body of any institution within the FE sector to publish. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that its purpose was,
"to give the Secretary of State the power to require the publication of information showing the value added—in terms of student qualifications—by the institution".—[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 434.]
If it is appropriate for such information to be provided within the FE sector, why should schools not be expected to provide equivalent data? If such a provision can be written into the Further and Higher Education Bill, why can it not be included in the Education (Schools) Bill?
The amendment would write on to the face of the Bill a similar requirement for schools to that in the Further and Higher Education Bill for FE colleges. This is a golden opportunity to ensure not only that

591
parents have good information rather than misleading information but also that schools, local authorities, registered inspectors and Her Majesty's inspectors have information that will help us monitor the work of schools properly. That is something we all want to do. It will help us to intervene to bring the average and below average schools, including those with good intakes, up to the standards of the best. It is our responsibility to do this so that we can raise standards. There are now revolutionary new techniques which allow us to achieve that. To reject them would be the height of irresponsibility. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I wish to add a word from these Benches in support of the amendment. If my remarks depart a little from what the Committee expects, I hope noble Lords will bear with me and realise that they have relevance. One must bear in mind when considering anything of this kind that no statistics can possibly tell us the most important attributes of a school. As the noble Baroness said, good results may just reflect a good intake or they may reflect the fact that the school has concentrated rather narrow attention on the national curriculum and nothing else.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said during our previous debates in Committee is true and to the point. I do not remember her exact words but she spoke about the approach of most parents to the problem of where to send their children. They were less concerned with exam results than with the atmosphere of the school, the happiness of the children, the discipline to which they were subjected, the absence of bullying and such other matters which are immeasurable. The trouble with exam statistics is that there is an implicit suggestion that they are the most important characteristics of the school. They are not.
A further point is that a good atmosphere in the school, the happiness of the children and the absence of bullying, as well as the moral and ethical atmosphere which we discussed during a previous Committee stage debate, produce results in exams. Good exam results depend on the good atmosphere of a school. If a child is happy, it will produce results which could never be produced in any other way. That is why I believe that concentration on bare statistics is dangerous. I fully support the amendment. More sophisticated information must be offered to parents, bearing in mind that statistics cannot tell the whole story.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I heard the noble Baroness's speech with great interest and she made a number of valid and important points. It would be nice if there were a means of effectively evaluating in an agreed way what a school succeeds in doing for its pupils. However, I doubt very much whether we have yet reached that stage. That is what Amendment No. 87A proposes. It requires the insertion of:
"having regard to any information published in relation to `value added' at the school".
I am cautious of the slightly glib term "value added".
592
We know what it means when we talk of a tax. We can add 17.5 per cent., and what we are adding it to is readily qualified because it is a sale price measured in pounds. Thus we can calculate what 17.5 per cent. value added will be.
However, it is much less clear what it would be in terms of received educational benefit. So far as I am aware, social scientists have not yet adequately quantified this somewhat nebulous concept. The noble Baroness referred to multi-level modelling, but I was impressed—as she was—at the howls of alarm that went up on many sides when tables of A-level results were published. At least there was not much doubt that those results were the A-level results. It is true that for them to be properly interpreted we need the explanatory background. But, my word, imagine the howls of dismay that would go up if it were not the A-level results that were published but some massaged set of figures according to principles that had not been universally agreed.
The strength of the present provisions is that the Bill will require information that would include public examination results, national curriculum test results, truancy rates, the destination of school-leavers and other raw data. These are all readily ascertainable. Whatever the imperfections —and I have no doubt that it is difficult to measure truancy rates when there is unreported illness—they are results that can be determined in a fairly reproducible way.
However, I am doubtful that the noble Baroness can justify the concept of "objectively assessed evidence"—sthat is the terminology in Amendment No. 203—in relation to value added. For one thing, she referred to the comparable concept in the higher education sphere, but there at least we have examination results on admission to university and examination results on leaving university. Thus there are two sets of data which we can play with in the multi-level modelling.
What are the results, however, on admission to the school? Admittedly, on leaving the school there are various tests in the national curriculum, GCSE and so on. But on a child's admission to school at the age of five, what are the comparable data and the objectively assessed evidence? That is why I am sceptical.
"Objectivity" is a key word. It is a term beloved by those who call the nebulous or complex discipline sociology a social science. Yet I am not sure that we can use the word "science" in this way if we are talking about mensuration and metrication. These are difficult to measure, though I take the noble Baroness's point that studies have been undertaken on how they might be measured.
The problem is that, before we make it part of the nationally applied system, we must have universal confidence that the measures are valid and in a sense objective. I fear very much that if we came down to discussing exactly how the value added would be assessed, there would be every measure of disagreement, not only on both sides of the Committee but between the different parts of the different sides of the Committee. For that reason, I believe that it is

593
premature to introduce a requirement for the notion of value added until we agree what it means. I do not believe that we have yet reached that position.
Lord Dormand of Easington: In supporting my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 190, 194 and 195 in my name in this group. I wish to refer briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has just said. Frankly, I am astonished that, if I understand him correctly, he does not realise that if we are talking about raw data, exam results are governed by the very factors to which he referred. I see that he agrees. I should have thought that that was relevant to what he said. I shall deal with it in a little more detail later.
It seems to me that on the more material matters which many of us on this side of the Committee have talked about since 1979 such as the state of school buildings and shortages of teachers, either generally or in specific subjects, all these factors are relevant to the proposition which we are dealing with today.
Amendment No. 194 was put down by the Opposition on Report in another place. It was selected by the Speaker but was not debated because of the guillotine. I shall not complain too much about guillotines as I have been a member of a government which also used guillotines. Certainly over the past 13 years the present administration have used the guillotine on some pretty fundamental matters, not least educational matters. That must be said in the context of today's debate.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord elaborate on the point he is making about the guillotine as it applies to this Bill?
Lord Dormand of Easington: I was not speaking about the guillotine with reference to this Bill, although it has reference to the amendments we are debating at the moment.
Baroness Blatch: Absolutely not!
Lord Dormand of Easington: The noble Baroness disagrees with me. I have merely stated a fact. In another place the guillotine was operated on this issue. I am saying that this is a major issue. We contend that the matter is fundamental to one of the main purposes of the Bill.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that the term "value added" came from the Audit Commission. I am the first to say that the Audit Commission would think in terms of accountancy as distinct from the ethos of a school. However, I believe that value added is a good shorthand term for denoting that a school can contribute a number of factors to a pupil's development during the pupil's stay in the school.
The Government plan to compel governing bodies and LEAs to publish raw data, sometimes in league table form, which do not distinguish between what a school has done for its pupils—that is the so-called value added provision—and non-school factors such as pupils' abilities and social and economic background, so that the data really cannot be said to show the performance of the school as it purports to
594
do. That is misleading for parents and the public. It allows governing bodies to present false colours where the data exaggerate the so-called performance of the school and handicaps the governing body in its work where the data understate that performance. My amendment obliges the Secretary of State to explain in a statement, which can be published alongside the raw data, what the difficulties of interpreting the data are. I believe that to be a fundamental provision.
It is irresponsible for Ministers to claim that it can be left to the good sense of parents to draw sensible conclusions from the raw data when such conclusions are impossible, or at least very difficult, to draw without detailed knowledge which even the experts may not have on some occasions. The responsible course is to alert parents to the difficulties. The right person to do so is the Secretary of State who has decided that particular data should be published in a particular raw form.
Without such an explanation by the Secretary of State, LEAs and governing bodies are left to make their own statements. Where the performance of a school has been exaggerated, governors are unlikely to issue a statement casting doubt on the raw data. That seems fairly obvious. Where the performance of a school has been understated, governors may have difficulty providing an authoritative explanation on a matter of great technical difficulty.
On this matter, the Bill, unbelievably, ignores some of the most important aspects of school life. I feel compelled to repeat what I have said on previous occasions when speaking on education legislation. Who on earth do the Government listen to when they prepare Bills? The cultural aspects of school life—the building of character, courtesy, thoughtfulness, self-discipline, respect for others, responsibility, and a host of other matters which those of us who have spent some time in education realise form a large part of a full and rounded education—are not necessarily shown, at least not directly, in examination results.
Earlier I mentioned non-school factors. The social and economic background of pupils affect their ability and performance. Hundreds of books and hundreds of pamphlets and research documents have been published on the issue. Surely no one can now doubt the general findings. To publish and rely on raw data would be one of the most fundamental errors ever perpetrated in educational practice. These amendments will go some way to mitigating the error. I hope that the Government will recognise the folly of what they propose to do. It is a matter of the utmost importance.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: This issue of league tables, raw data and value added is disturbing, not just for itself but for what it symbolises. This Government are out to demystify a profession whose practices they do not much like. I sympathise with that aim; I have the same feelings about other professions. But in trying to make things simple there is always the danger of being simplistic. I believe that the Bill crosses this boundary in a number of places. When that happens, some much-needed professional skills and expertise

595
get lost. I was alarmed, for example, when the noble Baroness the Minister last Monday accepted an amendment which deleted the words "good practice." On the surface the arguments looked good, robust common sense, but I felt that on closer scrutiny it was another nail in the coffin of legitimate professionalism which was no more acceptable in the educational field than it would have been in the medical or architectural.
The matter of interpreting and presenting data which are designed to lead people to a correct judgment is a field par excellence where some expert help is needed. I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, but I do not think the wording we have put down here is hostile to it. Let me give two examples. Not long ago there was a medical trial of a certain treatment for cancer. It transpired that nearly three times as many patients died on treatment A as on treatment B. Those were the raw figures. But close examination showed that treatment A patients were sicker when they entered the trial, their age range was different, and there were other factors. When these were taken into account it emerged that it was treatment B that was nearly three times more dangerous. I wonder how many Members of the Committee would have liked to be a patient given access to the raw data only in this case.
My second example is the ILEA. The arguments for its abolition were wholly spurious in so far as they were based on examination results. The authority was far down the league table, but its disadvantages were such that its real worth should have placed it about half way up. It was able to add quite a lot of value to the material it started with. The trouble was a political unwillingness to recognise that.
None of this is "muddying the waters"—the phrase used by one noble Baroness at Second Reading—still less "cooking the books." It is a correct use of professional technique, applicable across the range of research data everywhere. When the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gave the example, also at Second Reading, of two A-level institutions with intakes of 50 students, one producing one grade A and the other producing 10, he asked,
"am I being completely irrational in believing that the second institution has a better chance of getting my son a grade A at A-level?" [Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 651.]
The answer, I am afraid, is yes—or, if not completely irrational, then largely so. Until you have evidence that the second institution is not sitting on its laurels, and that the first is not excellent at teaching clever pupils but seldom gets any in its local area, you are safer to draw no conclusions from such raw data.
This is the kind of evidence I want as a parent. It is the kind of evidence that, by implication, Sir Graham Day's School Teachers' Review Body says we should have. I quote from paragraph 67 of the First Report:
"We are also conscious that performance indicators of this sort—"
that is, raw data—
"tell us little about what has been achieved by a school".
It is also what HMI in a review of indicators in educational monitoring in the USA says we should have. It is also what the National Commission on
596
Education is saying we should have. We have heard another list of experts say likewise. How can it be otherwise when we know, and have known for years, that some two-thirds of the differences in educational achievement are due to factors outside the school?
But as a parent I want the raw data as well: there is no argument about that. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I would not, however, consider myself competent to judge how well a school might do for my child—and I speak as someone who has worked a bit on performance indicators—without a lot more information. That is why I support this amendment.
Baroness Young: To a large extent I welcome the cross-party support for the publication of information about schools. The remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about demystification are valuable. For far too long parents have known too little about what goes on in schools. There is a tacit assumption, which underlies some of the debate this afternoon, that every school can provide an equally good education for every child—a kind of homogenised education system. The fundamental fact is that that is not the case.
Having said that, I do not think that the example of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, of medical research was a valid analogy. As we all know, medical research is an extremely difficult matter from which to draw conclusions, whereas in this case what is required for publication is facts about examinations, tests, truancy rates and where pupils go after leaving school.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, thought that my noble friend Lady Faithfull had said that parents were not worried about examination results. That is not my recollection of what she said, but she will speak for herself. Many parents mind very much. They want their children to do well at school. Why not? It will help them in higher education and for the rest of their lives. Even if they do not articulate their wish very clearly, parents want their children to be able to get a job. It is therefore of value to know where children go after leaving school and the proportion who go into training, to further education, or to a job and what proportion, tragically, end up unemployed or in a dead end job. That information is very valuable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is right to say that the issue has given rise to a great deal of anxiety. I recognise that. The problem which has confronted my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is that when one considers the alternative measures, which the noble Baroness enunciated very clearly and to which my noble friend Lord Renfrew responded very well, so much of educational explanation is unintelligible. It is unintelligible to those of us who try to follow the issues, let alone to anyone else. That has caused a great deal of doubt to be cast on the value of reports of one kind or another. I regret to say that some of the inspectors' reports are so convoluted that at the end of the day it is not at all clear what is being said.
To answer that point, the information will be published, but in addition the school can also publish information which it believes to be in its interest. That would answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, who spoke of the character and

597
culture of a school. Of course, that is part of the school. As I understand it, there is nothing to stop the school publishing information about itself, its character and its culture and what it regards as its good features. It is quite proper that the school should set those out. It would no doubt set them out as part of its aims, but certainly it can publish all of those matters.
It seems to me that the existing provision would cover the kind of explanation which is needed. There would be the raw data on which someone can make a judgement on various grounds, but if the school chose to do so that would be qualified by what the school wished to say. I therefore think that the amendments are unnecessary.
Baroness Faithfull: I refer to Amendment No. 203, to which I have put my name, and which is intended to elicit information from my noble friend the Minister. I wish to refer particularly to the 1981 Act and the position regarding statemented children. The principle behind the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the subsequent Act was that children should be allowed to stay at home and to go to schools in their locality, particularly in the case of statemented children. A number of statemented children do not aim at high academic achievements because they may be backward, but not mentally handicapped, children. I should be grateful for clarification from my noble friend the Minister on two points.
If a parent wants her statemented child to go to a nearby school, and to a school which is a happy school where her child would be able to make progress, but the child is not able to go to university or to reach a high intellectual level, how is the parent to know which school the child should attend? Will the tariff show a school that will help children with certain difficulties? Secondly, will the school be prepared to accept that child knowing that it will reduce the standard because he or she does not have high academic ability?
I refer to two specific cases involving dyslexia. I am dealing with one boy who attends a school that does not have high academic levels but nevertheless uses up-to-date methods with dyslexic children which involve using a word processor. That boy achieved 14 GCEs in spite of being dyslexic. Another boy I am dealing with went to a school which has reasonably high academic standards but because the school did not give him the proper help his work has deteriorated.
The purpose of Amendment No. 203 is to clarify how one measures what a child achieves from a given starting point. He may not go very far, but for that child the progress made represents an achievement. Another child may start from the same point and go a long way. The situation is very confusing and the Bill does not make the position clear for parents of statemented children.
I should like to make it clear that I am referring not to children in primary schools but to older children who have been statemented and whose parents want to work within the 1981 Act.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The amendments address themselves to Clauses 9 and 16. We are all agreed that those are two of the most important clauses in the Bill. I have total sympathy with the concept of value added in education. It is extremely important that when one looks at data covering examination results, and so on, one should know something of the nature of the schools which have achieved those results.
It is important to remind ourselves that the two clauses are equally important parts of the Bill. Not only will parents have the key data of raw examination results, truancy rates and the information which will undoubtedly be added to the list as our information becomes more exact, they will also have a full inspection report every four years. The kind of information for which Members of this Committee have asked in the last half hour is precisely what an inspection report will provide.
My noble friend Lady Young has already commented that some inspection reports may be too complex and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, their very complexity will commend them to those who have anxieties about the raw nature of some of the data. HMI reports—and the practice will be carried over into registered inspector's reports—explain the nature of a school, the nature of its intake, what is done and how well it is done in terms of children with special needs, and so on. Interpretation of the data over each four-year period will involve the reading of the raw data against the inspection findings and inspection descriptions. We should not forget that the value of the Bill is that it provides that totality of information for parents about schools in their area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned the disgraceful proposal to use crude data. None of us is in favour of anything which is crude and misleading. But she also quoted someone else who said that all such data—the data of output, if I may call it that—will tell you is the nature of the input. That, as the discussion since has made abundantly clear, is simply not so. One of the most worrying features of our education system is the fact that there is enormous variation in output data. There is tremendous variation in the success achieved by the children, even where the population of schools or classes is identical. Variation occurs from class to class within schools, particularly in primary schools, and from school to school in both primary and secondary schools.
That means that there is a great difference in the amount of value added that the different schools offer. So the end results will still indicate something extremely important when parents compare like with like. When they compare two similar schools, they will still discover that the output data, the raw data, the crude data, are very different. The inspection reports and the parents' own knowledge of the locality will enable them to make very good use of the raw data. If it is known that of two schools with similar catchment areas, both of which are within an area in which parents might wish to send their child, one achieves very good SAT, GCSE and A-level results and the other does not, one has very clear reasons for choosing the school which has good results. Moreover, the

599
school which is under-achieving and has poor results with a similar population of children will have maximum motivation to improve its raw data statistics.
For that reason, therefore, and because of the assurance that the flexibility in Clause 16 will allow more sophisticated data to be required by Secretaries of State as more sophisticated techniques become available, I would reject the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: I shall not keep the Committee for very long. Things have changed greatly in the past 20 to 30 years. There is now a national curriculum. The duty of the Minister and Parliament is to do all they can to ensure that it is a success. A good flow of information is essential and it is much better than we ever had before.
Why did the old HMI inspections fade away? They did so because they were such a difficult business. They took so long and did not produce much result. A system is wanted whereby the best information can be made available as often as possible. Parents do not want to wait for four years for such information. Moreover, it will be much longer than four years between full inspections. Members of this Chamber always want to make the inspections more complicated and the inspectors will not be able to comply. That is not the way to use our expert people, the people who are troubleshooters and can obtain the information that we want.
One should not ask highly educated academics in the social services and so on for the kind of information that is required. One should ask parents, employers and the ordinary people. One should ask them: what do we need to know that we do not know? They will not say they want very complicated details. They will say that they want simple things on which to judge a school. They want information which will enable them to judge whether the national curriculum is being successful. That is the main point.
There has been an enormous reform in our education system. We must now erect the right administrative sections and recruit the right people to put that reform into practice. Such very complicated, general inspections will do practically nothing.
Lord Young of Dartington: I should like to speak in support of this amendment. I refer in particular to the remarks that we have just heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He asked: what do parents want? I ask: are we sure we know what parents—all parents—want?
The district I think of when I ask that question is Bethnal Green in East London, which is the part of London that I know best. The schools there are in great difficulties, partly because such a large proportion of the population comes from overseas—from Bangladesh, Somalia, Turkey, Vietnam and other places. As a result, a high proportion of children start off when they first come to this country knowing hardly any English at all. Partly as a consequence of that, the schools have rather poor performance
600
figures. Certainly when the children are tested at the ages of seven and nine their results—the raw results about which we constantly hear—are naturally inferior since many of the children hardly speak English at all.
Do the parents of those children want to be told year after year—or every four years, which is the period under discussion—that their schools are at the bottom of the league for London or on the same level as other places which have a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities? I submit that they do not. That is not what they want to hear. Nor do the teachers in those schools want to hear that they are at the bottom of the league table. Nor do the children want to hear it. Very often they are making a very great effort to overcome the handicap that they have to bear. I submit that parents want to hear about the progress that their children are making at school. They want to know the kind of job the teachers are doing for their children against all the difficulties that the teachers, children and parents suffer.
That is the situation. It applies not just to Bethnal Green but to the inner areas of all our great cities. They suffer under the same kinds of difficulties. The fear of many Members who would support this amendment if they were in the Chamber is that those parents will feel prejudiced and disheartened. The teachers will be disheartened unless full allowance is made for the difficulties of their task.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who is not now in his place, earlier made a powerful statement about the difficulties of adding to raw results something that would be useful and understood by parents. If he were here I would ask him to think back some years, to the time when an extremely similar issue was being discussed very widely. In the 1960s I was a member of the Plowden Committee on primary schools. With various colleagues, I put forward the proposal that some schools in the country should be named educational priority area schools. Because of the disadvantages under which they laboured, we argued that they should get extra resources from local authorities in order to add to what they could give to children who were in any case severely disadvantaged in many cases.
There was a substantial debate on that issue. It was said that in fact one could not produce an educational priority area index that would give local education authorities the guidance they needed about which schools suffered such disadvantage that they ought to have extra resources. It was a fierce debate but there was a consensus in the end in Conservative and Labour authorities and indeed all local education authorities in the country. They agreed that the educational priority index worked and stood up to criticism. Throughout the country resources were allocated by local education authorities over 15 years or more in accordance with that index. The whole system disappeared a very short time ago when ILEA was abolished. But the general idea that there are certain parts of the country that need additional resources because of their disadvantages continues in the form of many priority areas which are particularly

601
favoured by the person who at present holds the office of Secretary of State for the Environment. There is a principle there and a means to make it work.
The same kinds of consideration—the social and economic disadvantages of particular schools being set out for the parents whose children attend those schools—could well apply in this case. There would have to be some variation but not such substantial variation as to undermine the whole case for doing something apart from producing figures which will be misleading. Of course we accept that there are absolute standards about examinations and tests. However, what is misleading is the conclusion which people are so ready to draw from such figures; that a school which according to performance criteria is low on the list is in some ways inferior to others. It is inferior only in certain respects. We want to point out the areas in which it is not inferior and in which the teachers are doing an excellent job—perhaps better than those in nice, leafy suburban areas. There, the job of a teacher is a great deal easier than in a place such as Bethnal Green.
Baroness Warnock: There is a certain amount of humbug in the talk about what parents will make of the raw figures when they are published. Many parents, certainly not all, know perfectly well that good A-level results and good tests results throughout go with the kind of social advantage that they wish their children to have. Therefore, many parents will choose a school which is at the top of the league table not because they are particularly academic parents or value high grade A-level results but because they believe that the school will have what in my day was called "a nice type of child". I believe that parents are absolutely capable of drawing that social connection between social class, or comfortable suburban surrounding and background, and good examination results.
Therefore, the publication of raw figures will inevitably lead to the kind of competition between schools about which we have heard. There will be a league table. However, to include other schools in it, showing the value added and all the other good work that the teachers in those schools have done, will not affect the reaction of parents to the original league table.
I believe in the demystification of education but I also believe that mystification may be another name for the existence of an educational policy over a whole area rather than simply and blindly trying to persuade parents to decide to which schools their children will go. If parents are left to choose the schools which come at the top of the league there is no doubt that there will emerge non-academic schools which fall into the trap which the old secondary modern schools fell into. They will be regarded as inferior schools to which children go whose parents do not care about education or who cannot be bothered to read the league tables. We all know that whatever information was given about secondary modern schools the concept of parity of esteem remained totally mythological and never got off the ground. Comprehensive schools were introduced mainly to try
602
to bring together the needs of all children whether they came from inner cities, were handicapped physically or mentally, or were the most brilliant children.
While the league table in whatever form is published—and I continue to call it that because that is how it will be regarded—I see little hope for an equal opportunity for education for children of varying social backgrounds, varying ability in the English language and varying physical and mental abilities which may be congenital.
I believe that the only remedy for what I consider to be an absolutely disastrous Bill is to ensure that there is full access through the inspectorate to all the other kinds of information that people will want about a school if they have the intelligence to realise that their children will not necessarily be in the high-flying academic league. I support entirely what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about the need of such parents to be able to find out what the good schools can do for their children, even if they cannot get them A grades at A-level.
I should have more confidence that that were possible if I had more confidence in the inspectorate in its new form. The two bad aspects about what I believe is a bad Bill come together at this point. If one cannot trust the inspectorate to understand about the needs of children—not necessarily the disabled but those who are unable ever to perform at a high academic level—one cannot trust the inspectorate's report. But that is another issue to which we shall doubtless come later.
For the time being I do not believe that it is worth arguing about whether to include such information in what is published. After all, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if schools include their own information the document will become another prospectus; it will be a plug for the school. Of course, schools will give the good news but one wants information that is objective, dispassionate and comes from outside the school. If that is demystification all well and good. I believe that we are lacking an educational policy that is fair to all children. No parent can, and no parent should be expected, to give rise to educational policy.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment but as I listen to the debate I wonder whether we are on the wrong track in this section of the Bill. In assessing and reporting on schools we are trying to do two different things and I doubt that we ought to be trying to do them in the same way. One is to give parents the right kind of information that they need in order to choose a school. That must be right, but I have more doubt than the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, about the parents who need the information most making good use of it. We in this Chamber are a rather middle-class lot and the parents who we know are accustomed to diving into such data. However, when I think of some of the people who are not represented here I find it unlikely that they will go through value added data, or any other data; though that is another issue. But parents need information. How it should be presented—and I suspect that it should be presented in many different ways—is another matter.

603
We also need to know how well the schools are doing and we need information from the schools. Obviously the teachers are anxious about how they will be judged professionally from the data that are made available. I do not believe that both tasks can be carried out in the same way. I do not believe that one should try to meet the parents' need for information and at the same time give the kind of detailed information that will enable the department, the inspectors and the governors to know whether the teachers are doing a good job. That is really what it is all about. I do not believe that one can satisfy the teachers that the information about them that is made available is fair and appropriate and is a proper part of judging their professional competence. I suspect that we should be carrying out the two different tasks in two different ways, although it is probably too late to do so now.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Members of the Committee must know that there is nothing hypothetical about league tables in Scotland. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is no longer in his seat. On Friday last week such information was published in Scotland. It was not published in tables but alphabetically. The newspapers set out information about all the secondary schools in Scotland, listing the pupils who had attained three or more A-levels in their examinations. It was devastating and has done great harm to Scottish education.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for whom I have great respect, said that after publication of the league tables, the school could publish other information to demonstrate to parents the other achievements of the school. How can schools compete with league table lists published in the tabloids in such a sensational way?
The national press in Scotland took the matter very much to heart: practically all newspapers condemned the system. The newspapers publish lists which show the "good" schools—that is, those which are high on the lists. The experience of Glasgow is that house prices in the areas of the good schools shoot up because parents wish to get their children into those schools. That will be perpetuated as upwardly motivated parents try to get their children into those schools.
I prefer the attitude of a fine old headmaster whose school was in one of the most deprived areas of Glasgow. He told me, "If I can get only one child from my school into higher education"—none of the children in his school had even a parent or relative who had been in higher education—"that will break the dam. The school will be able to build on that." Of course, in such schools it is harder work for the teachers than it is in schools where the pupils are eager and anxious to learn. That headmaster did get pupils into higher education, and slowly the school built up its reputation. It was a constant struggle because the school was in an extremely deprived area of Glasgow and the headmaster was fighting a cycle of deprivation. However, such schools are beginning to come through.
604
I believe that it was a great disservice to Scottish education to publish tables with no comment whatever. If anything was doctrinaire on the part of the Minister of State for the Scottish Office, that was it. He has done great damage. I hope that we can find a way of giving more self respect to the schools which have lost a great deal as a result of that action.
Lord Beloff: Having listened carefully to this long debate, I am obliged to say that it is rather like a heavyweight match in which both contestants are now on the ropes.
The arguments against the utility of raw data without any background explanation are overwhelming. They have been made for Bethnal Green and can be made for any set of circumstances affecting the intake to a particular school. Clearly, there is no way of judging schools effectively merely by saying that such and such a school has done better.
On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to see how that situation can be remedied statistically. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, talked about multi-level modelling. I do not have a clue what that means and I doubt whether one parent in 100,000 would know. It sounds to me like something that primary school children do with clay. However, I take it that it is more sophisticated than that.
One can feed information into computers. That is probably what has got our economy into such a mess. But that does not help. It is human understanding which helps. We need to find a way in which the human element, the professional element—the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke effectively about that—can be put alongside those results.
As I see it, the danger is that people will accept part of that argument and say, "Let us think of something simple to show what 'value added' has been." We shall then have something which is as absurd as the Audit Commission deciding that one can test "value added" by reckoning whether people had improved at A-level compared with their GCSE grades. However, everyone knows that the performance at GCSE level is a fairly good pointer to the same child's performance at A-level, although there are obvious exceptions. Therefore, one must not go for simple solutions.
In the end, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the solution cannot be achieved statistically and that our hope must be with the inspectorate. Unless we can get the inspectorate and inspections right, all statistical discussion is beside the point.
Lord Elton: It seems to me that we are discussing this matter as though we are all academics discussing an academic question. In fact, we are legislators discussing a practical question. To assume that parents everywhere will look at vast masses of raw data published by local education authorities and repose on that their confidence in choosing schools for their children is ridiculous. They will do a great deal more than that to find out information and will be assisted by looking at their local newspapers. All local papers write about their local schools on a regular basis. For example, in a town like Loughborough the

605
local community newspaper will have reports of speech days and performances together with special articles on the various schools in the town. From those articles parents can discover aspects of educational information for which we should not legislate and which will not appear in the tables.
The tables deal with academic factors with the exception of truancy, which is an important indicator which everybody understands. Parents will then have recourse to reading what papers have to say about schools and what parents of other children say about them. In many cases parents do not have the choice which many of your Lordships have of sending their children to schools in the South West or North East or a foreign country. Most parents have a choice of three schools within the distance of a bus ride. Making that comparison is a simple choice which will not be made on these statistics.
The Marquess of Salisbury: The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned backward children. I suggest that as regards backward children, the main aim is to ensure that their disability is recognised at an early age and that they are given additional help at primary stage and not later. Many of them never have a chance to catch up and the rest of their education is wasted.
Secondly, I should like to follow up what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said about inspectors. Dealing with schools over a great many years, I have only once had the advantage of an inspection by HMI. I found that most useful because it was possible to discuss privately any shortcomings. For example, if a teacher needed help with a particular subject, it was possible to suggest privately to the teacher that he should take an appropriate course. It seems to me that the weakness of the past is that there have not been nearly enough inspections. That is one of the causes of the problems which we face.
Thirdly, as regards choice, I am not sure how valid it is to give choice. I have two examples which I wish to relate to the Committee. The first example was that of a new school. Parents were invited to send their children to that school but did not wish to do so because they wished to send them to an established school. But that was not possible. Of course, in due course, the school established itself and was then in considerable demand.
The other example I wish to give is of three schools in a row. Inevitably, comparisons arose. The more successful school in the view of the parents was the one which was oversubscribed. The third school found itself short of numbers. There was not a great deal to choose between them. The parents followed like sheep and I am not sure that their judgment was satisfactory.
Lord Peston: I contribute to the debate in a mood of complete despair. I should not feel able to comment on the subjects of, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, or the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with quite the degree of ignorance with which they feel able to contribute to the discussion on areas which my noble friend and I research. I say that because Members of the Committee know how acerbic I can be on these matters.
606
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have been briefed by her officials. There is nothing outré about these discussions. Her officials will have drawn to her attention the vast amount of serious research which has been carried out into this matter. There is nothing original or particularly 1992 about "value added". That kind of research has been engaged in in the United States and in this country for many years. We know what we are talking about and the noble Baroness will have been briefed on the matter. The DES knows as much about the subject as I do. There is nothing peculiar or odd about it. I emphasise that as my first point. Whatever one feels about the matter, it cannot be about whether this is a sensible way to do it. All researchers in the field believe that it is. It cannot be about whether we can do it, because we know how to do it.
We may as well get the concept straight in its origins. "Value added" is a term in economics. It has nothing to do with taxation. It is to do with the correct way of measuring productivity. To my certain knowledge it goes back some 55 years and is simply concerned with asking any organisation, in measuring its productivity, how well it deals with the material at its disposal. If one is asking a firm how efficient it is, one looks at what it takes in and compares that with the value it adds in order to judge what comes out. It is a commonplace idea. I hope that my explanation has been helpful to noble Lords. It may improve their contributions to the debate. That is another of my acerbic remarks and I have not yet finished.
We know what we are talking about. We know how to do the work and that the concept is well defined. By "we" I certainly include the DES. That is that side of the matter.
Perhaps I may now refer to the important contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. She put her finger on the point. One's suspicion is that a great number of schools are not doing as well as they ought, even measured by simple output figures like examination results. But we cannot answer that question—the noble Baroness understands that as well as I—unless there is some way of judging what the schools ought to do. That is what "value added" is about. We must know what the start line is in order to know how far the schools have gone beyond it. That is why the issue is so important and why those on this side will not let it go. Obscurantism, all kinds of ad hoc anecdotes about what people think or claim parents want, cannot get round the simple fact that for once we know what we are talking about and how to do it.
Finally, I refer to the incentives and efficiency side of the matter. I do not mean simply the parental choice side, although I do not deny that. The reason one measures value added in industry is that one wants to provide the appropriate incentives to management to achieve the ends one is hoping to achieve. That is why value added is important and why it is not simply a question of what one produces. It is a question of what one produces with what one has available.
The important point in regard to teachers, emphasised by several noble Lords, is that we want to give them the right incentives. We want them to

607
believe that it is a race they can win. We want them to believe that they can achieve something. If they ask what they can achieve, we answer that they can achieve value added. That is why value added is so central. I am not arguing that other matters are not important. At no point does my noble friend say that other information should be suppressed. Both she and other noble Lords argued that the central concept is not only an option but is also value added. There is no other way of judging efficiency for anybody who has ever looked at organisations.
I must press that point home to the Committee and emphasise how much I resent, from my academic background—I never use that word to mean anything bad; I always use it to mean something good, but that may not surprise people—what was said. People have done a great deal of research into the matter. For those who do not care for the sociologists of our country I can cite an army of Right-wing sociologists in the United States who in many ways would be supporters of this Government. They say that value added is the only right way to do it. No other way is correct.
5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was so overcome by indignation that he failed to follow my argument. I was not suggesting that he and his professional friends cannot work out to the nth degree the value added to a specific pupil. I was suggesting that that mathematical or statistical material is not something which can be imparted to an ordinary member of the public like myself.
Baroness Blatch: It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, chose to say that a number of noble Lords who have spoken spoke from positions of ignorance. Since my arrival in this Chamber I have respected viewpoints from every corner. I believe that what is said are legitimate viewpoints. It has never been my belief that such things are said from ignorance. I certainly rise to the defence of my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Renfrew, both of whom made valid points which are just as important as those made by any other person who has spoken in the debate.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue. We have already taken 18 minutes and I have a lengthy response to what has been an important debate.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness seems to do this all the time. Our normal procedure in this Chamber is that noble Lords courteously allow other noble Lords to intervene. Several times I half rose and then sat down in order to allow the Minister's noble friends to speak. The point I was trying to make, and the noble Baroness can make it also, is that those noble Lords insulted my noble friend, myself and many of my colleagues. No one on the opposite side offered a word
608
of apology. I do not withdraw my remarks regarding the two noble Lords. They are free to speak but their speech was based on ignorance.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that they insulted anybody. They made good points to support the viewpoint that they were pressing at the time. I fully appreciate the arguments of those on all sides of the Chamber who would like to see information published about the "value added" by schools in terms of the measurable progress made by their pupils between one age or stage and another.
Having listened to the debate, I believe that a great deal of what has been said was said almost in isolation from the raft of information that is and will be under the provisions of the Bill available not only to the Secretary of State but also to parents. It ignored the fact that there would be systematic and comprehensive inspections of schools each four years, measuring not only the achievements of those schools but also providing commentary on the ethos of a school, in particular on the social, spiritual, moral and cultural dimensions.
The debate also ignored the fact that examination results would be published annually, with commentary from both local authority and individual schools, and that annual reports would be made to parents which would set out the aims and objectives of schools and supply all the information that would help and enhance the information available to parents upon which they could make choices. We also disregarded the important amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and supported by Members throughout the Chamber regarding the dimensions of social, spiritual, moral and cultural education, and my promise that we would do something in that regard before Report stage.
We must not underestimate parents' ability to make choices about schools. However, I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, that he belongs to a profession of educational administrators who have drawn back year after year from advising parents what is a good school to attend. They will not say because they do not believe in making a statement that may favour one school over another. In that vacuum parents have been left to make their own judgments on schools. Many amendments on the Marshalled List will allow the noble Earl to come back—
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will permit me to say that I stopped being an LEA man around four years ago.
Baroness Blatch: I said "belonged".
It is our reforms which for the first time have opened up the possibility of tracking pupil progress in a nationally comparable way. When the national curriculum assessment arrangements come on stream, with pupils assessed at seven, 11, 14 and 16 on a consistent 10-level scale against the same national targets, it will be possible to calculate securely for the first time the value added by schools as between one key stage and the next.
I am sure that as more results are put into the public domain through this Bill and earlier Acts, work will

609
continue on devising and developing ways of measuring educational value added. There will be a range of possible ways of calculating and presenting the information, and it is important for all the issues to be fully explored. The recent Audit Commission report on value added between GCSE and A—levels, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beloff, recognised that the science of value added calculation is still in its infancy.
We expect the Department of Education to have a role to play in all this in due course. My right honourable friend is keen at this stage not to try to steer this experimental work in any specific direction. We are confident that it will continue and build upon the new information. This debate has told me more than anything that there is no consensus in regard to the nature of value added. But when in due course a consensus begins to emerge on the best way of calculating and presenting value added information, that will be the time to consider putting the requirement to publish into regulations.
We certainly support the publication of value added data when these become available in usable and reliable form. But we must resist those who try to tell us that until those data are available we should not publish any information; that those are the only legitimate measures of schools' performance. We have had to manage without them up to now, and will have to manage for a good few years longer before they can be calculated for all schools. It would be quite wrong to wait any longer before putting the raw data into the public domain. Indeed if we did so, the necessary work on value added could not be taken forward, as it is on such raw data that it depends
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is not in his place, in publishing his national commission's paper on value added, was quite clear that he fully supported the publication of raw data and would not wish to see it kept from parents. Parents recognise, as Members of the Committee do, that schools take pupils from varying catchments and of varying ability. They will form their judgments in that knowledge, and will see the information in comparative tables as useful background to their further reading of prospectuses and visits to schools. As we were reminded in last Monday's debates, parents want a school at which their child will be happy and fulfilled. Information on examinations, attendance and leavers' destinations will certainly not be the only factor affecting their decision.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when I believe he was fairly critical of what my honourable friend the Minister of State for Scotland had done in producing data. Perhaps I may also say that the noble Lord was wrong. My honourable friend the Minister of State's covering letter to Mr. Tony Worthington was released to the press in full. It explained that examination results did not give the full picture. I now quote from that letter:
"The information concerned will not of course be restricted to examination results, but will include information about leaver destinations, truancy rates and school finance. Nor will this information be intended to give a full picture of
610
a school's performance. Rather it will provide a starting point for parents who may then wish to seek further and more detailed information about individual schools through the school handbook or discussion with the head teacher".
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes special mention to be made of the need for the published information to cover the provision being made for pupils with special educational needs. That is in his amendment, but he did not speak to it. He is concerned lest publication of raw data may work against the interests of the least able. But I cannot accept that this will happen. Unless they are grammar schools, schools simply cannot turn down any pupil on grounds of his or her ability. My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about that. They must apply their published admission criteria fairly, and are open to challenge if they do not. They are unlikely to know of the pupil's ability when a decision is made. And of course for the large majority of schools, the local authority is the admission authority, and the school does not have the final say.
So I believe that the argument about admissions is a red herring. There is certainly no evidence that I am aware of that the publication of examination results since 1981 has made it more difficult for less able pupils to get into the schools of their choice. But we do have consistent evidence of low expectations limiting the horizons and achievements of less able pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I remind the Committee that we shall require publication of results in a way which will show how the least able as well as the most able are doing in every school. We shall be exposing under-achievement and allowing parents to press for a better deal for their children. That under-achievement will apply just as much to a school serving a very good catchment area where the children are expected to achieve rather better results. If they are not, it will of course show up in those reports.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about special needs children. I accept that there are particular arguments in respect of schools which take pupils with statements of special education needs. We shall have an opportunity to debate these points at a later stage. It might help if I were to say at this point—here I speak also for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—that we agree that comparative tables would be improved by the addition of information about the number of pupils in each school with a statement of special educational needs, and perhaps whether or not there is a special unit at the school. I believe that that will satisfy some anxieties and is far preferable to leaving such pupils out of the tables, which would run the risk of perpetuating low expectations.
We shall not attempt to set national rules in this tricky area before all the issues are fully understood and much more experimental work has been done. But we shall act, when and if appropriate, to establish consistency and to ensure ease of access by parents and others. That is the right role of government.
Amendment No. 87A would require registered inspectors to look at relevant published information about a school they inspect. It really is quite inconceivable that such material would he ignored.

611
The amendment had, I suspect, a much more practical purpose of securing an early debate on this important topic. I am sure that, having served its purpose, the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 203, which we have already seen in another place, would require the Secretary of State, in discharging his functions in respect of comparative tables, to seek HMI's advice on ways of measuring value added. As I have explained, we hope and expect that very wide public debate and experiment will continue, and we shall consider carefully all that emerges.
But, with all due respect to HMI, I do not think we should give them a monopoly or even a primacy in respect of advice on this topic. There are many others who will have much to offer. We know already of the Audit Commission work. Some university departments have done very useful preliminary work on examination data. The expertise needed to take forward work on the emerging mass of national curriculum information will be found as much among statisticians and information scientists as educationists. Of course HMI will have an important role to play in advising on the educational considerations which should underpin this work. But they will be part of a much larger team tackling these big issues.
It is clear that HMI will be able to give their views on value added to the Secretary of State alongside all the other information and advice they will be offering publicly or privately as they see fit. Amendment No. 203 is not needed for that. It would not be a useful addition to this Bill, and I hope it too will not be pressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has tabled several amendments on this topic. His Amendment No. 190 would remove the power to publish information about educational standards, and so would prevent the publication of information giving unadjusted scores and results. I do not believe that I need say more about why that is unacceptable. Amendment No. 194, identical to one tabled in another place, would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement whenever information is published saying how far a school's achievements are due to the governors and teachers and how far to other factors. I do not understand how he expects the Secretary of State to do this. It would be a mammoth task. Registered inspectors will be making this sort of professional judgment and setting it out in detailed reports about each school every four years.
The noble Lord seems to have in mind that all publications should be embellished by a general statement from the Secretary of State about the effects of non-school—mainly, from what he socioeconomic—factors on performance. As I have already said, there is no general agreement on the extent to which adverse socio-economic factors actually cause low performance. They are, I accept, linked in overall statistics. But those statistics reflect a number of things, including the low expectations which have been rife in our schools and which have particularly affected those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
612
I do not think we shall do schools or parents a service if we reinforce such low expectations by publishing frequent statements to the effect that being from a low income family is linked with doing badly at school. That will not help to motivate and encourage the bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds for whom schools can do so much.
Schools must include in their prospectuses a range of information about the work of the school and must include any changes in that information in their annual report. They may choose to mention the nature of their catchment area, although, with the new powers of parental choice which we have put in place, that term has a rather outdated ring. Schools are taking pupils from much wider areas and are keen to do so. They do not want to give the impression that they serve only one area or indeed one socio-economic group.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is also concerned in Amendment No. 195 to see that the information should be presented fairly and accurately and so as to enhance schools' effectiveness. I can reassure him that the clause as drafted will secure all those ends. Without a sound and comparable basis the performance tables would lack credibility and would therefore be worthless. A glance at the documents on which we have just been consulting will show the noble Lord the care with which we are trying to ensure accuracy and fairness. Indeed, part of our objective in making these provisions is to counter the use of partial and unauthenticated information by the press to produce so-called league tables which are anything but accurate or fair.
As to enhancing schools' effectiveness, I am sure that the publication of the tables will encourage effectiveness by giving parents and the wider community the information they need to press for action to remedy apparent deficiencies. It is very hard to prove a case for action without hard information. Through the tables and the published regular inspection reports we shall be supplying that information.
My noble friend Lady Young referred to all the other information which is in the public arena. She also made a very important point about the ability of local education authorities and local individual schools to publish a commentary on the reports that are published by HMI. As I have said, it will include comment about ethos, about spiritual, moral, social, cultural, academic, physical and all other dimensions of the life of a child in school.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, referred to a school in a part of London where deprivation is a very real factor and the problems of the schools where the background of the children make particular demands on the teachers. Again, it does not argue against measuring performance; it does not argue against using the information both to build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. Those parents will have some very positive information about all the different dimensions of the school. It is possible that if that school is doing a very good job for the children in those circumstances the report will pick up all of that. The report can be just

613
as glowing, albeit the achievements of that school may not measure up to the achievements of some other schools.
Reference was made to educational priority areas. Personally, I am very sceptical about labelling areas as being of educational priority. I believe that the problem about EPAs is that they lead to reinforcing low expectations of pupils in those areas. It somehow gives the impression that EPA schools are incapable of achieving much. In terms of resources, ways can be made of applying resources where they are most needed. I believe that we should do nothing that reinforces low expectations.
I think I have answered most of the individual points that have been made in this debate. We have heard some arguments against the idea that parents, with the help that will be in the public arena, may be able to make judgments and preferences of one school over another. That is healthy. Parents have been waiting for that for a very long time. I hope that these amendments will he rejected.
Baroness Blackstone: I have been saddened rather than angered by much of this debate. I first take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about the social sciences, and I speak as a social scientist. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Peston; I thought that some of the remarks made were insulting and some a little silly.
Much of the work that has been referred to in this debate—I accept that many Members of the Committee will not have read it, but none of us can be specialists on everything so why should they?—has been done not by sociologists, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, suggested, but by educational statisticians and by some people who are concerned with educational policy but who may come from a quite different background and will not necessarily have studied that discipline.
I was also a little saddened by what I thought, if I may say so, were the unnecessarily disagreeable remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He referred in a somewhat scathing way to the use of the term "multi-level modelling". I am perfectly happy to give a brief explanation of what that is about. It is a new statistical technique which I believe will enhance human understanding, not befuddle it. It is very backward looking to suggest that new work of this kind, carried out by people doing research, either in higher education institutions or in specialist institutions such as the National Foundation for Educational Research, is not concerned to enhance human understanding. It is. It is merely a more refined version of a very standard and well-proven method of statistical analysis; namely, multiple regression. But because one refers to a particular methodology it does not mean to say that by eventually publishing material that has used that methodology we shall expect every lay person to understand the basis of it; of course not. However, what one wants is to produce information that is fair, that measures quality in education and that helps us to enhance standards. That is what this is all about.
I do not dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the necessity of also having good
614
inspections, but one important clause of this Bill is about the publication of information on our schools. All that these amendments do is to make sure that that information is of the highest quality possible. I regret that some of the debate was scathing about attempts to do that. That was wrong and quite unjustified.
There are a couple of other points made by speakers on the Government side of the Committee which need picking up. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that a school can qualify its results by any methods it prefers. That is true. A school can produce all kinds of defensive and misleading reasons to excuse its poor performance. The noble Baroness referred to discussions about the area, the community and the culture. It is in order to avoid low expectations, to which the Minister referred, that we should not allow schools to make those kinds of excuses. Instead we should make use of these new techniques so that we can look at which schools are really performing well, taking into account their intake, and which schools are not doing their best, given that intake.
I was extremely puzzled by the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. It seems to me that the fact that intakes can differ in similar catchment areas—and from all her experience she will surely accept this—means that there can be adjacent schools with quite different intakes. Therefore, we should endeavour to let parents know that the performance of those schools should not be judged only on the purely crude data.
I want to reassert that we are not suggesting that the raw data should not be published. We are suggesting that there is now a technique available that will allow us to publish data which have been qualified by taking intakes into account. The Minister implied that we should be holding up the publication of raw data if these amendments were accepted; we would not. All that would happen is that we would move forward with the work that is required to look at value added at the same time as publishing the raw data. That is surely what the Government wish.
I thought that the Minister, in replying to the debate, was much more open-minded about what is required than some of the noble Lords sitting behind her. She suggested that it was important that the DES should have a role in this kind of work. Again, that is what these amendments propose. One of the amendments argues that the Secretary of State should be required to seek the advice of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on how to move forward. That would involve the DES.
The Minister suggested that the nature of the methodology was complicated and that the very fact that there was disagreement around the Committee demonstrated that it would be impossible to agree on it. But we have not discussed the methodology at all. All we have done is to have a series of speeches, some of them better informed than others, but none of which addressed the issue of whether the methodology could be used. We could provide a long reading list which would demonstrate fairly clearly that that could be done.

615
I regret to say that, because of the very widespread concern not simply, as I said when opening the debate, among people in state schools or those who support the Opposition but among many, many representatives of the independent schools sector and because I feel that we have not had a satisfactory response from the Minister, I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 87A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay, L.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Judd, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Galpern, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Annaly, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Bessborough, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Birdwood, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Blatch, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Cross, V.

616

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Moyne, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Northbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Pennock, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gridley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Quinton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Reay, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rennell, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

Hertford, M.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selkirk, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Strange, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Knollys, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tollemache, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Waddington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Marsh, L.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disgreed to accordingly.
5.38 pm
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 88. If the amendment were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 89.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 5, line 15, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 127, 152 and 153. My comments will concentrate on Amendment No. 89 and the similar amendment but I am intrigued by Amendment No. 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I am seeking clarification. The word "prescribed" appears at line 15 on page 5, at line 3 on page 20 and in various other places in the Bill. On page 14, at line 14 the word "prescribed" is defined as meaning,
"prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
That is what we are supposed to understand. Does it mean that the Secretary of State will be laying an order before Parliament? Is that what "regulations" means? If the answer is yes, will that be an affirmative or negative order? I am asking for some clarification of what "prescribed" means and, since we are offered a definition of "prescribed" which I do not understand, of what the definition of "prescribed" means. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I was merely seeking an illustration of who will be doing the prescribing and how. I regret to say that 1 have nothing with which to enlighten the noble Lord on the issue.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Peston, some clarification. I am sure that he tabled the amendments in good faith. However, I must make clear that they would have no effect. Clause 18 of the Bill sets out the definition of "prescribed" and that definition cannot be, and does not need to be, qualified. As the noble Lord will see, in the Bill the word "prescribed" means,
"prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It is an entirely normal provision. The addition of the words "by order" would be futile. The Bill enables the making of regulations. There is no significant difference between regulations and orders. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate those points and not press the amendments.
I turn now to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton with regard to giving a stronger role to the chief inspectors. That is in welcome contrast to most of the amendments tabled by Members opposite. I believe that he probably appreciates that his amendment is defective in that it clashes with the definition in Clause 18. But I shall not dwell on the technical points but rather on the underlying issue.
My noble friend wishes to give the chief inspectors the power to determine the period within which an inspection has to be carried out; that is, not the frequency of inspection but the period—as later paragraphs in Schedule 2 make clear—allowed for the preparation and publication of the inspection report and of the governors' action plan. I cannot accept that it would be right to allow the chief inspectors the power to determine how long should be allowed for the whole process. It is a matter of policy for government to decide upon and then put to Parliament, as Clause 18 allows.
However, where I do agree with my noble friend is in believing that the chief inspector is the right person to determine how long the process of inspection ought to take—that is, from the first preliminary visit to the presentation of report. I imagine that that will be one key element of HMCI's guidance. Of course the Secretary of State will take that into account in setting the period within which inspection and related activities must occur.
618
It is the need to cater for related activities which makes this properly a matter for the Secretary of State, alongside his other regulation-making powers in Schedule 2. I hope that my noble friend will accept my explanation and not press the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. I am especially grateful for her answer, emphasising what I did as regards the definition of the word "prescribed" in Clause 18. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Baroness even further because she answered at least one question that I meant to ask but forgot to do so. Therefore, I am doubly grateful to her.
However, I am still a little lost. This may perhaps reveal my ignorance, but does the reference to "regulations" mean regulations laid before Parliament? I also asked whether there was anything in the Bill to tell us whether such regulations were affirmative or negative. In other words, to someone who understands such matters, is it obvious that the wording means negative or affirmative? I should like those questions to be answered.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord places great confidence in me. Clause 19 makes clear that the regulations are subject to negative resolution.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend not only for answering all the questions but also for repelling an imagined threat. I was not seeking to give the chief inspector more powers but merely, as I said in my letter to my noble friend, to elucidate the information that she has now given.
Lord Peston: I apologise to the Committee. In my haste to allow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to speak I omitted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 5, line 15, after ("prescribed") insert ("and having regard to any information published in accordance with section 16(1) below concerning pupil-teacher ratios, class sizes and pupil costs").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the information that parents have a right to expect before deciding to send their child to a particular school. I am not speaking here about the kind of information which we have been discussing for the past few hours; but in this case I am speaking about such things as the pupil-teacher ratio, the class size and the money spent on a child's education.
The Government propose that information about a school—what one might call a school's output—should be published in a comparative table; for example, the exam and test results, the truancy rate and so on. But I believe that it is equally important that parents should be informed of the matters specified in the amendment. We have spent a certain amount of time this afternoon talking about why parents choose particular schools. I am sure that one reason is class size. Some parents who are confident in their child's ability will automatically choose the school which produces the best exam results. But

619
others who are less confident and whose child is of only average ability or below average ability will be anxious to know about class sizes in a school.
As the Committee will know, many parents who can afford to do so choose an independent education for their child because he or she will be taught in small classes. Therefore, it seems to me that class size and the number of teachers available for a given number of pupils is of vital importance to parents when choosing a school.
I believe that many parents with children of average ability are apprehensive about how their child will progress in what they think may be a school with high achievements. They will be most anxious about that aspect of the matter. Therefore, such information as is suggested in the amendment should be part of the information given by schools to prospective parents. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We believe that Amendment No. 90 is unnecessary. The inspectors will be bound to report on the quality of education provided in a school, the standards achieved by its pupils and the efficiency with which its resources are managed. They will have to comment on anything which affects those matters. The way in which resources are used —for example, the relationship between pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes, which show the relative priority the school gives to what is termed "non-contact" time—will be relevant and will, I am sure, feature in reports. I expect that key input indicators will also be quoted in reports, as they are now in HMI reports. The information in question is certainly readily available within each school and so can be taken into account by inspectors when they consider how far quality and standards might be improved by the better use of resources, including staff, in the context of the school that they are inspecting.
Amendment No. 186 is equally unnecessary. It is open to the Secretary of State under Clause 16 as presently drafted to require the publication of this information so long as it is judged to be of assistance in the ways set out under subsection (3) of the clause. But we have no intention of requiring such publication at present, since, as Members of the Committee will be aware and as HMI confirmed in recent evidence to the Teachers' Pay Review Body, no clear-cut connection has been established between class size, pupil-teacher ratios or level of resources generally and the quality of teaching or levels of attainment in a school. Therefore, it would be wrong to give the impression that such a connection did exist by requiring the information to be published alongside public examination and national curriculum assessment results.
The corollary of the fact that no clear connection has been established is that different schools and LEAs take different views of what is necessary and desirable in these respects; for example, in deciding how to weight formula funding allocations for different age groups. This means that, in considering the position in different schools, one would not be comparing like with like, in the sense of money and resources having been allocated in the light of
620
generally agreed criteria. So one would be misleading rather than helping parents and others to compare schools' performance.
We are aiming to establish a national standard that will be understandable to parents. The amendment would not help in that and I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, will agree not to press it.
Lord Peston: I understand what the Minister has been saying, but bits of it puzzle me. I suppose that the more important of the two amendments is the latter because that is the one which attempts to put on the face of the Bill the information that the Secretary of State shall require by regulations. I accept that some of the research evidence is a bit obscure, but other parts of it—those parts relating to class size and pupil-teacher ratios—are not. If small class sizes and low pupil-teacher ratios are not a good thing, why do the independent schools go to such trouble to emphasise their small class sizes and the personal nature of their teaching? They clearly think that that is a good thing, so I should have thought that there might be something in it.
I want to probe the Minister on the fact that she is not saying that the Secretary of State has set his heart against publishing some information. I understand her to be saying that his view at the moment is that he is doubtful about whether he wants to include it in regulations. Will the Minister confirm that she did not say categorically that it is the view of the DES that such information should not be included in regulations; it is simply that the department has not decided to do so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: In response to the first point, there are perceptions of class size being important, to which the independent schools market themselves, but there is no evidence on that. Indeed, there is much to indicate that the quality of the teacher is by far the most important factor. However, there is no uniformity on that.
That leads me to the second point raised by the noble Lord, which is that it is possible for the Secretary of State to require publication of the information, but it is the Government's intention to stick to information that is readily measurable across the whole of the nation and does not have the variables that I discussed in my first answer.
Baroness Seear: I do not think that the Minister has quite answered the point that my noble friend was making. Although she said that smaller classes and lower pupil-teacher ratios do not necessarily mean better results, common sense suggests that they do. I am interested, however, that research into that matter is now being given great attention by the Government because they have scoffed at research into other matters, but that is by the way.
Some parents look for a gentler, less crowded environment for a shy and gentle child. It is not only a question of whether one might or might not get better teaching in a certain school, but also of the fact that the atmosphere of a particular school and its smaller classes might be more suitable for some children. I recall my old headmistress telling some

621
parents that their daughters might do better in a place containing rather less tough people, fewer numbers and smaller groups. That was not because those children were bad or stupid, but because although the environment was all right for elderly people such as me, who were good at dealing with tough situations, it was not particularly good for nicer, gentler people.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Baroness makes an interesting point about the value of parental choice in education. The Bill will establish a report on the quality of education. As was rightly said earlier, for most parents the choice is between free schools, in which parents can easily establish the class size, if that is what they feel is important for their child, but that does not necessitate publishing such information on a national basis.
Lord Glenamara: I am sorry, but I almost find myself on the Government's side on this one. The amendment gives the impression that the three major criteria in judging schools are pupil-teacher ratios, class sizes and pupil costs, and I do not think that that is so. There is a great deal more to a good school than those three things. One of my complaints against the Government is that they try to quantify everything and believe that a school can be judged on the tests that they have instituted. However, good manners, courtesy and other such qualities must be taken into account. It is the whole ethos of the school that is important. I object to the amendment on the grounds that it looks as though those three things are the most important criteria when judging a school and I do not believe that they are.
Lord Elton: I want to seize this most unusual opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. I invite him to support my Amendment No. 105 later. I hope that it will also satisfy the Minister as a means of setting out, not in national statistics, but in reports, the things that many of us feel are among the most important in schools, such as the way in which the school is managed and the children's response to it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, for his comments and my noble friend Lord Elton for his endorsement. Although the quality of teaching and leadership are not directly the subject of the amendment, this debate has shown their importance.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to make only three quick points. The Minister said that there was a perception on the part of parents that class size was of great importance but that that was not supported by evidence. That seems a somewhat suspect argument. Usually, the Government are on the other side, saying that whatever the perception of parents, it is of paramount importance. However, in this case, that is put second. Secondly, I am always extremely suspicious of any statement that begins, "There is no evidence that", because it often seems that the whole world knows something, but that there is no evidence to show it. In this case, I feel that the public's perception is likely to be right. As I have said
622
"Secondly", I must now say, "Thirdly", I am a little worried that the Minister said that parents could always find such information in the inspectors' reports. Many parents will not read those reports. They will not delve into them to discover a thing like that. All that they want to know is the class size straight out. Of course, some parents will read the reports, but by no means all—and I doubt whether the majority will.
The Minister also said that such information could be misleading and that, when parents were told that a certain school had small class sizes, they might he misled into thinking that it was a better school than it was. That is what I understood her to say. That would be a hard fact. I think that it is bound to mean that, on the whole, the lessons or the teaching in that school is likely to be more effective. However, I do not feel that I can press the point now. I must accept what the Minister says and hope that it will work out satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 5, line 15, after ("inspector") insert ("and inspection team").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 91, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 120, in my name, and to Amendment No. 183, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which has been grouped with it.
Amendment No. 91 asks that members of the inspection team, as well as the leader of the team, should be registered under Section 10(1) on a register kept by the chief inspector. Similarly, Amendment No. 120 to Schedule 2 asks that the members of the team, as well as the inspector, should be registered by the chief inspector in order to carry out an inspection of a school. Those suggestions seem eminently reasonable if there is to be confidence in the team that goes into the school to perform that serious and important work. We want to know more about what sort of people are to perform that task. All that we are told in the Bill is what they are not to be. The governors and the parents will want to know about the people in the teams.
We learned last Thursday that the big educational consultants, Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, who are the market leaders in the educational consultancy world, have decided that they do not want to be involved in that inspection work. What about the other big consultancy firms? Are they also pulling out? Were the Government proposing to use many of the education consultants from those firms in inspection teams? Are LEA inspectors to be on the list? We do not want inexperienced, unqualified people making up the inspection team. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Beloff: As Amendment No. 183 is in my name, perhaps I may briefly say that it fortifies what the noble Baroness said. After hearing my noble friend the Minister again today, it seems that the Government are relying heavily upon the confidence of parents—actual or prospective—in the inspectors' reports. That is the key to the Bill. These amendments,

623
and others which I may move later, are designed to ensure that all the members of the inspection team, not just the heads of the team, are persons whose identity has been established by being on a register of persons qualified for such a task so that no one can say, "We do not know who these people are. How did they come to be here? What qualifications have they to put forward a tender?" and so forth. So far from being a wrecking amendment, the amendment is entirely in keeping with the spirit and intentions of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will accept it.
Baroness Blatch: We have given careful consideration to the most effective means of securing quality control of the new inspection system. We could indeed have required the central registration of all team members as well as leaders, but formal registration would carry with it the duty to renew and review registration, and to monitor every individual's work. That is, quite rightly, how HMI will proceed in respect of the 600 or so registered inspectors; but it would be cumbersome and bureaucratic to require that for every inspector. That is why we chose instead the more flexible and, in our view, more effective method set out in the Bill: a two-tier system of quality control under which the registered inspector is given primary responsibility for the suitability and standard of his team members.
The registered inspector is responsible for the quality of the inspections he or she conducts. It is right, therefore, that he should be responsible for the quality of his team members. He will be in the best position to judge their strengths and weaknesses on a daily basis. He will have a strong incentive to ensure that they meet the necessary standards. Any failure by the team to inspect and report as required by the chief inspectors will put the team leader's continued registration, and hence his livelihood, at risk. He will not want to use incompetent or ineffective staff; nor will governors want to employ a team which cannot demonstrate appropriate expertise in relevant areas. The governors are free to ascertain that information. There is an obligation upon the registered inspector, in responding to a tender, to tell the governors not just how they will carry out the inspection but the competences and skills that will be used to do so.
Inspectors will all have to be trained. We shall come later to amendments which seek to strengthen the chief inspectors' role in deciding whether that training has been effectively completed. I shall listen to the arguments on that point with great care; but it is certainly not the same as creating and maintaining a full register of all team members.
The Bill gives HMCI close control over the registered inspector and how he does his work. It requires his team to have the necessary training and competence to carry out the task in each case. I believe that that offers an effective route to high inspection standards.
The competence of the teams will be of interest to the chief inspector. He will have all the discretion he needs to set the conditions he wants. The Bill does not
624
fetter him in any way. The Bill secures that the team members should be trained and should meet the test of impartiality.
It is true that we do not expect registered inspectors to work constantly with the same team. They will have to choose their team according to the particular inspection task in hand, and those qualified to inspect in some subjects—ancient Greek, for example—are likely to be working far more intermittently than those dealing with, say, French, but that does not invalidate our argument that the registered inspector is best placed to judge the competence of a team member. If the chief inspector finds someone's work unsatisfactory, even on the basis of one inspection, he is likely to be wary of using that person again. And that inspector will not find it easy to get further work without a reference from his previous team leader. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness David: I am afraid that I do not consider that a satisfactory reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for saying what he did. This is an important job. The Minister said that if team members had to register there would be a duty to review the registration and that that would be cumbersome and bureaucratic. But this matter is important. These people will be doing an important job; it is necessary to have the confidence of the public, governors and parents. I shall not waste time arguing. It is an important matter, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hooson, L.

Airedale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jay, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Birk, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

David, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Galpern, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hayter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

625

serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stedman, B.

Underhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Warnock, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Annaly, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Pender, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Quinton, L.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elibank, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hesketh, L.[Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("having regard to the funds available to them for inspection").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 92, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 167 which is grouped with it. In this amendment we are
626
modifying the wording of the Bill at the end of line 16 to find out how much inspections will cost and from where the funds will come.
If the Minister will bear with me, I wish to ask a broad question on whether the Government have any more to say about the global sum available for inspection following the argument which I thought I put forward fairly cogently on Second Reading. I endeavoured to argue that the sum available, converted into an average cost per inspection, would not make a worthwhile inspection a viable economic activity. That was the position I took then and I did not feel that it was rebutted at the time. From what I read in the newspapers at the end of last week, several reputable firms of consultants which might have gone into the inspection business accepted my view that they could not do the job properly with the funds available. That is my broad, probing question to the noble Baroness.
I have a long list of questions and I shall not read them all out. But I wish to know whether I am right that what will be called a proper inspection will be defined and set out in precise terms by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors. Will they do it by providing a pro forma, a standard specification stating, "When the school puts the inspection out to tender, it must be done in the following way"?
Related to that, the DES must have thought this through to some degree, but I am not clear whether there will be a standard figure for the cost per inspection, I assume sub-divided by the type of school, or will there be flexibility? If there is a standard cost and the school asks for a better inspection, would it be able to use some of its devolved funds and say, "We would like you to spend more time with us", or "We would like you to look at this, which we know may cost a good deal more"? I am trying to obtain a vision of what will happen as a practical matter.
Since we are discussing tendering, the alternative may be to do it the other way round. It may happen that the school puts up a notice—I am not sure where, nor to whom one would apply—saying, "Would you please tender to inspect our school along the following lines?" At the bottom, apart from stating what the inspector will do, as with builders, the notice will state, "Our tender price is the following".
My question then becomes: supposing the two tender prices are beyond the means of the school, how will it work? Will the school have the right to go to the LEA and say, "That's the lowest tender. We agree that it looks a lot of money and more than the DES implied when the Bill was discussed in their Lordships' House, but that is our best tender. You have told us that we must have an inspection. May we have the money?"
That is what lies behind the amendments. I assure the noble Baroness that they are probing amendments. I am genuinely interested in how it will happen. It may be that this is all covered in some DES document which the department must have prepared in considering the legislation. It would not put the proposals before us unless it had the answers to all these questions. In that case, rather than spending a long time worrying the Committee with everything I have asked about model contracts, standard contracts

627
and so on, perhaps I may be given brief answers and then look at the appropriate DES document. That may be a better way of doing it.
It seems to me that since we are dealing with the Bill—and from what the noble Baroness said earlier, we must take it seriously and assume that it will be an Act of Parliament—we have a duty to find out how it will work in practice. I have that duty because I assured noble Lords on Second Reading that I was convinced that the Bill could not possibly work in practice. I must ask further questions in order to see whether I can be persuaded to change my mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The duty in Clause 9(1) to arrange an inspection by a registered inspector is an absolute one. I am sure the governors will have regard to the funds they have available when they carry out their duty for it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. But the duty is not in any way modified by the addition of the words of the amendment.
As for HMCI's reserve power, we want that left as open as possible. There may be a range of exceptional reasons why the governors cannot arrange an inspection. In fact the most likely (though still very rare) will be the case of a particular type of special school which no registered inspector is competent to inspect. Funding would not be a relevant factor in that case. To add these words to paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 might be taken to imply that the chief inspectors can act only if finance is an issue. I am sure on reflection the noble Lord would not want to limit the chief inspectors' powers in that way.
Our reforms involve making better use of existing funds for local inspection and advice. Some £135 million is spent by local authorities each year on inspectors and advisers. We estimate that just over half that total—some £70 million—will be needed to meet the costs of inspection for the quarter of schools that must be inspected each year. I have written at length to the noble Lord about the effect of VAT on such payments.
Those estimates cannot of course be finalised until the chief inspectors' guidance is known, and we are still some way off the first inspections in September 1993. But they are based on a range of costs from £6,000 for a small primary school to £30,000 for a large secondary which reflect current HMI practice in terms of the length of a full inspection leading to a published report. I expect the chief inspectors' guidance will leave some flexibility for more or less efficient inspectors to modify the precise number of days used, although it will be essential that time spent observing teaching and learning is the same in schools of similar sizes.
The noble Lord asked about flexibility for governing bodies if they wished to add more money to the money that has been allocated for inspection. That flexibility will be allowed to governing bodies. We have used a central estimate of around £350 for the daily cost of an inspector, but I expect there would also be some variation about that figure depending on the area concerned and on the overheads of different inspectors. I have already written to the noble Lord explaining about VAT, as I have said. I have explained
628
that VAT need not be included in these net figures because where it is payable it is reclaimable and it must be returned to schools. We should beware of helping those who may be in the market for inspection work to talk up the figures so as to increase their profits. I am talking now about outside companies that have been vocal in these matters.
If the Committee believes the funding will be tight, it should welcome the pressure that will be put on private firms as well as LEAs to operate as efficiently as possible. I have said that the level of overheads will be a critical factor. I understand that Coopers & Lybrand believes there needs to be a mark-up of around 300 per cent. on the salary costs of its inspectors. I am not sure all firms and LEAs would share that view. But it is hardly surprising that some firms are suggesting that more money is needed. It is in their interest to push costs up, as much as it is in the public interest to contain them. But the department has already had many expressions of serious interest from those already working in education in a range of capacities as well as from consultants in related fields. We are confident that there will be no shortage of competent inspectors applying for registration both within and outside local authorities. If Coopers wants to remain in the education market, I suspect it will join in before too long. It will have to accept healthy competition in the process. We are talking of a central figure of £350 net of VAT. That is rather over £400 a day if (as I believe Mr. Thompson of Coopers did) one includes VAT. That is not as far as has been suggested from the £500 to £600 he has mentioned.
It is also important to remember how little of all this is firmly fixed. We do not object to speculation. We have had to speculate ourselves for the purpose of giving some indication to Parliament of our plans. But we must remember that speculation is what it is. Until the chief inspector has issued his guidance and we know what the length of inspections will be, until we have then consulted LEAs on the right formula for allocating funds and until we have adjusted LMS schemes for the first secondary inspections in September 1993, no one can be certain about the exact figures.
I apologise that I have not been able to provide concise answers to the questions put by the noble Lord. The Bill stands silent on how schools are to receive their funds. However, I am happy to explain what we have in mind. We propose that schools should be in receipt of funds in the year of inspection. There is no question of their having to save up over the four years, or even of the first schools having to get into debt to meet their commitment.
The money will flow to schools through LMS schemes. The variations will ensure that each school to be inspected has sufficient money to buy an inspection which will meet HMCI's guidelines. No central rate for an inspection will be set centrally; the precise cost will be subject to market forces in each area. If schools can make modest savings they will be able to deploy them elsewhere. But the scope for this will be limited by the central guidance to inspectors. If schools wish to top up the money available, that also will be a matter for the appropriate authority.

629
We have yet to take decisions on the precise method by which LMS schemes will be varied. Our plans will be subject to consultation with local authorities and they will of course have to consult their schools before making variations. The variations will certainly need to take into account the fact that different sizes and types of school will require different levels of funding for the purposes of inspection. We will ensure that all schools get what they require to enable a proper inspection to be carried out. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I have also added my name to this amendment. I believe we are near to one of the points which concerns many of us. Inspection is of the greatest possible importance. So far as I am aware, nowhere in the Bill are we told what the minimum qualifications and standards of the inspectors will be. We are told that the chief inspector will settle that. The Minister said something that gave me cause for some alarm. She said that if a school could save money on an inspection it could use that money elsewhere. The money is not ring-fenced. The temptation to get inspections on the cheap will be considerable because money will be tight. If we drop the standards of inspections, there is a danger that we shall obtain cut-price inspections. After all, people will compete for the job on price. That is an important element. The last thing we want is cut-price inspections. That will do no good in terms of raising quality in schools. Will the noble Baroness give us some idea of what the minimum standards will be as opposed to what the chief inspector has said?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness makes an important point. She is absolutely right to say that this provision will be central to the way the whole inspection system works and to its effectiveness. However, we have taken the view that the chief inspector is to be free to set standards and to set the qualification standards for entry to the register. He will of course have powers to deregister if inspectors do not come up to the qualification standards. The chief inspector may set conditions. In other words, when a registered inspector performs his activities he will have to conform to conditions. One of those conditions could relate to the previous amendment which concerns using competent skills held by members of the inspection team to inspect a school. That is a fundamental difference. We are relying on the professionalism of the inspector.
The information about qualifications and standards will be in the public domain. That information will be seen and understood by the schools and by the public at large. That is an important provision. The choices made by the appropriate authorities—in most cases, the governing bodies—will, we hope, be made on the basis of quality and price. But given the fact that anyone who is a registered inspector will have gone through a quality threshold, he will have the expertise to meet the professional standards and also the needs of the school.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have one simple question for the noble Baroness. Let us suppose that a school decided to spend rather more on an inspection than it needed to or more than other schools spend on inspections. What will the school receive in exchange for having spent more money? If I go to Fortnum and Mason as opposed to McDonald's, I know what I shall receive. But under this scheme what will a school receive for paying more money?
Baroness Blatch: If a school pays more than it needs to, parents, and certainly governors, would have to be called to account for having done so. The governors will describe the school and the nature of the inspection to be carried out to conform with all the requirements of the Bill. If they choose to pay over the odds, that governing body will be accountable to the parents and, at some stage, to the Secretary of State.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: The school may not be extravagant. It may simply want to buy what it considers is best. What more would it receive that it would not receive if it did not pay that sum?
Baroness Blatch: In terms of competence and quality of inspection a school cannot buy more. For the purposes of the inspection the school will employ a competent, fully registered inspection team. If the school chooses to pay a high price for that inspection, it will have to be accountable to the parents and explain why an expensive option was chosen when cheaper options were available under which the job could have been done as competently.
Viscount Eccles: The Government estimated the cost at £70 million before we started work on the Bill. As the Bill proceeds it is obvious that the cost of inspections is increasing because we keep adding to the tasks which the teams must carry out. I am anxious that all the money which is available should not be spent on inspections without consideration being given to whether that is the only way to obtain the information which the public want for the money which is available. Can I have an assurance that the inspectors will not merely carry out inspections and certainly would never be able to carry out, for example, 6,000 inspections a year which is quite beyond administrative possibilities? It is more important to consider how to obtain the information which parents and employers want.
Baroness Blatch: That is another important point. However, I pointed out in relation to an amendment moved in Committee that approximately three-quarters of HMI's time will be spent doing the very important work to which my noble friend Lord Eccles referred. That is what I refer to as "dipsticking" into the system—in other words, looking at the system on a random basis. We now have a system of inspection which will help HMI to identify the pressure points where inspections are most needed and to provide that information to schools and local education authorities.
Baroness Faithfull: What would be the position in the case of a small but very good school which is a charity, providing a special service for special children, which does not have the money for inspections?
Baroness Blatch: That would be a wholly independent school which is a charity. I shall take advice on that matter but my understanding is that the school would not be in receipt of fees from the Government for inspection. I shall have to take advice on the extent to which it would be required to undergo inspections.
Lord Peston: I do not think that such schools fall within the ambit of the Bill, but I am not entirely sure of that. I apologise for not thanking the noble Baroness earlier for her letter of 18th February. I have tried manfully to understand it. I think that it amounts to the fact that all the sums under consideration are net of VAT.
I do not want to prolong the discussion since the matter is rather technical, but I am still a little puzzled. If the Bill becomes law it will be a statutory duty on the part of the appropriate authorities to have an inspection. I am not sure what happens if they cannot achieve that at the price which is quoted. In other words, money may be set aside but the authority may not be able to obtain an inspection for that sum. We are talking of business enterprises which may not quote prices which the authorities can afford. That is one matter which puzzles me. I do not want to prolong the matter now but perhaps the noble Baroness will obtain advice as to what would happen if authorities could not afford that statutory duty. That is my main question. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("who has completed a course of training in respect of which he has received a certificate issued under paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 below.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 93 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 131 and 133 to 140. Amendment No. 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is particularly important in my view, as is Amendment No. 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
What I say in relation to Amendment No. 93 also applies in particular to Amendment No. 140. I should like to apologise for not having been able to be present last Monday. That may mean that I have missed some important nuances in debate; if so, I shall stand to be corrected later.
The underlying concern of most of the speakers in the debates on the Bill relates to the capacity of the new inspectors to do the job which is intended. The question is whether they will be competent. Last week the Government accepted an important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. That went some way to allaying anxieties on the issue. The functions of the chief inspector were enlarged.
It will now doubtless be said that that amendment makes unnecessary the amendments which we are now to deal with. For my part I infer exactly the opposite. I argue that the amendments go in the same direction and complement last week's amendment. My proposition is that if one accepts the Renfrew/Young amendment of last week, then one should logically accept these amendments today—Young supports Young.
Amendment No. 93 in particular is designed to strengthen the chief inspector's powers in another respect—in relation to the training of the ordinary inspectors. That is a matter on which the Bill stands silent—to use the attractive words of the noble Baroness a few moments ago. My contention is that on that important matter of training the Bill should not stand silent but should speak.
Training is clearly a very important matter. No one in this Chamber would deny that. It is important in any profession and it is important in the new profession which is projected in the Bill. If the training is inadequate, the whole new system could be weakened. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that it could be weakened to such an extent that the whole new system might become a farce. That is all the more important in my submission because at present there is no requirement in the Bill for previous qualifications of any kind for the new inspectors who will form the inspection team.
The registered inspectors are to be accredited but the ordinary inspectors and inspection teams are not, or at least there is no provision as yet for such accreditation. No doubt, as we have been told many times before, ordinary inspectors will ordinarily have previous experience which is relevant. They will have been teachers, and many will have been local authority inspectors. However, it is not necessary for that to be the case. Even if it were the case it does not follow that anyone who has been a teacher is qualified to be an inspector. A nursery school teacher may not be the best person to inspect science in a secondary school. In any case, there is bound to be a worry, which I am sure is not confined to me, that there could be a minority of people who do not have relevant previous experience and who manage to be appointed to the new inspection force.
One of the great banes but also great beauties of education is that almost anyone can hold an opinion about it. Very often the firmness of people's opinions varies inversely with the extent of their knowledge of the subject. We know from our own sometimes bitter experience that people can become extremely cranky about education. They can be cranky about anything of course but it seems that education offers a great field or dominion for cranks to occupy. We can all surely imagine people who see in this Bill the creation of a whole new profession, with thousands of new posts being set up and a certain amount of new money being made available. There will be people who believe that the great opportunity has now come for them at last to get their views across in such a way that it will influence what happens in the schools; and what better

633
way can it be achieved than by becoming a member of the new inspection teams? There will also be a certain amount of money in it for them.
There are people who believe against the evidence—sometimes with the evidence—that they in particular have the nostrum which will save education from what would otherwise be a terrible fate. If many of those people—retired this or retired that with strong opinions—want to undertake the course of training, they can do so. It is the only requirement laid down in the Bill for the new ordinary inspectors. Unless those people were very dull indeed, they could complete it without having absorbed very much of what they were taught.
I can certainly imagine that, once it is announced that there will be thousands of jobs available for people who complete the course of training, some shadier commercial correspondence colleges (which unfortunately still exist in this country despite some improvement) will turn their eyes to the syllabus for the course of training set out by the chief inspector. They will soon offer courses to run alongside the chief inspector's course and coach people in how to complete it. Whether or not that turns out to be the case, the chief inspector will not have any obvious way, as the Bill stands at the moment, to stop unsuitable people from completing the course, unless he is given specific powers to do so. An unsuitable minority could complete the course and some of the cranky butchers, bakers and candlestick makers who we all know exist could get through the course. They could achieve notoriety, making an absurd mess of what they do and issuing public statements, and could go far to bring the whole new system into disrepute.
I argue that the chief inspector should be able to exclude from courses people who are not fit and proper persons to take the course, just as he can exclude people on that ground once they have taken the course. We may hope that he does not often have to exercise that option but he should have the power to do so if it proves necessary.
In my view the most important point raised by these amendments concerns certification. On this side of the Chamber we believe that the Government have gone much too far in testing children in relation to the national curriculum. Testing has gone to the Government's head. However, in this Bill all that seems to have been thrown aside. There is no mention of testing or examination to find out whether those who have taken the chief inspector's course have understood or benefited from it. They are to complete the course—I underline the word "complete"—but that does not mean that they will have done anything more than go through the motions. That does not guarantee that they have learnt anything from the course or know much about the way in which schools work or the arts of constructive inspection. A course may be completed without that completion being in the least satisfactory. On that point the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, fully hits the nail on the head.
In my opinion it is vital that the chief inspector should have the power and the duty to award certificates to those who complete the course
634
satisfactorily. The schools and the public would then know that those who inspect the schools have undertaken a course of training, have benefited from it in a positive way and have passed muster with the chief inspector as being people who have the right kind of training for the job. Without that provision any training could be worse than useless. I hope that my arguments can in general be accepted. The amendment is very much in line with the one accepted by the Government last week and I hope that they will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: The noble Lord paints a very gloomy picture which causes great alarm. If such cranky people with views on education which have been derived from nothing but the experience of their own childhood were to become registered inspectors, it would be very bad for the education service and for the reputation of the inspectors. However, I do not share his gloom.
I see nothing in the way that these arrangements for training are described which is different from the current position with HMI. The training course and period of training which HM inspectors undergo is taken after appointment and after they have been selected as fit and proper people to undertake inspection. The selection is based on their experience, background and academic qualifications, where appropriate. They will then be given the course of training which makes them fit to conduct the inspections. I hope that more than that will be done. As with HMI at the present time, I hope that they will be given suitable mentoring arrangements which will enable them to learn on the job in a structured and proper way.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord that at the present time there is no requirement for specific sets of qualifications for existing HMIs. It has not resulted in any more disastrous errors and mistakes than is the normal average among human beings. In the current inspectorate there are people inspecting schools who have never taught in a school but who for other good reasons are the appropriate and right people to inspect schools. There are certainly people who are not graduates in the current HMI.
Lord Young of Dartington: I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there is an important difference between the present HMIs and the new inspectors that are suggested in the Bill. Many of the people who might be suitable HMIs are known from personal knowledge. They might be known from what they have already done in education and be appointed because of what is known about them. But the Bill suggests something quite different. Anyone in the country is a potential inspector. No one in the HMI service or anywhere else will know anything about them before they start on the job.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I do not see the distinction. In theory at the present time anyone can apply. The jobs of HMI are advertised. At times many thousands of applications are received—certainly many hundreds on each occasion that they are

635
advertised. The applications come from a variety of people. They are sifted and sorted, as I assume will be the case under the new arrangements, until an appropriate short list of people is drawn up. They are then interviewed for their suitability.
I do not share the noble Lord's gloomy view of any drastic changes in the arrangements. I see absolutely no reason why the arrangements for inspection as proposed in the Bill should not be as good or better than those which currently exist.
Lord Beloff: We return to the central problem in dealing with the Bill; it is that it is difficult to seize on the actual intentions of the Government. The news that important firms of consultants do not wish to participate is important. It was not made clear on the face of the Bill that it was expected that existing firms would do so. Unless the newspapers are wholly wrong, we now know that some firms have been approached. Before we come to the important points of selection, training and registration we need to know what is the Government's thinking not only as regards the first crop but as regards those in the future. Presumably if one puts legislation on the statute book one intends it to last.
I am afraid that I am irresistibly reminded of the Education (Student Loans) Bill. When it was before this Chamber the Government said that the loans would be administered by existing joint stock banks. Some of us pointed out that it was highly improbable that student loans was a business that would suit them but we were brushed aside. Nevertheless we were right; the Government were wrong. They had to set up a money lending instrument of their own. I do not say that action was wrong but it was not where the Bill started.
We are now asked to accept a system of tendering for the inspection teams. We are told that we must not ask that the people who take part in the teams shall be registered, because that is bureaucratic. That was what the noble Baroness said in reply to an earlier amendment of mine. Doubts are expressed about whether any formal provisions are needed for their training. We should be told about the kind of people who are expected to tender and what is to be the incentive for them. The financial point was raised by my delightful colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at an earlier stage. We do not know the full financial provisions, and so forth, which are all in the air. Therefore, how can we be asked to legislate for the future of an important part of our educational system unless we are told precisely by the Government that they expect inspectors to come from the Royal Marines or wherever and that they expect them to make a reasonable profit amounting to so such and such?
All those issues could be made precise. Why are they not being made precise? Is it because for some reason which is obscure to Members on all sides of the Committee there is a desperate hurry to get the Bill through? If it had been brought before Parliament in the next Session there would have been time to explain in detail to the educational world what is intended. I
636
do wish that my noble friends on the Front Bench would explain these matters to me. I should find it much easier to vote with them if they did.
Lord Elton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 135, standing in my name. I can do so without adducing the great principles that have excited other speakers in the debate. Provision already exists in the Bill to enable HMCI to exercise control over the quality of inspectors. However, we are now examining the quality control of other registered inspectors. I am worried about one aspect. The provision which already exists is in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. It states:
"No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team for such a school, unless he has completed a course of training".
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, would like the chief inspector to stop people getting on to the course, to get them booted off the course if they are not going to succeed and to pass a test at the end of which they will be certificated as having completed the course successfully. I believe that only the latter requirement is necessary. Most of the wordage produced by the noble Lord and by my noble friend is unnecessary.
I wish to be assured that people who are trained have not merely completed courses but have completed them successfully. I am sure that that will also be the wish of the chief inspector. Having tried to dismiss a registered inspector for being unqualified I should not like the chief inspector brought up before the court to be told that he was qualified because he had completed a course in the way in which one can claim to have a failed BA as a qualification.
Mine is a simple request. I do not believe that a great deal of administrative expense is involved other than that which one would expect in a prudent arrangement already existing. I hope that the Government will be a little more friendly towards my friendly approach than doubtless they will be towards the others.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Members of the Committee have raised many points and I shall try to reassure them. The noble Lord, Lord Young, in Amendments Nos. 93 and 140, my noble friend Lord Beloff in Amendments Nos. 134 and 137 and my noble friend Lord Elton in Amendment No. 135 are all interested in tightening up the process of training of team members. They variously wish to ensure that no one is admitted to a course unless judged suitable for inspection work, which is right, that they should be required to reach a certain standard in order to complete it and that they should be offered a certificate if they do so successfully. In addition, in Amendments Nos. 136 and 139 my noble friend Lord Beloff wishes to remove the ability of HMCI to waive the training requirement where he thinks it appropriate to do so.
Perhaps I may first deal with that latter more narrow point. We consider that flexibility to waive the training requirement should be retained for what we expect to be a few cases in which it may be justified. For example, a future HMI well versed in the new inspection system—perhaps himself or herself running training courses for inspectors—might wish to leave the national inspectorate to become a registered

637
inspector. That is probably an ideal career-break path. I would not like to see HMCI forced to require that individual to attend his or her own course to learn what he or she had been teaching to others!
Lord Elton: I believe that my noble friend is misunderstanding my request. I was not asking whether people are competent in their subject. I was asking that they should have passed a course which would make them competent in the inspection of their subject. That is rather different.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am replying initially to the narrower point in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Beloff relating to the simple opportunity of HMCI to waive training if necessary. We expect that in the early days all inspectors will need training in what will be a very new system—but we are legislating for a longer timescale. I hope that the trust in the HMCI will allow the amendment to be withdrawn.
Turning to the need for closer control over the training process, my honourable friends in another place have made clear that the HMCIs can be expected to look carefully at applicants for training. It seems to us that the fulfilment of his duty to keep standards under review will ensure that HMCI will want to take particular care to secure that inspectors are suitable and appropriately trained. His ability to carry out his job depends on that. We do not consider it necessary to hedge the HMCIs round with conditions. A competent HMCI, keen to secure a successful national system, will I am sure not accept those who are clearly unsuitable or lack the appropriate qualifications and experience for the task. I believe therefore that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Young, that is unlikely that HMCI will accept nursery teachers to inspect science. The noble Lord expressed doubts, but a competent HMCI will have arrangements in place so that anyone who showed himself during the course to be unable to cope with the training would not be allowed to complete the course.
As regards certification, some written evidence of completion of training will be required by inspectors which can be produced on request when work is sought. That evidence is likely to take the form of either a letter or a certificate validated by HMCI who will have a register of those people. Therefore, I believe that the Bill's provisions taken together already secure the sort of assurances which Members of the Committee seek.
As regards Amendments Nos. 131 and 133, it seems that my noble friend Lord Beloff is trying to reopen the debate which we had on the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, which were accepted by the Committee. Perhaps I can refresh the memory of my noble friend by saying that those amendments provided for the chief inspector to be able to offer advice to governing bodies on the tenders received and, indeed, to exercise a power of veto if necessary. When we discussed those amendments we said that we thought they swept up the power which my noble friend Lord Beloff sought to introduce to Schedule 2 through those amendments. I still think that.
638
Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the changing flexibility of employment which those rolls of registered inspection teams will sweep up. I stress that there is a vast difference between the student loan requirement from the private sector and that required from individuals to make up the teams. I must disagree with my noble friend when he suggests that there has not been sufficient time for discussion of the Bill and that it has been hurried through.
7 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: With great respect, the Bill was guillotined in another place. Therefore, it cannot have had enough time.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: It was guillotined after a Committee stage when all the time allowed to it was not used. There was adequate time for discussion. On the day of the guillotine most of the discussion was on political rather than educational matters.
Under the Bill we are establishing a two-tier system of quality control—a system which will be tight but flexible. No one will be employed as a team member unless he or she has successfully completed a course of training provided or approved by the chief inspector.
Lord Elton: Did the Minister use the word "successfully" advisedly? Is she saying that what I have asked for is in the Bill? She said that no one would be accepted as an inspector unless he or she had successfully completed a course. That word does not appear in the Bill.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Such a person would not be on the register without training, as I said earlier.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I am still rather perplexed, as I suspect is the noble Lord, Lord Elton. A person may undertake the training without successfully completing it. He may have failed to meet the kind of requirements which HMCI believes to be appropriate. What happens in those circumstances?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I shall repeat for the noble Baroness and for my noble friend what I said earlier. As regards certification, some written evidence of completion of training will be required by inspectors which can be produced on request when work is sought. That evidence is likely to take the form of a letter or a certificate.
I return to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff. The registered inspector must be satisfied, in the light of the guidance from the chief inspector about the composition of teams, that a person is suitable and competent for the task in hand. Furthermore, the governing body commissioning the inspection will wish to be satisfied as to the qualifications of the members of the team to be used by each registered inspector tendering for the inspection. That is a further strand of quality assurance. Yet another strand has been built in through the acceptance last week of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Those

639
amendments mean that assessors appointed by HMCI will help governors to examine the credentials of the whole team.
I assure my noble friend that the Government have not approached any firms of management consultants. They approached us, as have a wide range of education consultants. The important piece of news is not that Coopers & Lybrand will only participate if there is more money on the table but that there are plenty of others who will tender. I hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will rest content with the considerable safeguards that I have listed and will, if necessary, be able to vote with us.
Lord Young of Dartington: I thank the Minister for that winding-up speech. I was surprised when the Minister expressed her view that a certificate or some form of written evidence of completion would be required. If that is so, I should have thought that the obvious course to pursue is to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, so that it is quite clear that certification will be required. I am only sorry that the Minister was not able to go that far.
However, let us always hope that, the intention having been stated—and stated clearly—it will at a later stage it will be put on the face of the Bill. That would reassure many people who may have doubts. However, it is now seven minutes past seven—
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord invites us to have dinner, which I believe he is about to do, perhaps he will allow me an opportunity to speak because the convention is that one does not speak to an amendment which has already been spoken to. Therefore, I shall not again have the opportunity to address Amendment No. 35.
I shall read carefully what my noble friend said. I was rather beset by the idiosyncrasies of the grouping which I tried to sort out while she was replying to the amendment. I hope that the Minister gave a firm indication that the Government intend that a criterion of success will be embodied in practice when it comes to seeing who has and who has not satisfied the requirements of training for that function. If I do not find such an assurance in Hansard, I shall return to this matter.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I assure my noble friend that we are sympathetic to the spirit of his request. I should like to explain to the Committee that I may have inadvertently mentioned registered inspection teams. I apologise for that. The team leaders are the registered inspectors and the team members will be given recognition for successfully completing training. I am sorry for the confusion I caused.
Lord Young of Dartington: It is now eight minutes past seven. If we obey the dictates of the clock, I believe that in the longer run time will definitely be on our side. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Coal Industry Bill
7.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Further grants for workforce redeployment and reduction etc.]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Repeal of Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908]:
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("following the application of collective agreements concluded between the two sides of industry which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of the workforce").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 2 repeals the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 which limited time worked below ground to seven-and-a-half hours. The proposal caused widespread anxiety because the 1908 Act was the foundation stone of the health and safety reforms in this country. From discussions on Clause 2 in this House on Second Reading and in Committee and from debates in another place the Minister will be aware of what was the basis of that anxiety.
It is partly historic sentiment; that is, losing the historic security that miners felt with the 1908 Act. It is also much sharper and more real. It is based on the feeling among miners that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to loosen and worsen their working conditions and thereby make it possible to increase the profits of the new private owners of the intended privatised coal industry. It is felt that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to prepare the way for that privatisation, for which it is a stepping stone.
Whatever the different views may be on the advantages or otherwise of privatisation, it is hard to escape one broad conclusion—that on the face of it the clause will mean that miners will work longer hours per shift below ground and will not be paid overtime for above seven-and-a-half hours. I am sure that the Minister will not lightly deny that simple conclusion.
The Minister replied to those arguments and anxieties with his customary patience, courtesy and helpfulness. He rightly pointed out that health and safety are no longer dependent on the 1908 Act; that more recent legislation is more relevant. He argued also that the 1908 Act is outdated because mechanisation has transformed the mines and many miners work longer hours in breach of the Act. We on this side accept much of that, subject to the qualifications I made at Second Reading concerning the undoubted continuing unpleasantness of working conditions underground, however transformed from 1908, and that miners work longer hours of their own choice with a right to overtime.
The acceptance by us of many of those arguments does not cover the whole issue which we address in the amendment. It does not cover the vital issue of the involvement of the miners in the safety of their own working conditions. Complaints have been made by the miners regarding the lack of consultation on the Bill. My noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Stoddart echoed those complaints in Committee. At Second Reading I reminded the Minister that a previous Secretary of State promised consultation before any moves were made towards introducing longer hours. That did not take place.
The Minister assured us that there will be consultation between British Coal and the miners' representatives on new working arrangements, which presumably means shifts of longer hours—he may wish to clarify that—in advance of the implementation of the new EC directive. We welcome that. But the amendment seeks to build on that and build it into the Act to ensure that safety is a normal part of collective agreements in the future, whatever that new future may be for the mining industry.
The heart and main thrust of the amendment concerns the involvement of all sides of the industry, especially the workers underground and their elected representatives, in both the construction and the implementation of the laws and rules relating to safety. The belief underlying the amendment is that safety is the prime concern; that it is the highest priority of those actually working underground. Where men are working in dangerous conditions—mining underground is still dangerous, as the tragedy at Wearmouth demonstrated only two weeks ago—it is both their right and the most effective way of achieving safety to involve them in the negotiation and implementation of safety procedures.
As my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said so convincingly in Committee from their wide practical experience, safety involves everybody. The safety procedures will be most widely obeyed by miners if the miners' representatives are involved in negotiation and especially in ensuring that they are enforced and obeyed by their own members. That is what the amendment, which I stress is constructive in intent, seeks to achieve. It also seeks in its wording to encourage collective agreements, freely negotiated, which are more favourable to safety than the 1908 Act or than the EC directive, which allows for conditions minimally worse than the 1908 Act. I cannot believe that the Minister will object to that.
In passing, perhaps I may say that we all welcome the most recent information on the state of the EC directive and the Government's attitude to it. As the Minister has often said, we have moved a long way since 1908. I am sure that he would wish that movement to be forward in safety terms. That is what the amendment seeks. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised once again an issue of considerable importance which was raised at previous stages of the Bill. While it is accepted without question that much has happened since 1908 and that the relevance of legislation in that year is no longer what was
642
intended, nonetheless we feel that Clause 2 is stark in referring simply to the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 ceasing to have effect without indicating what is to replace it.
The Secretary of State in another place and the Minister in this place indicated that the clause would not have effect until either the Community's proposed directive on working hours or some other provisions were put in place. Our anxiety is that whatever replaces the Act of 1908 should be discussed in this House and that the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, should be borne in mind. Although it is strictly correct to say that the 1908 legislation was not concerned with safety but with hours of work, nevertheless hours of work have always traditionally impinged on safety. While it is correct to say that under present mining conditions the hours of work need not be restricted to those laid down in previous legislation, there must be safeguards, otherwise the whole operation underground could be relatively uncontrolled. I support the underlying intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, I wish to make some general observations concerning this amendment. I believe that the role of the 1908 Act continues to enjoy an importance in our debates which it does not deserve. The Act has been virtually obsolete for many years. In recent years it has been widely ignored by management and mineworkers alike. Is that really surprising? Can one really expect a detailed Act, now over 80 years old, to have relevance in an industry which meanwhile has experienced vast technological change? The year 1908 represents the early pick and shovel era, which placed extreme physical demands on miners. The current highly mechanised mining methods now employed are light years removed from those conditions and thereby have dramatically reduced those punishing demands on mineworkers. However, one cannot deny that any underground working environment will always remain a harsh one.
The importance attached to safety in British Coal exceeds anything I have experienced in other industries. This is evident in the regular and continuing safety dialogue which exists between management and miners at colliery level. I do not know whether noble Lords appreciate that every month and at every colliery there is a meeting between management and mineworkers concerned with the issues of safety and other related matters. It is sometimes implied that British Coal is sacrificing safety on the altar of productivity or profitability. That is totally unjustified. Indeed, the converse is true, in that higher productivity has led to improved safety standards. For example, since 1985 British Coal's productivity has more than doubled while over the same period the accident rate has more than halved. The actual figures are that the all-accident rate in 1985–86 was 43.8 accidents per 100,000 man shifts worked. The current figure for the present year is about 21.4. I believe that that performance reflects great credit on management and miners alike.
Comprehensive and demanding legislation for safety in coal mines already exists centred on the

643
Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the overriding Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Interestingly, the 1908 Act does not form part of that legislative structure. This is allied to the important role of the Mines Inspectorate—one has to emphasise its role—whose thoroughness and dedication in over-viewing all aspects of safety, including working hours, contributes to British Coal's safety standards being at the top of the deep mine world league. Undoubtedly a major factor is the dominant safety ethos which exists within the corporation itself.
I hope that this overall perspective of the safety situation within British Coal will be reassuring to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, but I feel that it would be more appropriate for my noble friend Lord Cavendish to respond to the specific theme of this amendment. I believe that this whole Bill, as it was originally conceived, will be a most welcome and positive factor in ensuring that the UK coal industry will be best placed to meet the very formidable challenges it obviously faces.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment because I believe that my noble friend Lord Donoughue covered it fairly comprehensively. However, I find myself in contention with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam. I respect his views as a former chairman of British Coal, but that does necessarily mean that I agree with them. It should be made quite clear that the amendment in the Marshalled List is not a figment of a political brain which wants to appear to be casting some doubt on the veracity of what the Government are trying to do. The amendment has been included in the Marshalled List at the express wish of the people employed in the industry.
The amendment is also in accord with what was said by the Select Committee of another place when it suggested that, before any legislation is brought forward to change the situation, there should be the fullest consultation with the people involved. What that means to noble Lords on this side of the House may be different to what the Government believe, bearing in mind the past legislation that we have dealt with. Very often the Government say "This is what we are doing. We are going to legislate" and so they do. Now they say "Now that the legislation is on the statute book we shall consult with those whom it affects".
That is not my view as to what is meant by consultation. If there is to be a specific and definite change in something involving workpeople—I say this as a former factory worker myself—there is no point in telling them that they can consult when the Act is a fait accompli. So far as the workpeople are concerned, consultation is meaningless unless they are able to form particular views on the subject. When the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, referred to present aspects I believe that he was talking about the situation between pit and pit. I am not so familiar with the mining industry as he is or the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, was talking about what can be done with the present Coal Board and its activities.
644
However, we are not dealing with that situation. There is no question at all but that, if the Government are returned, and if they can, they will pursue some form of privatisation of the coal mining industry. That is no secret. The Secretary of State has made public his views on that subject. We are saying that, whatever happens in terms of who is in control of the mining industry, the miners and their representatives should have the right to be involved with such safety measures which are designed to operate within the industry.
I was a factory worker. I said at Committee stage that I believed that a mine was a kind of factory. It is a production unit and a very dangerous type of factory. Unless one involves the people who are employed in those dangerous jobs and the representatives whom they appoint or elect, they will not have the necessary strength to deal with the situation. Some time ago I went to the site of the Channel Tunnel. That project was given serious consideration because of the number of accidents which were taking place. What was undertaken was carried out immediately. The union representatives or the men's representatives on site were involved at the point of contact. It would be a dereliction of duty for the Committee merely to say tonight that everything will be all right and that the mineworkers are consulted at present.
The point was eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Donoughue. We are simply stating what was said by the Select Committee of another place; namely, that whatever happens the mine workers should be consulted before legislation is brought before the House as they are being asked to give up a very long and well-proven system of employment in the mines. That is the situation as we see it. That is a little different from what the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, said with his first-class knowledge on the subject. I believe that we are on two different wavelengths. I support what my noble friend Lord Donoughue has said on the matter.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for introducing the amendment in the name of his noble friend. I also thank other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was not entirely convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had his heart in this amendment to the extent that he seemed to acknowledge that there was a symbolism about the 1908 Act. I am not sure that I did not notice the same flavour in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Flavour counts in these matters. There is a long tradition in the coal industry and it is as well and reasonable for people to be suspicious of change.
I should say straightaway—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will acknowledge this—that this Bill would be necessary whether or not the industry was privatised. I shall not go into the matter of whether or not there are secrets. Of course there are no secrets in that area. We are dealing with the coal industry today just as much as we might be dealing with the coal industry at any future date. In talking about the symbolism, or the sentiment behind the

645
1908 Act, I have to agree with my noble friend that it continues to enjoy an importance in our debates which it really does not deserve—to which, I might add, any more.
Noble Lords opposite must decide whether they want to make the regulation of health and safety at work a matter for the Government or for collective bargaining. The Government believe that the regulation of health and safety is a matter for government. There is a legislative system of health and safety protection for mineworkers in place in the United Kingdom. The 1908 Act does not form part of that legislative structure. The principal statutes relevant to health and safety, as I said at Second Reading and again at Committee stage, are the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I do not think that that is disputed.
There are also a number of other important measures relating to specific aspects of safety in mines. This system has been strengthened progressively over the years and there is no question of it being weakened. Safety for mineworkers is and will remain paramount. The Government, I can promise, will not take any action which threatens the safety of mineworkers. I was grateful to my noble friend who spoke on this matter persuasively and with authority.
Collective agreements, however, do have a role to play. They can assist good industrial relations. Indeed, the Government are taking powers to repeal the 1908 Act well in advance of implementing the repeal precisely so that the management and the workforce will have ample time and a suitable basis to negotiate sensibly on new working agreements which will be needed when the 1908 Act finally goes and the EC directive on working time is adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked what was the exact status of the directive—an update, so to speak. The directive has been drafted on the basis of Article 118A of the EC treaty. The main provisions of the latest version of the directive, dated November 1991, are as follows: a minimum daily rest period of 11 hours (Article 3); a minimum weekly rest period of 35 hours, including a daily 11 hour period and, in principle, including Sunday (Article 5); a maximum working time of 48 hours a week, averaged over three months (Article 6); four weeks' minimum annual paid holiday (Article 7); a maximum of eight hours a day for night workers averaged over an agreed reference period (Article 8).
The Social Affairs Council discussed the draft directive on 3rd December 1991. The next formal meeting is not until April. The Portuguese presidency is, however, expected to make a strong effort to reach a common position by June. The present draft provides for compliance within three years of the adoption of the directive. The previous draft included a compliance date of 31st December 1992. It would be brought into force in the UK by regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Department of Employment is in the lead in consultation with other interested parties, including the Department of Energy and British Coal. British Coal feels it will not be able to comply with both the
646
directive and the Coal Mines Regulations Act 1908. The 1908 Act restricts the period underground to seven hours 15 minutes, plus one hour winding time. British Coal is worried that the directive, in conjunction with the 1908 Act, will debar many of the flexible working arrangements upon which its increase in productivity is founded.
British Coal has to give six months' notice before re-negotiating working hours agreements. The negotiations could easily take a number of months beyond that. I hope that noble Lords will see that powers to repeal the 1908 Act are therefore needed very well in advance of the date when the directive may be adopted.
I have sought to say that we expect consultation and that there will be consultation. Furthermore, I hope to have illustrated that, through the Bill, no consultation will be denied. Under the United Kingdom system of statutory regulation of health and safety the employers will have to pay due regard to health and safety when concluding new working arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive can take action if health and safety are put at risk. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, that I felt he had written his speech before he heard what I had to say. My approach was constructive and I stated, and feel, nothing negative about the safety situation in British Coal. The Minister said that he senses that our hearts are not in this amendment. I reject that totally. My heart is not in any negative, partisan, broad, or shotgun approach to this Bill. It contains few proposals and I am fully in support of those relating to the redundancy payments to miners.
Where my heart is fully relates to the helpful statement made by the Minister in defining the difference between our two sides. He said that health and safety was for government, not for the people in the industry. That is quite a telling quotation. My heart is fully in opposing that view. Of course governments do and should set the general framework for safety and they should certainly establish minimum standards of protection. However, I restate —and this is the core of what we are saying—that those in the industry, those facing the dangers in mining and working underground, must be involved. They must be involved in defining the procedures and especially in implementing them, because it is their lives that are at risk.
That is the distinction between the two sides. We are trying to be positive. I cannot see any reason why this amendment should not be added to the Bill, because it is a supportive elaboration. It is not in any way destructive and it does not undermine anything else in the Bill. I am sorry that that has not been accepted. Having heard the arguments and in view of that distinction between the two sides I feel that I must divide the House.
7.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 78.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Underhill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Arran, E.

Lawrence, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coleraine, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rennell, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Haslam, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.46 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education (Schools) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 9.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 95 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 96.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 102 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 5, line 37, after ("school") insert ("are sufficient having regard to the duties variously to be performed by the headteachers and the governing bodies of those schools and by local education authorities under this or any other enactment and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 191. Although the amendments refer to different parts of the Bill I believe that the wording is almost identical. Perhaps I may briefly draw the attention of the Committee to page 5, line 37. We have put on the face of the Bill the provision that the registered inspector has to look at certain matters; namely, quality, standards and efficient management of resources. I believe that my noble friends and I and other noble Lords when debating the matter on Second Reading said that there was a further matter which ought to be put on the face of the Bill—not simply whether the resources were managed efficiently but whether there were sufficient resources initially.
It is a relevant factor. Everyone agrees with that. In fact I think that Mr. Eggar in another place referred to it as being something which could be taken into account. Therefore, the only question is whether it should be taken into account and put on the face of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. She said earlier that education equality is not all about resources. But I believe that she would also agree that one must not then go to the other extreme and say that it has nothing to do with resources.
Therefore, as I said, the only matter is whether the provision should be on the face of the Bill. My judgment is that, having gone this far and having got the efficient management of resources on the face of the Bill, logically it would make sense to say, "Well, yes, maybe they are doing as well as they can; but they can't do their education job properly because they didn't have enough resources in the first place". That is the reason for the amendment. After the remarks I made on Second Reading, I felt that I could not let the matter rest. Therefore, I draw the matter to the attention of the Committee and hope to get something by way of a positive response. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I should like first to express my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Obviously resources have much to do with the

649
quality of education. That is what the inspectors will be measuring. The amendment before the Committee seeks to give registered inspectors the duty to report on the adequacy of resources.
It is certainly the duty of inspectors—whether HMI or registered inspectors—to report on the way in which resources affect the quality and standards of education being offered in schools. If they feel a lack of resources is having a detrimental effect on a particular school they must say so. That view will be made public in the published report. That is not in any doubt. It is precisely the way in which HMI has interpreted its remit over the years and the basis of the expenditure reports which the Government have published since the early 1980s.
But I do not oppose Amendment No. 103 simply because in that narrow sense I deem it unnecessary. I do so because I believe it to be misconceived. It cannot be for registered inspectors to comment on what the absolute level of education spending needs to be. Whether resources are "sufficient" for the broad purposes of the school is not simply a professional judgment. It will always be possible to spend more on education, as it is always possible to spend more on other public services. A judgment must be made by those accountable for public spending about how to balance those various purposes within available resources. Inspectors can report objectively on the effects of those decisions but not on such a subjective concept as "sufficiency".
The decision about what resources are allocated to individual schools is largely for local authorities. It is for them to make judgments about sufficiency in the light of competing claims on their budgets, just as the Secretary of State must do centrally. Schools in their turn must manage their budgets efficiently. That is what the registered inspector will chiefly be assessing.
Inspection evidence is one important factor which my right honourable friend considers when setting public expenditure plans each year. In future, because of the great increase in local inspection evidence, local authorities will also be able to take into account evidence about how their schools are doing and how they are affected by available resources. It is for inspectors to feed objective evidence into those important decisions but not to comment subjectively. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have a brief comment to make. It is all very well for the Minister to say, as she has just said, that allocations are a matter for local decision. It is important for the Committee to realise the background to the matter. Since 1979 education has received a declining share of the gross national product—down from 5.5 per cent. to 4.6 per cent. Central government spending is 30 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1979–80 when the present Government came into power.
The prospects for education largely depend upon the criteria for local government capping. That is another aspect of the difficulties. Local authorities continue to face a squeeze on spending. Purchasing policies and priorities have had to contend with yet another education Bill. I should remind the
650
Committee that this is the fifth such Bill since 1979. The strategic role of local authority planning and the supply of services to schools have been severely undermined. The demands for a national curriculum, about which we hear so much in this Chamber, requires the necessary resources for a national education system which is locally delivered.
The latter are only a few of the matters which ought to be taken into account when considering the amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Peston. Unless we can get the background right—some of us have grave doubts about that in terms not just of money but as regards the whole question of resources, teacher supply, buildings and so on—the Government will not be able to deliver what they expect the Committee to accept in the context of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be supported.
Baroness Seear: Did not the noble Baroness say that it was for the local authorities to judge sufficiency? How can they adequately judge sufficiency if they are not given the right to inspect?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: In reply first to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, local authorities have the full information resulting from the inspections. If they have cause to be concerned that something is out of line in a school, they have the right to inspect, but they will have a higher level of inspection information than was the case in the past when only 154 inspections were carried out in a year. On that basis, I believe that they can make judgments.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, perhaps I may quote figures that are somewhat less depressing than he would have the Committee believe. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools rose from £515 in 1979–80 to £1,485 in 1989–90, a real terms increase of more than 40 per cent. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools on books and equipment rose from £20 in 1979–80 to £55 in 1989–90, a real terms increase of more than 35 per cent. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools on repairs and maintenance rose from £28 in 1979–80 to £75 in 1989–90, a real terms increase of more than 30 per cent.
The local authority grant settlement for 1991–92 allows for local education authorities in England to spend £17,486 million on education, which is 16 per cent. higher than the 1990–91 total. The Government's recently confirmed proposals for the local authority grant settlement for 1992–93 allow for total spending by local authorities on education of more than £18.7 billion, which is an increase of 7.1 per cent. over this financial year. Furthermore, an additional £56.5 million has been made available to local education authorities in England to help them to meet the cost of the 1992 teachers' pay award.
I repeat my earlier statement that, of course, it is always possible to spend more on education and on other public services. However, there is no doubt that much has been spent. It is the quality of education that we are asking the inspectors to judge.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Baroness sits down and in view of that battery of statistics, is she now saying that all the teachers' complaints have been unjustified?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Everyone will have a personal view about their own needs and requirements. As has been said on many occasions in this Chamber, difficult decisions must be reached about priorities in education and health. We are saying that that, to a very large extent, is for the judgment of the local education authorities.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for her reply. My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has made a number of good points but I suppose that to some extent they go slightly wide of our current scrutiny of the Bill. I shall reflect on how to get an entrée into the question of total resources because it is not a matter I can let go. I shall certainly read carefully what the noble Baroness said with a view to returning to the point that my noble friend made. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) the standard of behaviour which is regarded as acceptable at the school by—

(i) the governing body; and

(ii) the head teacher;

and
( ) the measures taken by the head teacher to—

(i) promote among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority,

(ii) encourage good behaviour on the part of pupils, and

(iii) secure that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 107, which addresses the same point. We have been talking a lot about the means by which people assess the sort of schools to which they want to send their children. When one is inquiring about a school, one certainly inquires about its academic performance, and we have discussed that exhaustively. One wants to know what the children will know and learn as a result of going to that school, how they will behave while they are at the school and as a result of attending it, and the sort of people they will be. The trouble with legislation and with the material with which we have been dealing so far is that it is so mechanical that, although it may produce an accurate answer in mathematical terms, it does not do so in human terms. Anybody wanting to decide whether to send a child to school A or school B wants to know what sort of schools they are and will not be satisfied simply by looking at tables of statistics and results. That is not only for the reasons that have been adduced already —that what comes out of a school relates to some extent to what goes in—but also because pupils acquire more from a school than learning in the academic sense.
When I started addressing this problem I did so with a picture in my own mind of what constitutes a
652
good school in the non-academic sense. In my view, what constitutes a good school is a happy and purposeful community in which the staff lead unanimously towards a shared objective, which the children share also. A school is a good school if its pupils feel that, in a sense, they belong to it and, in an equally important sense, that it belongs to them. It is also important for the school to have relations with the community, but that is not the subject of the amendment.
I sought assurances earlier that in this all-important area, without which stark academic success on its own may be worse than a less good academic performance, there might be some way in which the inspectorate could be engaged in reporting on such things, other than by expressions of goodwill on the part of Her Majesty's Government and all those involved in the system. I started with the second of my two amendments —Amendment No. 107—which was handed to me. Some of its phraseology is not to be found on the face of ordinary statutes. As the phrase,
"the general atmosphere of the school"
would be difficult to define in a court, I started looking for provisions which were already on the statute book and which used language suitable for the occasion. I found precisely what I was looking for in Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. It states:
"The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide—

(a) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to determine measures (which may include the making of rules and provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to—

(i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority;

(ii) encouraging good behaviour on the part of pupils;

(iii) securing that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable; and

(iv)"

which I have unaccountably left out of my amendment,
"otherwise regulating the conduct of pupils".
To do that effectively, staff do not operate on their own. They have to work within a programme and to objectives that have been agreed with the governing body and by the head teacher. The code of behaviour should be worked out and agreed between the staff and the governing body. Ideally, it should also contain marked input from the pupils, which will make them recognise it as their code also. When one has that, the discipline of a school is not dependent merely on the staff enforcing the rules, but also on the pupils enforcing the rules on each other because they see that they are conducive to achieving the sort of community to which they want to belong. The pupils then find that they are members of the sort of school to which they want to belong and will resent damage to, or defacement of, the property just as they resent unsocial or anti-educational behaviour from their friends.
I hope that I have not spent too long describing what I am after. I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendment provides for those policies to be agreed between the governing body and the head teacher and—it goes without saying—with the rest of the staff. The amendment addresses all those aspects of school behaviour, bar one, that are mentioned in the Education (No. 2) Act. I am

653
confident that the language is correct. I am confident that the objectives are correct. I am not so confident that I shall not be told that the aim will be achieved by some other means. I await with great interest my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 107 in particular. I appreciate he chose to table Amendment No. 105 because of using the words of Section 2 of the 1986 Act, but I prefer Amendment No. 107 because it looks at the whole life of the school not just discipline, stance and behaviour. When the All-Party Group for Children had a meeting about the Bill, I remember that he mentioned the need for inspectors to see ancillary staff as well as teachers. Amendment No. 107 includes the relationship between staff, pupils and other members of the school community. It also covers the school's physical environment which, given the state of repair of a good many of the schools in the maintained sector, could well be a crucial factor in assessing the success of the whole school generally. I support Amendment No. 107 in particular.
Lord Elton: It may be appropriate for me to mention now that the term "staff' includes of course all the staff. The noble Baroness has given a nice little illustration of the way that too many people assume that it does not. The staffroom does not have all the staff in it. Many of the staff are in the kitchen, the playground or the caretaker's hut. But they are staff, and if that is forgotten a valuable aspect of the school community is lost sight of and discipline or behaviour is weakened as a result.
Baroness David: I heartily agree with that. I should be surprised if many members of the ancillary staff are found in what is usually called the staffroom.
Baroness Blatch: I shall start by wishing my noble friend a happy birthday. I have only just discovered that that is what it is today. It is entirely characteristic that he should be sitting in the Chamber at this hour of night fighting for what I know he believes to be in the best interests of the education system and the children.
The Committee appreciates my noble friend's special interest in the whole question of discipline, behaviour and atmosphere in schools. He has a very particular knowledge of those matters as a result of his expert chairmanship of an inquiry a little while ago into school discipline. He has taken care to model Amendment No. 105 on the relevant section of the 1986 Education Act (Section 22) which sets out the particular responsibilities in disciplinary matters of the governing body and the head teacher.
We have agreed to consider adding some general words to the Bill to make it clear that all aspects of school life—not just the subjects taught to pupils in lessons time—are to be covered by the report. That is very much in the spirit of Amendment No. 107. I suggested in our debates that the spirit of Amendments Nos. 107 and 105 might be served by
654
adding the concept of social development to those of spiritual, moral and cultural development urged upon us by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that such an amendment would also render Amendment No. 105 unnecessary. That amendment deals in detail with just one aspect of the report. I accept it is an important aspect, but it is one which, given the need to report on the development of values within the school, inspectors clearly could not ignore, as was said by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David.
My noble friend will recognise that the Bill is only intended to set the broad framework within which HMCI's guidelines will operate. Clause 9(4) does that in six lines at present. An addition on values might add a further two or three lines, but I believe that it would unbalance the draft if we were to add 11 more detailed lines on discipline and behaviour without parallel additions on other matters.
The adjustments that we are considering will establish clearly that matters such as discipline and behaviour policy are proper concerns of the inspectors. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we do not need to go beyond that in primary statute.
Lord Northbourne: I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and agree with him about the importance of the leadership given by staff, the ethos of the school, the involvement of pupils and their feeling of belonging. I am a child in matters of drafting. I do not know how the amendments can most usefully be integrated into the amendments which the Minister has suggested that she might bring back and which I originally proposed. I support the principle behind the amendments, especially Amendment No. 105. I should be happy if a reference to social development were included in the amendments, as I suggested.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, for their interventions. I should be grateful if my noble friend could manage to get her suggested drafting of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with the addition of the social element, onto the Order Paper as soon as possible so that I might have a chance to look at it to decide whether it is sufficient or whether I should add something else.
I should like also to emphasise the importance I attach to the matter. So often the first thing one hears about a school is the disgraceful behaviour of its pupils. From that moment the school is sunk within the community. The way that pupils behave within the community springs largely from the way they are encouraged or allowed to behave in their schools. It is worth giving some weight to that aspect of the matter. The Secretary of State or HMCI may by direction or regulation be able to ensure that what I regard as an essential aspect of school management should be the subject of a specific report. Together with that, an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, might suffice. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert:
("(4A) The registered inspector shall inspect—

(a) details of punishments administered to any child in the school, and

(b) details of any complaints made by any person about the school.

(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the manner and form in which punishments shall be recorded, and

(b) the procedures to be established for consideration of complaints about schools.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment aims to introduce inspections of punishment books and details of complaints. It is possible for schools and other institutions to disguise failings during an inspection visit. One way of revealing problems which have occurred since the previous inspection is to look at the record of complaints and the punishment book. The amendment requires inspectors to examine those records. It mirrors provisions made under the Children Act for the inspection of residential child care institutions and independent schools with boarding facilities.
At present, only special schools are legally required to keep a punishment book. There are no requirements for schools to establish complaints procedures for parents and others, except on aspects of the national curriculum. Again, under social services and health legislation, most other public institutions are required to have complaints procedures for their consumers.
The second part of the amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on those two matters. The Government will undoubtedly announce that the governors are already under a duty to establish a complaints procedure, but the only requirement, as I said, is to establish arrangements for considering complaints against the school curriculum. That comes under Section 23 of the 1986 Act.
The DES circular on that duty makes it clear, for example, that those procedures would not be used for complaints about the actions of individual teachers or the head teacher. That is a common complaint. Given that all other institutions for children have established complaints procedure, many incorporating independent elements, it is outrageous that schools do not.
At the all-party meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has now left the Chamber, said that he thought that punishment books would be too bureaucratic, but given the conflicts about punishment which arise and the degree to which people disagree about the level of misbehaviour in a school, it is essential that all formal punishments are recorded accurately. It is difficult to see why education establishments should be treated differently from establishments set up by social services and health legislation. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that she will give a full explanation as to why there should be that distinction.
If the wording of the amendment is not acceptable, perhaps the Minister could take it away and come forward with another amendment which covers this important consideration. Under the Citizen's Charter
656
complaints can be made. It would be odd, therefore, if the amendment were not to be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In the groupings, this amendment is linked with Amendment No. 108A. Is the noble Baroness moving both amendments?
Baroness David: My noble friend Lady Blackstone was going to move Amendment No. 108A but she does not wish to do so and this is another occasion when we shall not speak to an amendment. I am sorry I did not make that clear.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady David. Punishment books in children's homes taught one a great deal, as much about the staff as the children, and were extremely useful. I am sad that I did not ask for the insertion of a paragraph (c) on non-school attendance. It is important that attendance records should be noted, particularly for children who do not attend school.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have listened to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in support of the amendment. It has been carefully drafted to stay within the scope of the Bill but we inferred that the real intention was to establish a formal system of recording punishments and complaints in each school.
This is a matter which we believe is quite properly left to heads and governors as part of their responsibilities. We should be very much against drawing up statutory regulations which create a whole new set of definitions of various forms of punishments or complaints. It is very difficult to know where we might draw the line between, for example, where a reproving word becomes a punishment, or when a concerned query turns into a complaint. In the case of corporal punishment, now banned from our schools, there was one clearly defined type of punishment on which, for obvious reasons, records had to be kept. But there has never been a requirement to record the use of the wide range of other disciplinary measures found in any school. We do not need to invent such a requirement now.
The head teacher has the prime responsibility for securing proper standards of behaviour and disciplinary measures. Governing bodies already have the right under the 1986 Act to produce a written statement of general principles regarding discipline, in accordance with which the head teacher must act. That seems to me a sensible distribution of functions and a sufficient description in legislation of what is required.
In the case of complaints about the curriculum, under the 1988 Act all local authorities must establish procedures for the consideration of such complaints, and have them approved by the Secretary of State. We chose that route deliberately to allow for flexibility rather than the imposition of one national pattern through regulations.
I certainly do not accept that registered inspectors will be unable to report effectively without access to standard records. They will be looking at discipline in all its aspects during their inspection and will be looking to see how it affects the ethos of the school

657
and relationships between staff and pupils. The policies expressed, and records kept, will form part of the evidence and inspectors would no doubt express concern in their report if the school had no idea about how often its major disciplinary sanctions were used. Inspectors will certainly also look at relations with parents and the wider community, and at how outside representations of all kinds are dealt with. Perhaps most importantly, through the meeting with parents which the Bill requires, inspectors will have direct access to first-hand views from parents and will pick up any concerns on those points.
Before the 1986 Act, when corporal punishment was lawful in maintained schools, there was a requirement that the head should keep a punishment book recording all instances of corporal punishment. The requirement was withdrawn formally in 1991. Some maintained schools still retain punishment books from choice, but with the abolition of corporal punishment their significance diminished.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull raised the matter of attendance, which is one of the issues with which the inspector will be concerned, together with punishment books. We would not wish to see them reinstated. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Glenamara: I do not know what is happening, I find myself for the second time agreeing with the Minister and against the amendment. It seems to me that it would do exactly what we complained about the Government doing under the Education Reform Act 1988. It lays down the minutiae of the running of schools, which is a matter for teachers and their professional judgment. Punishment books used to be kept in the days of corporal punishment. I made dozens of entries in one, but it is not necessary today.
As the Minister said, where does one draw the line? Jimmy was detained for 10 minutes after 4 o'clock; Willie had to spend half an hour picking up papers in the school field; or someone else had to write 10 lines. Where do we draw the line? It is absurd to say that punishment today should be recorded in a book. I am sorry to hear that some schools still keep punishment books. I hope they will burn them straightaway.
Secondly, as any head teacher will know, schools receive dozens of complaints. Most simply require an explanation from the head teacher, or someone else. Should we keep a record of these? I hope not. If there is a serious complaint, then of course it should be recorded in the log book of the school. But for heaven's sake let us not impose any petty new regulations of this kind upon our schools. We should leave it to the professional judgment of the teachers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. He puts it concisely and precisely from his experience.
Baroness David: I do not wish to be rude to my noble friend, but his experience as a head was quite a long time ago. I would not dare to divide the Committee after what he said. He supported the
658
Government, but the Government saw fit in the Children Act and the Health Act to retain records of punishments and complaints.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It can be left to heads and governors, but one would not altogether trust some of them. I shall read carefully all that has been said on all sides of the Committee and decide whether to conic back with the same or a slightly different amendment at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Atnendments Nos. 108A to 110 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 5, line 45, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("Chief Inspector for England or Wales as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name, that of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The purpose of the amendment is to try, yet again, to see whether we can make sense of the Government's legislation.
The Bill has been referred to as "silly" and I do not dissent from that. However, when we are in Committee we have at least some duty to say "Let's see whether we can convert the provisions before us into something more sensible". The purpose of the amendment, on a theme which we have debated previously, is to add some sense to the Bill. If we ask what is the most objectionable part of the Bill, it is a difficult question to answer. There are several contenders for the title. The privatisation of the inspectorate is one, but it is nowhere near being the most stupid.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out the notion of competitive tendering, and it is certainly a contender for the most bizarre part of the Bill, but I believe that the prize must go to whoever thought up the idea that schools should choose their own inspectors. That seems to me to beat almost anything that I could think of if I were asked to think of the silliest provision possible. When I was a young man in the Civil Service we used to play a game where we tried to think of the most stupid provision we could put before a Minister. Whoever drafted this part of the Bill has beaten anything I ever thought of when I was in the public service. I was quite good at inventing idiotic activities for Ministers.
Lord Borthwick: Oh!
Lord Peston: Some of those provisions may even have got into legislation. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord was referring to. The notion that one can choose one's own inspector is ridiculous. Every time I look at it I wonder how the draftsman could possibly have thought that was a good idea. That provision also involves elaborate bureaucracy which in a sense limits the choice.
I believe that the way into the problem is to return to that part of the Bill which concerns an appropriate authority and essentially change how we would define that appropriate authority. This amendment is simple

659
and it does not wreck the Bill. On the contrary it moves the Bill into an area of potential rationality rather than the reverse. The amendment removes a school's governing body from the appropriate authority list. I refer to the bottom of page 5 of the Bill. The amendment essentially removes the final part of subsection (5) (c) of Clause 9 and substitutes the words:
"Chief Inspector for England or Wales as the case may be".
The amendment seeks to state simply that an independent person—someone who is not in the school—will choose the inspectors. I shall not get into the business of tendering at this point. The amendment seems to me at least to provide the one simple safeguard that we need. Given the fact that essentially the Government have accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, which will involve considering this matter in great detail—at no point did the Minister answer my question as to why it was not bureaucratic to accept that amendment whereas other amendments have been rejected on the basis that they are bureaucratic—and given the fact that the Government have accepted what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, had in mind, it would be sensible to move with this amendment; namely, to determine that the chief inspector should be the central element in terms of choosing who will inspect the schools. That will guarantee the independence we need. Those of us who believe in state education in this country and who send our children to state schools—
Baroness Blatch: Oh!
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness must not be sensitive. I did not imply that no Conservative Members sent their children to state schools. However, I wish that more did so. We should be much more impressed with reports of inspections that were carried out independently by the chief inspector. If I were rewriting this legislation, I could think of other ways of tackling this matter but I have to work with the existing material which is this Bill. Therefore I commend the amendment to the Committee. I believe it improves the Bill as it would remove what I consider to be the Bill's weakest part. I hope the Committee will feel able to support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches support this amendment wholeheartedly. I know the noble Baroness will say this is a wrecking amendment. I assure her it is not a wrecking amendment. The Bill is about improving inspection. We all want to improve inspection. The Bill is about improving the quality of education. We all want to improve the quality of education. Those two things are closely linked with all the changes that are going on in education at the present time. The only way in which we can be sure—as far as one can ever be sure about anything—that we are improving education, in view of the many changes that are taking place, is by having the highest possible quality of inspection.
It will be said that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has dealt with the objection that was made to the governors choosing their own
660
inspectors. His amendment improved that matter to some extent but the governors are still left with the final choice, even though the people from whom they choose have been previously vetted. In our view good inspection requires genuine inspection. We believe that the inspectors should be in every way totally independent from the people they are inspecting. That is the heart of the matter. Although the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, went a considerable way in that direction, it did not go the whole way. We believe our amendment is at the heart of obtaining good inspection and that good inspection is at the heart of obtaining the quality of education that we require.
The Government will argue that governors want good inspection and that they are interested in obtaining the best possible inspection. I find it difficult to accept that argument. The governors—if they are doing what we want governors to do—are themselves closely involved in the running and the management of the school. We want them to be closely involved in that. That is what they are there for. They will identify with the school and they will be sensitive to criticisms about the school. Any one of us who has run an organisation knows that that is the case. One is committed to the organisation of which one is a governor. One does not wish to see bad reports of that organisation. One may say that governors are so broadminded and high-minded that they will willingly accept adverse criticism. I think that is pie in the sky, frankly. Governors will want to obtain good inspection reports and they will tend to approach people from whom they think they will obtain good inspection reports.
Then there are the doubts about financing. We did not sort that matter out satisfactorily before the dinner break. We did not determine what constituted good value in terms of inspection. Is it good value to obtain the minimum adequate inspection for the lowest possible amount of money? That is one interpretation of what good value means. That is especially valid as an interpretation as we were told that schools that saved money on inspection could use it for other purposes in the school. That provision will be a considerable temptation for governors.
Many of these new educational experiments—they are exciting in many ways—are bound to go wrong in a number of places as no one has ever yet invented a new scheme that has not gone wrong somewhere. This is the time of all times when we need to obtain the best possible quality and the most independent inspections. As long as the nonsense persists of people choosing their own inspectors the best quality of inspection will not be obtained and no one will believe that it will be obtained.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: There may be a slight feeling of déjà vu about this amendment. It would not be surprising if the Committee felt it had heard some of these arguments before as earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved Amendment No. 1088, which would have had the effect of deleting the whole of subsection (5). Now we are discussing deleting only part of subsection (5) (c).

661
Last week the then Amendment No. 109 was discussed. That amendment attempted to modify in a radical way the notion of "appropriate authority". It appears that we keep on returning to this concept of appropriate authority. Due to a grouping that I do not understand, we shall return to it again under Amendment No. 157A. In my view, it might have been much more convenient to deal with the whole boiling here and now.
I speak in these terms because I made effectively the same speech in relation to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David, a little while ago, in which I pointed out that changing the appropriate authority in this way in some places and not in others leads to rather curious outcomes. Certainly, as regards Schedule 2 and the action plans, the appropriate authority is responsible for various aspects of the action plans. However, if Amendment No. 157A is adopted, that will not be the case. That is fair enough.
I should like to point out to noble Lords opposite, who have used strong language on a number of issues, that they have left the term "appropriate authority" in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 headed "Meeting with parents" to which, so far as I am aware, no amendments have been set down. The same applies to paragraph 9 dealing with inspectors' reports where the term "appropriate authority" appears in subparagraphs (3) and (5). Therefore, the chief inspector is left with the duty of communicating with all the parents of all the schools for which he has general responsibility under the terms of the amendment.
Although the intention may be to remove such matters from the governors, where many feel those particular aspects of Schedule 2 properly belong, they are being put in the hands of the chief inspector. He cannot be expected to communicate with the parents of every child in the country, which is very nearly what is suggested here. The amendments have not been thought through competently so that the term "appropriate authority" is dealt with everywhere it appears in Schedule 2.
I have some sympathy with the notion that the governors are not the appropriate people to select the registered inspector, but I hope that that point may have been dealt with effectively in the amendment which I proposed and which has been accepted. I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that the ultimate power lies with the governors. The ultimate power is the power of veto which, under the terms of the amendment which was proposed and accepted, will lie with the chief inspector or his representative.
We keep returning to the term "appropriate authority" and apparently are doomed to do so again under Amendment No. 157A. Each time we seem to do so in a way which does not deal comprehensively or satisfactorily with the various aspects—which are really governors' aspects. Arranging meetings with parents or disseminating reports are appropriate matters for the governors and scarcely for the chief inspector.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: We are dealing with Amendment No. 111. If there are errors in subsequent amendments we can deal with those when the amendments are reached. The point under discussion now is the inappropriateness of the governors choosing their own inspectors. The noble Lord may well be right in his other criticisms, but that is what we are talking about now.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: The purpose is to redefine the "appropriate authority." If one redefines "appropriate authority" in one place one redefines it throughout the Bill. Noble Lords must give attention to the consequences of their amendments.
Baroness Seear: We do not say that we shall not, but we say that at the moment we are dealing with one particular issue.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend makes a very good point. We have to deal with what is before us. What is before us is, in isolation, defective because it does not deal comprehensively with the objective of the amendment as set out by the noble Baroness.
The amendment seeks to tear the heart out of the Bill by substituting a centralised regime in place of a system based upon choices by governing bodies. The noble Baroness said that I would be likely to proclaim this a wrecking amendment. It is just that. It would replace the Government's preferred scheme with another scheme. It is not a wrecking amendment in that schools would not be inspected but it totally invalidates the scheme which is set out in the Bill.
The amendment would require the chief inspector to arrange every individual inspection—over 6,000 every year. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew pointed out, Amendment No. 111 would make the chief inspector the appropriate authority for every school. That would mean that he also had to arrange the meeting with parents, distribute the report, draw up the action plan and report on progress with its implementation.
In pointing out that effect of the amendment, I am not simply making a drafting point. I want Members of the Committee to realise that the amendment removes a key element of our proposals, namely that those choosing the inspectors should also be responsible and publicly answerable both for the current state of the school and for taking action on the recommendations which flow from the inspections. We believe that that direct link is a major strength and that school inspections should be arranged locally by those with the principal concern and duty for securing improvements.
One of the enduring faults of the present arrangements is that the LEA established inspection does not lead to the improvements we ought to expect because those directly connected with the schools—the governors—have not been directly responsible for initiating the process. Because they are not responsible for initiating the inspection they are less committed to taking action on the outcome.
We discussed those issues in some detail under Amendment No. 32 and rejected the centralised

663
approach in favour of strengthening the Bill as proposed by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. We shall face this debate again and again as we reach further amendments. My noble friend Lord Renfrew was right to point out the degree of repetition in the amendments. As I told the Committee last week, if school inspection on the scale now planned were to be managed centrally we should be setting up an enormous new bureaucracy—an office filled not by inspectors but by administrators.
I am confident that as now amended the Bill offers all the safeguards which the amendment purports to offer but in a much more appropriate way. The need for such safeguards does not detract from the central argument that if inspection is to be a positive force and is to feed into the cycle of planning for progress it is best arranged at school level. Only in that way shall we gain maximum benefit from the greatly increased inspection activity which we propose and secure the higher standards which we all agree are so necessary. I believe that the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Glenamara: As I understand the clause its purpose is to ensure that a school is inspected at prescribed intervals by the registered inspector. It lays down what the appropriate authority for doing that should be and what the inspector should report on. The amendment does not in any way change the criteria on which the inspector should report. It changes the appropriate authority. In the case of a maintained school without a delegated budget the LEA is the appropriate authority. We do not propose to change that. In the case of a maintained school with a delegated budget the governors are the appropriate authority. We propose to make it the chief inspector. In the case of a grant-maintained school the governors are the appropriate authority. We propose to make that the chief inspector. Therefore, there are three categories of school. For one category the appropriate authority is the local authority. How on earth are we tearing the heart out of the clause when one category is already the local authority?
This weekend I visited a small town in the Pennines surrounded by dozens of miles of moors. In the middle of that little town is a school with, presumably, a body of governors. Schools are often in isolated communities and it is quite possible for governors not to bother about inspections. Indeed last week we were told of a school which had not been inspected for 15 years. Nobody checks up. There is no provision for anybody to check.
If it is unacceptable to the Government to put that duty in the hands of local authorities, we believe that there should be a central check and that check should be the chief inspector. We are told that many schools will become grant aided and that if this Government are returned to office in a few years' time most schools will be grant aided. What is the objection to the amendment? Why do the Government object to it? It seems to be eminently sensible and it does not in any way tear out the heart of the Bill, as the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Blatch: My understanding of the amendment is that the school's governing body is replaced by the chief inspector as the appropriate authority. That means that all the obligations and powers that we have given to governing bodies so far as this section applies are put upon the chief inspector. That is the fundamental difference between us. We have decided that the proper authority for these purposes shall be the governing body. Noble Lords opposite have decided that inspections shall be arranged by the chief inspector.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend Lord Glenamara for making a number of points that I would otherwise have made and so I do not have to go over them again. I also thank the noble Baroness because she made very clear the difference between us. It is precisely as she said. We concentrate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, on Section 9 in order to get somewhere with the notion that a school should not choose its own inspectors. Those who are sympathetic to our point of view should support this amendment because all the remaining consequences to action plans can be dealt with in subsequent amendments to the Bill. There is no difficulty other than a drafting matter.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that I do not intend to move every single amendment along these lines from now until four o'clock in the morning. Even I find it boring to hear myself use the same speech several times in a row. But recycling is the spirit of the day.
The noble Baroness put the position as clearly as she could, but since we disagree I think it would be worth while placing on record our disagreement. I ask the opinion of the Committee.
9.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 111) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 67.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falkender, B.

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Galpern, L.

Barnett, L.

Glenamara, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Beloff, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hooson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Desai, L.

Jay, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jeger, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ennals, L.

Judd, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Ezra, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

665

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shackleton, L.

McNair, L.

Stallard, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Varley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Warnock, B.

Peston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Rea, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rochester, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Russell, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Coleraine, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Greenway, L.

Selsdon, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Huntly, M.

Waddington, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert:
("(5A) Subject to subsection (5B) below, any local education authority may cause an inspection to be made of any school maintained by the authority to which subsection (5) (a) or (5) (c) above refers, and any such inspection shall be made by officers appointed by the local education authority.
(5B) Any inspection to which subsection (5A) above refers shall be conducted so as to enable the authority to exercise its statutory functions, except that the authority shall have no power to conduct an inspection of the kind required under subsections (1) or (2) above other than in accordance with sections 10 and 15 below and Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Earl said: The force of Schedules 4 and 5 to this Bill will be to repeal that part of the Education Act 1944 which gives to an LEA the power to inspect its own schools. We believe this is wrong in principle and practice. This amendment seeks to restore that power, but only in cases where it is strictly necessary. In so doing it aims to meet the concerns which prompted the Government to restrict LEAs' powers in the first place.
The wording is quite straightforward. It concerns all local authority schools, but not of course grant-maintained schools. It applies only in pursuit of an LEA's statutory functions. And it expressly excludes full formal inspections of the type provided for in this Bill, for which an LEA will have to go through the procedures like everyone else.
It is really the statutory functions that are the nub. On this narrow issue, there are areas where LEAs must be entitled to go in and inspect, for they carry the can in law.
The Government have argued that it is not necessary to specify these powers because they are implicit. I do not propose to go into all the arguments in detail here. There is no case law, and no one knows at what point, for example, a visit to a school becomes an "inspection". I am fairly sure that a court of law would look at the Government's repeal of the 1944 power to inspect and would conclude that LEAs were not entitled to have it. I do not believe that we can let such an important issue rest on an inference. This amendment poses no threat to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: From these Benches, I support the amendment.
Lord Teviot: I expected to join in the debate much later. My comments apply to the county of West Sussex, which my noble friend will know is one of the good boys, in that it was one of the nine out of 116 authorities which had inspections. An amendment was moved in another place supported by Terence Higgins of Worthing, Anthony Nelson of Chichester, Sir Peter Hordern of Horsham and Nicholas Soames of Crawley. I was going to join in the debate on Amendments Nos. 204 and 206 but Members of the Committee would not like me to make the points I wished to make at that time.
However, the noble Earl has given me an opportunity to join in the debate, which I now do with some trepidation. These important requirements are still in force. Therefore, it is necessary that the local education authorities should continue to have the ability to ensure that the statutory duties are carried out and that the necessary guarantees and safeguards are available to parents and the local community.
In recent years, and in particular following the implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988, governors and head teachers have been given significantly increased powers, especially through the provision of local management of schools. Those developments have been widely welcomed, but it is essential that the education service continues to operate as a partnership, recognising the responsibilities of both governors and LEAs. The LEA continues

667
to be an important guarantee of both quality and standards and is a vital agency for investigating complaints or worries. I believe it to be necessary to have a local body outside the school which can be relied on to safeguard the interests and meet the proper anxieties of parents and local charge payers.
There is a good deal of unhappiness about the proposed model of education advocated by the Government. That relies solely on a full inspection carried out only once every four years, with nothing in between. Many LEAs regard that as inadequate. It is essential that there should be available a review of the practice of education at every school. It will be more satisfactory to governors to be given the freedom to choose a more flexible and frequent form of inspection provided that it meets the present necessary criteria. It will not be satisfactory for LEAs, when asked about the quality provision at any of their schools, to have to reply that they knew it was inadequate but that that information was based on a report which was three and a half years out of date.
My noble friend Lady Blatch said:
"Of course there will be inspectoral activity between the four-yearly inspections.—[Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 678.]
That is fully appreciated but it would be extremely helpful if my noble friend could clarify exactly what is meant by that. Perhaps she will give an undertaking that the LEAs will be able to retain sufficient finance to ensure that it is possible for them to conduct such interim inspections as are necessary. It will be helpful also if the Government can state unequivocally that they intend to leave with the LEAs the financial advisory support and follow-up activity after school inspections and that the funds for that will not also be transferred to school governors.
In the county of West Sussex, less than 2 per cent. of the total education budget is spent on central administration at County Hall, which must surely be cost effective. Despite that low expenditure, it can still provide 13 schools with a full school inspection. I have seen a variety of school reports which appeared to be comprehensive and not as boring as those my noble friend Lady Young mentioned today. Each department is seen every four years and in the case of mathematics, English and science, every second year. Added to that, there are 5,000 classroom visits.
My noble friend said that that kind of education authority will benefit by the Bill. I should like her to go a little further. The West Sussex education authority and others are slightly anxious that all their efforts to attain high standards are now in jeopardy.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Before the Minister replies to the detailed questions of my noble friend, I should like to turn to the general thrust of the amendment and ask why those noble Lords who tabled it believe it to be necessary. It is clear from Clause 15 of the Bill that any local education authority will continue to be able to provide inspection services and, provided it has the consent of the school, will be able to inspect as often as it wishes. The inspectors could pop in once a year, once a term or whenever the school and they agreed that it was useful and helpful so to do.
668
Conversely, the statutory duties of the local education authority in respect of the standards within the school and its general conduct mean that if there was serious cause for concern within a school, no doubt again the local authority would have not only a right but also a duty to inspect and find out what was going wrong. The only possible instance therefore in which this power would be needed or used is when there was no cause for concern—in other words, if the school were performing satisfactorily in every way and the external data published about it and the inspection reports from the registered inspectors were positive—yet for some reason the school did not wish to co-operate with the local authority. The school may not wish the inspectors to attend but the local authority insists that they should. That would be a strange power. The need for it would arise only rarely. We would question the motives of the local authority in wishing to make an inspection when there was no cause for concern about the school and the school objected to such an inspection. For that reason I do not believe that the amendment is either desirable or necessary.
Lord Elton: There is an interesting fluctuation in the attendance in the Chamber. There is an equally interesting fluctuation in the attention paid by Members opposite to speeches made by Members on this side. It clearly takes some time for them to focus their attention on what is being said and therefore there is no cause to make haste in one's delivery because one wishes Members opposite to have time to collect their thoughts and to pay attention to the point one will doubtless eventually make.
I do not address my question to my noble friend the Minister. It is addressed to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in absentia, to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, or to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It is a fairly simple one which I am sure they will be able to answer in simple terms. But I have become lost in the double negatives contained in the proposed subsection (5B).
As I read the amendment, subsection (5A) is subject to subsection (5B) and includes an exclusion; that is, subsections (5) (a) or (5) (c) of the Bill are excluded. I take it that the institutions excluded from the operation of the subsection are excluded because of the locus of the local authority in their case. If I am wrong I should like to be corrected.
More difficult to follow are the provisions contained in subsection (5B) which states,
"Any inspection to which subsection (5A) above refers shall be conducted so as to enable the authority to exercise its statutory functions, except that the authority shall have no power to conduct an inspection of the kind required under subsections (1) or (2) above other than in accordance with sections 10 and 15 below and Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act".
I did not hear the noble Earl explain what was the result of that intricate cross-referencing of statute. If he is going to ask us to vote on it, as I begin to believe it just possible that he might, I should be grateful if he would explain what it is we are voting on in that respect.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I do not believe that there is any need to get lost in this matter. It is quite a simple interpretation. Inspections can be done in pursuit of their statutory functions, but not the full paraphernalia for which the Bill otherwise provides. That is subsection (2) and Clauses 10 and 15. To me it is perfectly clear.
Lord Elton: In that case why is it necessary to refer to Part I of Schedule 2 at all?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Because, as I understand it, that is an integral part of all the inspection arrangements.
Baroness Blatch: I have absolutely no quarrel with Members of the Committee who have argued that LEAs, with their overall responsibility for ensuring that the schools they maintain offer sufficient and suitable education, cannot be excluded from those schools when they need to take action. But we have to be sure that we establish the right balance of powers in this as in any other respect. The 1944 Act left all power in effect with the LEAs. Governors' responsibilities were very limited and those of head teachers not separately defined.
We have moved a long way from that position. The 1986 and 1988 Acts defined the margins of the LEAs', the governors' and the heads' responsibilities. The LEA has an overall planning role, allocates resources and offers services to its schools. The governors bear the main responsibility for the management of the school, for deciding how the budget is to be spent, for appointing and removing staff, for setting curriculum aims and preparing the school development plan. The head will advise on and participate in those decisions and is then responsible for implementing agreed policies and for the day-to-day running of the school.
That balance is reflected in the 1988 Act. Local authorities and governors are each required to discharge their various functions so as to secure that the national curriculum is implemented and that the curriculum meets the broad aims of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act. The head teacher is placed under the absolute duty to see that the national curriculum is delivered. Alongside these changes in role we have been increasing the regular flow of information from schools to parents and to local education authorities. It seems incredible that before local management most authorities simply did not know how much was being spent on individual schools within their area. Now that is public knowledge. National curriculum assessment results are becoming available so that local education authorities can see how all their schools are doing against local and national averages.
We shall extend that principle to other indicators such as pupils' destinations and attendance rates. When the Bill is implemented every school will be the subject every four years of a detailed and comprehensive report applying Her Majesty's Inspectorate standards to the quality of education as well as to an examination of standards of achievement and financial management.
670
I rehearse these matters to set the specific debate about LEA rights of access in its proper context. I do not believe that it is possible to escape the conclusion that, following our reforms, local authorities already know a good deal more about what is going on in their schools than they did a decade ago and will soon know more. If they want to be better informed on any specific matter they have the right under the 1986 Act to call for a written report. The governing body will be obliged to respond. Of course the regular flow of written information will not be the only way in which local authorities keep in touch with their schools. They will remain able to offer advice and support in a range of ways. Most school governors and head teachers welcome that.
It is an obvious benefit to a school to have available a range of legal, financial and educational advice. In those circumstances no problem arises. LEA officers visit the school because it is mutually agreed that when they are in the school what they do then can be called anything one wishes—"inspection", if one likes. They do not need an explicit power to inspect, just as they have no explicit power to advise schools but have been doing so for many years. So in the vast majority of cases things will go on as they do now, not because of some defiant right of entry but because all parties are content.
The issue of substance that we need to address is this. At what point should an LEA be able to require the governors, rather than simply request them, to allow its officers to look at the school? Section 77(3) of the 1944 Act left that entirely to the LEA. At any time, with whatever justification, the LEA could enter a school against the wishes of the governors. If we had retained that subsection the local authority could go into a school the week after a favourable report from registered inspectors and publish its own report against very different criteria. The governors would be guilty of a criminal offence if they resisted. It has been suggested that no sensible LEA would act like that. I must remind the Committee that no sensible governing body would want to keep their LEA out without very good reason.
The issue in this debate is: what powers are needed when common sense breaks down on one side or the other? I cannot believe that a draconian power of enforceable entry at any time is needed, or that it is appropriate, given the greater autonomy and direct accountability which our reforms have given to governors. That is why we plan to repeal Section 77(3). We believe that entry should be enforceable only where the LEA can show just cause and can demonstrate that it needs such access to enable it to discharge its statutory functions. That is the position that will obtain once Section 77(3) is dropped.
There is an implicit duty of co-operation within all relevant statutes. It is unreasonable for anyone to act in a way which prevents another person from meeting his or her statutory obligations. That applies to governing bodies in relation to LEAs. It would be unreasonable for a governing body to refuse the LEA access where that was necessary for the LEA to carry out its duties. If the governors were to be

671
unreasonable the Secretary of State could use his powers under Section 68 of the 1944 Act to direct them to co-operate.
The statutory obligations in question might be very specific—to investigate complaints, to check up on health and safety matters, to make provision for a pupil with special educational needs—or they might be the general duties under the 1944 Act to ensure that sufficient and suitable education is being provided. If an LEA has good reason for concern it may enter the school to seek further evidence and might, in extreme cases, withdraw the delegated budget and take over the effective management of the school.
I fail to see why this should not provide a perfectly adequate fall-back position in the few hard cases of disagreement between governors and LEAs. The power to take governors to court under Section 77(4) is very rarely used. It is the knowledge that it exists which secures co-operation. In the same way, the knowledge that the Secretary of State might step in under Section 68 will do the trick in most cases.
I hope that what I have said about the powers of LEAs under this Bill has been sufficient to reassure those who support Amendment No. 111A that it is simply not needed. We share their aims to make sure that the LEAs have the powers they need but not the power to interfere unnecessarily.
Amendment No. 111A seems to have been drafted in such a way as to limit the LEAs' powers to intervene, although its effect is not entirely clear. I must repeat that an authority's ability to enter its schools where necessary to enable it to meet any statutory function is fully secure. If there is any question of the amendment restoring a wider power and leaving to the discretion of the authority whether it can enforce entry, then that intention must be firmly resisted. If the amendment is not intended to have that effect, then it is not needed and in view of its drafting I do not think it could be pressed as a helpful addition to the Bill.
I hope that the Committee has been reassured. We have struck a balance which will give LEAs the powers they need while in most cases letting governors and heads get on with the job of running schools without the risk of unnecessary and unwanted interference. I was about to say that I hope the amendments will not be pressed, but I am not sure that I can be that hopeful.
Our policy on this issue is quite firm, but I have listened carefully to those on all sides who would prefer to see us not just simply espouse that policy but to see us spell it out on the face of the Bill—which means, in a sense, putting it into legislation twice—and give local authorities an explicit, rather than an implicit, power to enter its schools when necessary. I am prepared to consider further whether an addition to the Bill along those lines might be made to clarify the position and will come back on this issue at a later stage.
I have noticed the negative nodding of the head of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, but it is clear that the noble Earl, even knowing that the power is there in the Bill and even with the Government's assurance that
672
we will consider putting it on the face of this Bill which means that the rights of the LEAs to enter will be there, is not to be persuaded. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me on this issue. She has said that the local education authority will have power to enter a school in order to deal with particular matters. But if a complaint is made by parents or by some other body about two different aspects of a school and if the local education authority thinks that the best way of dealing with that situation is to carry out a full inspection—if there are two aspects about which complaints are being made the implication could well be that there is something wrong with the entire school—are we quite clear that the local education authority has power to carry out an inspection in fulfilment of its statutory duties? I should like to be quite clear about that because if it is not clear, I do not think there is any doubt that a local education authority must have that power if it is to have a responsibility for ensuring that statutory requirements are fulfilled.
Baroness Blatch: I am able to say that the right reverend Prelate gives a very good example of what would give a local education authority a good reason for entering a school in those circumstances. One reason would be sustained complaints from parents, the local community or whatever which would give a local education authority cause for concern about some aspects of the school's activity. That would be sufficient and I believe would stand any challenge whatever to the powers of a local education authority to enter a school in those circumstances. I can give the right reverend Prelate an absolute assurance on that point.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: But the noble Baroness says that the local education authority would have power to enter the school. My question is: would it have power to inspect the whole school?
Baroness Blatch: It would depend on the level of complaints. If the level of complaints was such that the activities of the whole school were in question, the local education authority would have to fulfil its obligation under the 1988 Act, and if the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, were minded to accept my offer that it would be put on the face of this Bill in order to reinforce the powers, the local education authority would be able to take whatever powers it needed under the Act to fulfil its full obligation that a school was delivering effective and efficient education, which could involve inspection.
Lord Elton: If the local education authority is to have the power to enter a school to make an inspection on any occasion when it has grounds to think that that is necessary or appropriate, and if my noble friend has offered to point to that power not only in another Bill but to put it on the face of this Bill, I think that the Committee would like the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to explain to us what exactly he expects to gain in addition by pressing the amendment which I

673
understand my noble friend has even offered to take away to consider before the next stage. It would be interesting to hear that.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back to the right reverend Prelate and confirm that I have been advised that the answer I gave is right. But I can go just that bit further and be even more explicit. Whatever the local education authority deemed necessary to respond to that legitimate reason for going into the school—and that would be up to inspecting the school—it could do that with the powers both under the 1988 Act and the powers that we would repeat on the face of this Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The answer to that is in an old proverb about a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. The position is that the noble Baroness might come back with something that we accept. What we have here is extremely acceptable. She has expressed some sympathy with it. My problem is in seeing why she cannot accept it as it is. It is because my advice is that the point raised by the right reverend Prelate is not absolutely clear that I am so keen on this amendment. For that reason, as certain noble Lords have correctly divined, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 111A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided*: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Addington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hollick, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beloff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Foot, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

674

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Varley, L.

Serota, B.

Warnock, B.

Shackleton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Teviot, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rennell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Faithfull, B.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Selsdon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray, L.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Huntly, M.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 63. The Clerks recorded 62 names.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 112:
Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should tell the Committee that the next two amendments have been misplaced on the Marshalled List. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 strike in Clause 10. If Members of the Committee opposite can turn for a moment from the heady feeling of victory to the hard work that lies ahead of them, perhaps I may suggest that they move Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 immediately after Amendment No. 179. I believe that the Deputy Chairman of Committees will confirm that. Amendment No. 112 comes next and covers matters with which we have already dealt. I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just

675
said, Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 have been marshalled in the wrong order. We therefore move on to Amendment No. 114A.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Inspection of teacher training institutions
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority for every institution in England in which the training of teachers takes place and to which this section applies to secure that the institution is inspected, at such intervals as may be prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(1).
(2) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority for every institution in Wales in which the training of teachers takes place, to secure that the institution is inspected, at such intervals as may be prescribed, by an inspector registered under section 10(2).
(3) The institutions to which this section applies are—

(a) universities; and

(b) other institutions.

(4) It shall be the general duty of any registered inspector conducting an inspection under this section to report on

(a) the quality of the training provided by the institution;

(b) the standard of training achieved in the institution; and

(c) whether the financial and other resources made available to the institution are managed efficiently.

(5) In this section
"appropriate authority" means

(a) in the case of a university, the senate of that university;

(b) in the case of any other institution, the governing body of that institution.

"inspection" means the inspection only of those parts, activities and resources of the institution in which training for teachers takes place.
"resources" means resources provided wholly or principally for the training for teachers in schools.
"training for teachers in schools" means

(a) the training of students for the purpose of enabling them to become teachers in schools; and

(b) the training of teachers already qualified to teach in schools, for teaching in schools.

(6) Regulations under this section may, in particular—

(a) make provision as to the period within which the first inspection of an institution under this section is to begin

(b) make any such provision by reference to the time when funds for the first inspection are made available to the institution; and

(c) provide for intervals to be prescribed by reference to times when funds for inspection under this section are made available to institutions.

(7) Part 1 of Schedule 2 makes further provision with respect to inspections under this section.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall not speak to this amendment in the group as it appears on the Marshalled List because that also is in error. When we reach Amendment No. 114B, I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 115, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Amendment No. 114A deals with matters to which I have already spoken on a number of occasions. It deals with the need to have some means of ensuring that we have a satisfactory standard for the training of
676
teachers because, until we have such a satisfactory standard for the training of teachers, we cannot expect to have a satisfactory standard of teaching in our schools. The process is a long one because people attend teacher-training colleges or university departments of education only at the beginning of their careers. Therefore, it will be a long time before the full effects of any changes in our training colleges are felt. Nonetheless, if that is not tackled now, we shall regret it in the future.
My noble friend has told the Committee that arrangements already exist for the inspection of training colleges, and has made it clear that it would not be acceptable to extend the inspectorate's powers of inspection to all other institutions. In the amendment I have sought to provide a means of giving to HMI the power to inspect teacher training colleges and the departments of education, and only the departments of education, in universities or any other institution.
The new clause is modelled closely on Clause 9 itself in that the subsections are the same where they are relevant. The only change is the substitution of the word "training" for that of "education" where that occurs. The first two subsections relate to the inspection of institutions in England and Wales respectively, and refer forward, as does the parallel provision in Clause 9, to Clause 10(1) and (2). Subsection (3) defines the institutions to which the clause relates. They are "universities and other institutions", providing training for teachers. The Committee may think that that provision goes a great deal wider than would be acceptable in the terms that my noble friend has already stated, but if the Committee waits until we reach subsection (5) it will find the answer to that point.
In subsection (4) there is stated the general duties of the registered inspector conducting the inspection. They are the same as those in Clause 9 except, as I said, I refer to "training" rather than to "education". In the definition subsection we have the definition of an "appropriate authority" which, in the case of a university, is the senate, and in the case of any other institution, the governing body of that institution. Those will be the bodies which will have to carry out the duties of securing inspection and acting on the results of an inspection which in Clause 9 rest upon the appropriate authorities for schools.
The subsection provides that,
"'inspection' means the inspection only of those parts, activities and resources of the institution in which training for teachers takes place."
That excludes faculties of geography, history, the classics, science and so forth. The resources inspected are similarly restricted. Finally there is a definition of "training for teachers in schools" which is not superfluous, as the Committee might think. The first leg of the definition:
"the training of students for the purpose of enabling them to become teachers in schools",
is as the Committee would expect; but I am anxious that in those colleges there should be in-service training for teachers. It is just as important that that should be subject to inspection as is the training of unqualified teachers.
The references to "regulations" in subsection (6) and the reference to Part I of Schedule 2 in subsection (7) are the same as in Clause 9. I spent some time drafting what proved to be a large number of consequential amendments, but as I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage, but wish to hear the Government's reaction to it, it seemed a waste of print; and so I have left only two on the Marshalled List. If I recall correctly, they are Amendments Nos. 115A and 115C. I assume that this amendment will have fallen by the time we reach them, because I hope to take it away with some degree of equanimity in the light of what the Government have told me their intentions are. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like to reassure my noble friend that the amendment is not necessary, because the current arrangements for the accreditation of teacher education ensure that every course of teacher education, whether in universities, polytechnics or colleges, must be inspected before it can be approved.
The system is that the Secretary of State has powers which date from the 1944 Act and a duty to approve every course of initial training for teachers. In 1984, arrangements were made to put in position a committee for the accreditation of teacher education. Its job was to advise the Secretary of State on whether or not he should approve any course of teacher education. As part of the requirement under that circular, the committee for accreditation of teacher education was bound to consider the report of Her Majesty's inspectors before it could make any recommendation to the Secretary of State.
Thus, although university departments were still free to invite, or not to invite, HMI to inspect their courses, those who may have chosen not to invite them were at the same time choosing to close down their courses because the Secretary of State could not receive advice on whether to approve them. So, if the Committee is able to follow me, their freedom to invite was somewhat restricted and it would have been impossible for their courses to continue if they had not invited HMI to inspect.
I assure my noble friend that before 1984 and 1987 every course of teacher education in the whole of the United Kingdom was inspected and reported upon. A published report summarises the findings in universities as well as non-university institutions.
10 p.m.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is the expert in this field and I do not seek to disagree with her. I have two questions which follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I believe that the amendment concerns inspecting teacher training institutions. I thought that he would lead us to two other matters. The first, I believed, would be to establish whether those who inspect teacher training institutions will have access to the schools in order to see their side of teacher training. That is one question on which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us.
678
I put the second point more strongly. As I understand it, it is the Government's view that they would like to see more teacher training taking place in the schools. That makes the inspection of those schools for teacher training purposes even more important. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies for the Government she can enlighten us on something which is not directly in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but follows from it. It concerns whether, in inspecting one kind of institution, one will be able to see what happens in the relevant institution which ultimately must be the school. Perhaps I may put those questions to the noble Baroness to supplement whatever she says to the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord Elton: In reply to my noble friend Lady Perry, I have to say that I am less reassured by what she said than she may expect. She started by telling me that arrangements had been in place since 1944. I experienced those arrangements as a lecturer in a college of education for three years and I found them totally ineffective. She said that they were souped up in 1984 by the appointment of a committee which had to base its advice on an inspection. That is admirable, but it is an initial inspection. Unless she omitted to tell me something, once one is through that gate one can continue for the next 25 years doing what one likes with declining momentum, lower standards, less enthusiasm and more exhaustion and soon one will he back where one started.
I believe that the function of inspection is to counteract that process of inertia which asserts itself in most institutions unless they have dynamic leadership or an outside threat. One does not like to talk about inspection as a threat. In a bad institution it is but it is a salutary threat.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, usefully expanded the area of discussion into the changes which we anticipate in teacher training. He is quite right. 1 omitted to put any power in the Bill. I hope that it is something one can elicit from the Government at Committee stage. I have included no power to give the inspectors access to the teaching practice which takes place in practice schools. That is always of crucial importance. My students used to tell me that it was the only part of the course which afterwards they thought had given them much benefit. It was not the most encouraging thing to be told by people whom one had taught in the institution, but I sympathised with them. The noble Lord reminds us that we expect the balance of training, for that very reason, to be carried on increasingly in schools and out of institutions. A fortiori his query and mine become stronger. I believe my noble friend the Minister is now seized of all our concerns. I await her reply.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend Lady Perry for her intervention. She has brought her great experience to bear on this matter and she has also filled in what was a gap in my response to the amendment.
The drafting of the Bill was designed to ensure that courses of teacher training could still be inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I am advised that it fully

679
meets that purpose. We do not want to extend the system of published reports by registered inspectors to any aspect of higher education institutions. The registered inspection system is appropriate for the much larger body of school inspections. However, we are as concerned as my noble friend to ensure that all provision for initial teacher training is inspected, in particular so that the Secretary of State can meet his responsibilities for approving courses which lead to qualified teacher status.
We want that inspection to remain with HMI and we have planned on that basis to date. We envisage no reduction from present capacity in that respect. The necessary powers are covered under the Bill. Clause 2 notes for the avoidance of doubt that the training of teachers for schools is one of the functions in connection with schools which may be assigned by the Secretary of State to the new office of HMI. The Secretary of State will seek advice from the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education before approving courses and will ask HMI to advise the council on the basis of inspection evidence. HMI will have no statutory right of entry to institutions offering teacher education. HMI has no such right now in respect of university departments of education. However, if entry is refused, the course will simply not be approved. That is a strong sanction and one to which my noble friend Lady Perry pointed.
Lord Elton: Perhaps it is not helpful to intervene at this stage. However, my noble friend said that in certain circumstances a course would not be approved. But once it has obtained approval—assuming it does—am I right in thinking there is no other provision in the Bill, or in what my noble friend has said, to enable the premises offering the course to be revisited in a cycle of three or five years, or whatever the cycle may be, to make sure that the course is still suitable for approval? If that is not the case, the Bill is defective.
Baroness Blatch: I believe my noble friend is correct as regards the course itself being approved once and for all. I shall need to be advised on whether a course may be approved once again after it has received initial approval. As regards in-service training courses, I do not think HMI will require any explicit right of entry to such courses. No institution will be able to afford to let it be known that it has resisted a visit by HMI. Schools are now responsible for much of the INSET budget and they will be quick to draw their own conclusions from any such evidence. I am quite sure that the Bill, as drafted, adequately covers inspection of this important aspect of education. It does not need to be widened in scope and nor does it need to spell out the powers of HMI in the detail that the amendments would secure. It would not be appropriate, and nor is it necessary, to add a new system of registration of outside inspectors. HMI will retain the capacity to carry out that task, as now, with outside assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, posed two questions. First, HMI has access to all schools at all stages and can certainly look at teacher education in such
680
schools. As regards the criteria for choosing such schools, they are still the subject of consultation. At this moment I cannot pre-empt that consultation.
My noble friend has left at least one questionmark in my mind, but I make no commitment to these amendments as I believe much of his concern is covered. However, he made the point about courses being approved once and for all. I wish to take further advice on that point. I shall meet my noble friend, or write to him, between now and Report stage.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that helpful reply. Before she returns to this matter I shall think about the implications of the approval of a school which is classed as an institution in one part of the Bill and of a course which is classed as a procedure in another part. Those are quite different concepts. At first glance I would be happier if it was an institution, department or college and the activities carried on there that were being inspected rather than a course which is, after all, a collection of pieces of paper and not necessarily a collection of people.
I see that my noble friend is moving closer and closer to the front of the Bench which I think means that she is about to tell me what a course is in the language of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am more likely to say what a course is not. A course is very much more than a process. However, my noble friend has a query about all other aspects. I should like to take advice and come back to my noble friend, either by letter or at a meeting.
Lord Elton: In that case I have only one further question in my grateful concluding speech. My noble friend mentioned the word "scope" and we touched on that aspect last Monday. She referred implicitly to two provisions which are already contained in the Bill—namely, Clause 2(4), which gives the chief inspector for England:
"such other functions in connection with schools in England, including functions with respect to the training of teachers",
and Clause 6(4), which makes the same provision for Wales. Those provisions relate to the training of teachers in schools but the scope of the Bill, at least as it can be guessed from the Long Title, makes no mention of any institution except schools.
If there is doubt as to whether what I propose can be met—and I need to leave the opportunity to act at Report stage if I am to take account of the helpful provision of the noble Baroness on my behalf—then I shall move Amendment No. 207 to add "and for connected purposes" to the end of the Long Title. We shall reach that much later but I thought that I had better warn the noble Baroness now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Religious education]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114B:
Page 9, line 16, after ("chosen") insert ("must have satisfied the requirements of either paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to this Act, but"),.
The noble Lord said: We now come to a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has a greater claim to be heard than I have. Amendment

681
No. 114B relates to the training of what I call Part II inspectors—namely, people authorised to inspect denominational education under Part II of Schedule 2 to the Bill. The amendment requires that they should undergo some form of training and satisfy the requirements of either paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. Paragraph 4 relates to the training of inspectors in England and paragraph 5 to the training of inspectors in Wales when they are Part I registered inspectors. At present under Part II, which deals with inspectors who are not registered but who in practice deal with denominational education, such inspectors are not subject to that requirement. Nor are they subject to registration or any form of selection under the provisions which provide a sieve through which registered inspectors have to pass before they arrive on the register.
Perhaps I should remind the Committee that within the meaning of this legislation denominational education is the teaching of any religious education other than under an agreed syllabus. Any religion means all religions. Therefore my remarks relate to the teaching of all religions and not merely to denominations of the Christian religion. The term "denominational" here is only included in the Bill because no one can think of anything better. It has the great disadvantage that it makes one think immediately of Methodists, Baptists, Nonconformists and Anglicans, and possibly Roman Catholics though that may be lèse majesté. However, it encompasses everybody, including Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems and possibly others.
There are two anxieties which need to be addressed. One relates to our established religion—namely, that the inspection of that religion should be undertaken professionally under the aegis of the established and other Churches. I am sure that that is their intention but, as we are legislating for the purpose, we should legislate not for the theology that will be instructed—that is no concern of the state, nor should it be—but for the competence of the inspection of that theology, which is a concern of the state and ought to be provided for. I should have thought that the ecclesiastical authorities would welcome the opportunity to be brought within the aegis of HMCI in both the Kingdom and the Province, so that they reach in the conduct of their inspections, whatever their theology, standards of professionalism which are as high as in any other subject in this country.
There is a slightly more delicate aspect to this matter. That is the inspection of the denominational education given among other faiths. Speaking as a Christian, I speak, I hope, without any animus. I do not intend it. But it seems to me that there are increasing numbers of people of other faiths in this country and the fabric of the nation depends upon the fabric being maintained whole and not divided into discrete parts. It would not be right for the state, nor indeed for a Christian, to dictate the theology or beliefs that should be taught in the denominational education periods of other faiths. But, as a Briton, I feel that it is quite right to have a concern for the standard of education that is conducted in every British classroom.
Therefore I do not suggest that the inspector should have any right to say: "You may inspect because you believe in the Trinity" or "You may not inspect because you do not believe"—or whatever the difference may be. But HMCI, the secular authority, should be entitled to satisfy himself that those who inspect in those subjects are competent to do so, having been chosen by people of their own faith.
I shall come later to another amendment and speak to it briefly. I apologise that the number does not spring immediately to my mind but perhaps the Minister recalls it. The reports that are turned in by those people should be seen by the inspector, along with all other reports, so that he should have an overall picture and not, so to speak, a quilt from which two squares are missing. This amendment is meant to be constructive. I hope that it will prove extremely useful if some such provision can be introduced at Report stage. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I support the noble Lord in this matter. He put the arguments most cogently and I do not need to add to them. I support the amendment on two grounds. First, if there is to be what is here called "denominational education", it should have the same academic rigour as is applied to any subject in the curriculum. Secondly, as I have argued before on other aspects of the Bill, whatever we can do to cross-reference and integrate the inspection of denominational education with the rest of the curriculum is an improvement. For those reasons in particular I support the noble Lord.
Lord Northbourne: I am a little confused about whether Amendment No. 115 is to be taken with Amendment No. 114B. It might be convenient to do so.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend does not wish to take them together she does not have to do so. I am happy, if the Minister is content, for that to be done.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Northbourne is only slightly less confused than I am at this moment. I understood that this amendment was one of a group of amendments. I initially intended to respond to all of them. I should find it a good deal easier if we took Amendment No. 115 as well.
Lord Northbourne: I am very happy to do that. I set down this modest amendment, Amendment No. 115, in part to clarify the issue of what is and is not denominational education. Contrary to the opinion just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I have been told that it relates only to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools, which are the subject of what I believe is called a charter. Will the Minister say whether that is the correct interpretation or whether the provision applies to Jewish and Moslem schools? In that context I have this evening been informed by my noble friend Lord Jacobovits that Jewish schools are not covered by a statutory requirement for inspection at this time. It is important that all schools

683
which provide denominational or religious education of any kind shall be subject to inspection. I should greatly welcome guidance on that matter.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in seeking that the inspectors should be subjected to training. It is totally wrong that denominational or religious education should be inspected by inspectors who might be regarded as second class. It should certainly not be done by an inspector who is prepared to do the job at the lowest possible price. One must be able to rely on and respect the reports which they produce.
Even if the words "denominational education" refer only to Church of England and Roman Catholic denominational education, there is some justification for Amendment No. 115. Parents need to know more about the denominational education of a school, even simply whether it is good, bad or indifferent. That is what the word "quality" might reasonably be thought to imply. Within the Church of England today there is a wide range of practices and beliefs. If one looks closely, that is probably the case within the Church of Rome.
Another factor is the intensity with which religion is taught. Recently I received a letter from an ex-pupil of a preparatory school with which I have some connection. He wrote, "My new school is very boring. We have so many services and prayers". Some parents may say that that is just the ticket but others may find it counter productive. I hope that my modest amendment, No. 115, will commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Elton: Before dinner I received a note from the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who stated that he has now ascertained that denominational instruction at Jewish schools is not subject to HMI inspection except by request. However, he stated that for the reasons which concern me, there can be no objection to extending the remit of HMI and he would support that. I do not wish to commit the noble Lord in his absence but at least there is a nihil obstat, to pinch a phrase from another faith.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a few words from these Benches in order to clarify the situation. Taking my information from the Notes on Clauses, I had understood that most religious education in schools, which is carried out according to an agreed syllabus, would be covered by Clause 9. Therefore, we are not discussing religious education even though the rubric to Clause 14 uses the expression "religious education". We are discussing a subject which I did not know existed called "denominational education". Again according to the Notes on Clauses, that appears to be what occurs in certain voluntary and grant-maintained schools which are subject to trust deeds. Again according to the Notes on Clauses, such schools are required to offer religious education of a particular type. I understand, therefore, that we are considering a limited class of schools and we must not make the mistake of assuming that we are discussing religious education in general. That is the first point.
Secondly, Members of the Committee will be aware that my views on religion are slightly different from
684
those held by the majority of Members, indeed a majority of the country. However, I was puzzled by Clause 14(5) providing that the person need not be a registered inspector. I should have thought that the one thing that such schools would most want would be a registered inspector. I feel this for precisely the reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the right reverend Prelate; that it will add at least to the perceived standard of what they are doing. Therefore, I had always intended to inquire why subsection (5) was included in the Bill. I had assumed, although it appears that I am wrong, that the schools had wanted subsection (5) and that they did not want to be inspected by a registered inspector. Listening to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I believe that I am right in thinking that the schools would prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, so that they are inspected by a registered inspector. In my judgment that would not undermine their freedom or, indeed, what they can do under their trust deed.
I have no desire to become involved in religion per se but I hope that, since we are not debating religion per se but merely how we treat denominational education, the Government can respond sympathetically to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Religious education in most schools is carried out in accordance with an agreed syllabus for the area adopted by the local education authority following a statutory process involving local churches and faiths. However, voluntary-aided, some voluntary-controlled and some grant maintained schools are subject to trust deeds, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out, which require them to offer religious education of a particular type: it may be Jewish, Anglican or Catholic. Those schools do not use the agreed religious education syllabus for their area. Until 1870 HMI contained a high proportion of clergymen to cater effectively for the inspection of voluntary schools, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester pointed out. If we are to have school inspectors, it will be better to have good men rather than bad ones.
Religious education in Church schools has been subject to different arrangements for over 150 years. Section 77 of the 1944 Act confirmed that separate provision was to be made for the inspection of such religious education and that HMI and LEAs were not to have a role. It would have been a very great break with that long-standing agreement to have required Church schools to use secular registered inspectors for the inspection of their own denominational provision.
It is because of that that Clause 9 does not cover denominational religious education, which is dealt with separately in Clause 14. We have required regular inspection of this provision and intend that to take place at the same time as the inspection of the secular curriculum. That is very much in line with what the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues wished. We have at the request of the Anglican and Catholic Churches added provisions to ensure that reports of all inspections are sent to diocesan authorities, and that action plans are prepared on all aspects of the curriculum including this one. We share their hope

685
that in most cases inspections under Clauses 9 and 14 will take place at the same time, using one team of inspectors, and that a common report and action plan will be written.
I must stress that the division of inspection powers is in no way the product of this Bill. It is not our purpose to reinforce divisions between the sacred and secular, which I accept are not easily made in the context of education. But we all accept that the national curriculum in all schools must be inspected according to HMI's common standards by inspectors whom HMI has registered. Unless the religious elements of Church school provision are also to be inspected by secular inspectors registered by HMI, which would not be appropriate, we must set up a separate statutory regime for that purpose. That leaves the governors of aided schools with the freedom to arrange separately for the inspection of RE if that is what they wish to do. However, as I said, it is open to them to arrange for the inspection to be carried out in practice by the same people at the same time.
We do not want the chief inspectors to have any detailed responsibilities in respect of the system of inspection for denominational religious education, so it would not be right, as in Amendment No. 114B, to give them the right to train inspectors. As I explained, we expect that in almost all cases the teams used and the reports written will be the same for both the Clauses 9 and 14 aspects of the inspection. Therefore, my noble friend's aim will be secured in practice.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that Amendment No. 115 is appropriate. The Bill rightly lays down that the inspectors conducting an inspection of denominational education must have the duty to report on the quality of the education provided. That reflects the drafting of Clause 9, and indeed, Clause 2 of the Bill. In no place is there an explicit separate requirement for the nature of what is taught to be reported upon. My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned that. To insert the words at this point might raise questions about what is intended elsewhere.
Clearly, what is being taught will be relevant to reports on quality; for example, on breadth and balance. We have already assured the Committee that such aspects must be reported upon. So the range and nature of denominational provision will be a proper subject for inspectors. If the point at issue is whether the parents will know of the school's denominational attachment, we can be pretty sure that they will. The nature of the curriculum for religious education will, after all, be directly governed by the trust deed of the school. Moreover, we have already agreed to consider making regulations requiring each school to put its spiritual, moral, social and cultural aims in its prospectus. That should ensure that its religious values are fully understood.
Voluntary and former voluntary schools are proud to declare their allegiance to specific Churches. If in future there were new voluntary schools supported by other faiths I am sure that they too would want their religious position known. The title of the school would generally reflect that. I remind the Committee that it
686
is only to such schools, with their own trust deeds, that Clause 14 relates. Other schools are obliged to use the agreed syllabus for the area.
I must also remind the Committee that it is not the intention of Clause 14 to inspect provision made for pupils withdrawn from the school's religious education and given separate provision in their own faith. We would regard that as an extra-curricular activity and not subject to inspection. The governors will not be responsible for that provision. It may indeed take place off the school premises and they should not be called upon to inspect and report upon it.
I hope that with that slightly lengthy reply my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will not press the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, perhaps I can point out that there are over 2,000 Church of England aided schools, and rather more Roman Catholic aided schools. Therefore, the number of schools which could come under this category is fairly substantial. That is my first point. Secondly, the reason why the person chosen need not be a registered inspector is that, as I see it, this clause is trying to ensure that the nature and quality of the denominational education is in accordance with the tenets of the Church, as it exists at the moment, which is providing the school. If the Church were of another faith, then it would equally apply to that.
Under the proposals of the Bill it may be difficult to ensure that there are registered inspectors with that specific denominational theological knowledge to check whether or not a school was being orthodox—if I may put it in that way. I am surprised to hear the Minister say that she does not think it appropriate that the nature of the denominational education should be inspected under this clause. I should have thought that this was precisely where it does need to be looked at, as well as the quality. We want to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, not only whether it is good, bad or excellent, but also what is the style and thrust of the denominational education. My name is appended to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I shall be happy to see it accepted.
Lord Elton: I come back to the response of my noble friend the Minister, first, on a minor point. She spoke as though I had intended to give the HMCI in either the Kingdom or the Principality the right to train. I was proposing that he should have the right contained in paragraph 4, which states,
"No person shall conduct an inspection of a school in England, or act as a member of an inspection team for such a school, unless he has completed a course of training—

(a) provided by the Chief Inspector for England; or

(b) complying with arrangements provided by that Chief Inspector".

Therefore, if the theological colleges, for instance, wish to train inspectors there would be no reason why they should not. I rather think that they might. That would be perfectly legitimate for the chief inspector to authorise.

687
However, I am a little unhappy with the response of my noble friend for another reason. As the right reverend Prelate just reminded us, there is a considerable body of Christian schools which would be affected by Clause 14 and Part II of Schedule 2. There is also a substantial number of Jewish schools which might be affected but, if I have understood the Minister correctly, at present are not. There will shortly be a number of Moslem schools. There is a growing Moslem community in this country which is imbued, it would be happy to say, with a considerable number of faithful people who follow a different faith from that of the majority of your Lordships. Under the new provisions which are being made they will doubtless wish to have voluntary schools of their own. They will wish to have denominational education because it will be religious education. As far as I can see, it will not normally be conducted on the agreed syllabus.
That being so, as I said earlier, the chief inspector's patchwork quilt of knowledge about what is going on in the country will be missing a square or two, and possibly an increasing number of squares, if we do not have a provision such as this. In addition, people in those and other schools will be less well served than they might be if the Government did not insist that the people who inspected that aspect of their religion were competent to do so in terms of inspection as well as theology. Theology has nothing to do with government, but education has everything to do with government. Does my noble friend have anything else to say before I make my decision?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may return to the interpretation of what the right reverend Prelate had thought I said. I repeat what I said. In no place is there an explicit, separate requirement for the nature of what is taught to be reported on. I went on to say that to insert the words at this point might raise questions about what is intended elsewhere. I also said that clearly what is being taught will be relevant to reports on quality and breadth and balance, for example. We have already assured the Committee that such aspects must be reported on, so that the range and nature of denominational provision will be a proper subject for inspection.
When I started speaking to these amendments I said that some voluntary-controlled and some grant-maintained schools are also subject to trustees requiring them to offer religious education of a particular type. At the time I mentioned Jewish, Anglican and Catholic. My noble friend is right to say that in the future there may be schools relating to other denominations. They will be brought into these provisions in the same way.
Lord Elton: The last paragraph was a touch delphic as I heard it, but that may be because of the lateness of the hour. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I shall read my noble friend's reply with very great care. I cannot promise not to return to the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 115:
Page 9, line 20, after first ("the") insert ("nature and").
The noble Lord said: I thank the noble Baroness for what she said. When I referred to a charter I meant a trust deed. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about the insertion of the words "nature and" disturbing earlier parts of the Bill. Perhaps enough of that has been done already this evening. I am prepared to look at the Official Report. I hope that what I shall find is that the noble Baroness has said in effect that the word "quality" covers both the nature and the quality of the education given. I am concerned about the question of non-Christian schools, but at this stage I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [School inspections]:
[Amendments Nos. 115A to 117 not moved.]
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 18, line 12, at end insert:
("(2) An appropriate authority shall not enter into any arrangement with a registered inspector for the inspection by him of any school for which they are the appropriate authority unless the selection of that inspector to inspect that school has been approved in writing by the Chief Inspector.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations with a view to facilitating the discharge by the Chief Inspector of his functions under section 2(3) (cc) or 6(3) (cc) or this paragraph.
(4) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require appropriate authorities to give the Chief Inspector such information as may be prescribed or as he may specify; and

(b) give the Chief Inspector, or any member of his staff, the right to attend any meeting of the appropriate authority for the school in question (or any meeting which includes any member of that authority) at which—

(i) any tender invited under this paragraph, or

(ii) the selection of any registered inspector to inspect the school,

is, or is likely to be, discussed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert ("and whose specific expertise in nursery, primary, middle, secondary or special educational needs is identified and made known by those registered inspectors to those for whom they provide services.").
The noble Baroness said: I do not need to spend very much time on this amendment, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Schedule 2 refers to
"(an 'inspection team') consisting of persons who are fit and proper persons for carrying out the inspection",
and they are described. I should like to add the words in the amendment:
("and whose specific expertise in nursery, primary, middle, secondary or special educational needs is identified and made known by those registered inspectors to those for whom they provide services.").
We want to be rather more specific in what we are asking. Amendment No. 179, to which I should like to speak with Amendment No. 119, seeks to provide in regard to an applicant for the job:
690
"On an application duly made under this section the Chief Inspector may—

(a) register the applicant".

After that we would insert,
"as a registered inspector in one or more of the following categories".
The amendment then lists the categories—nursery, primary, middle and so on.
We want to make quite sure that these teams consist of people who have this expertise. We should also like to know which of the inspectors on the teams has this expertise. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain a little more fully how that will be done. These are probing amendments and I hope that we can have some explanation. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady David, in this amendment. Many of us have been very anxious about the almost unobtrusive growth of nursery classes in schools. In many schools where the numbers have dropped, following pressure from parents children under five have been taken into the schools. That has been very much welcomed by an enormous number of parents throughout the country. However, inspectors often do not have experience in the education of children under five and the kind of curriculum that those children should have.
Furthermore, under Part III of the Children Act 1989 local authorities are enjoined to see that the needs of young children or poor children are met. That means that a number of children will have to go to nurseries or nursery classes in order that their parents can go out to work. It is very important that inspection should be carried out by inspectors who are qualified in the work of children under five. I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: I should like to speak very briefly to this amendment which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. This is a simple amendment. It seeks to provide that those who inspect schools should have knowledge of the types of school and the fields in which they deal—for instance, special educational needs within a specified age bracket would be a reasonable combination of expertise to have in an inspecting team.
Thus, I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to give the Committee some reassurance that an amendment of this nature will be included in the Bill; otherwise a team of inspectors could very well consist of people who do not know what they are looking at.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: It seems that the requirements already written into the schedule are that the people inspecting should be fit and proper. To me the word "fit" embraces the idea that they are fit in terms of their expertise with regard to the nature of the school. Therefore, I do not see the necessity for this further amendment. I can also assure the Committee that if any persons attempted to carry out an inspection in a school without the proper expertise the teachers in that school would very quickly challenge them and make their lives unpleasant.
Years of experience in inspecting have taught me one thing, if nothing else. Teachers want to know

691
exactly what qualifications one has, together with details of one's experience and what one knows about their job, before they will let one inside the classroom. That is very healthy and I am quite sure that it will continue even more within the future arrangements.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank my noble friend Lady Perry for that explanation of what actually happens when teacher meets inspector. While I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendments, I have to say that it is quite unnecessary to place these requirements on the face of the Bill.
We believe the amendments to be unnecessary because we would trust either the governing body or the chief inspector. If we look at the amendment proposed to Schedule 2, it is surely impossible to envisage a tendering process in which the body commissioning an inspection did not insist on seeing the qualifications and experience of both the registered inspector and the team which he proposed to use for the inspection; supposing, that is, that the inspector himself had omitted these details from his tender.
I have no doubt that the guidance which HMCI will issue to registered inspectors on the tendering process will certainly cover the type of basic information which those commissioning inspections should receive from tenderers. That information will, as I have indicated above, be bound to include the qualifications and expertise of team members.
The chief inspector has an explicit power under Clause 10 to impose conditions on registered inspectors. This may very well include conditions as to the phase or phases of education they may inspect, including whether or not they may inspect special schools. Indeed, the chief inspector might well wish to go further and make a particular condition as to the type of special school for which a registered inspector may offer inspections. For example, an inspector with expertise in the needs of visually impaired children would probably not be the best person to inspect a school for children with severe learning difficulties. That kind of distinction may well be made by the chief inspector. That is where the amendment would be unhelpful in that it would limit the chief inspector's freedom to determine his or her own categories for the purpose of registration. We need to preserve the flexibility for the chief inspector to act as he or she sees fit—and, as I have said so often, we on this side trust him or her to do so. We must resist the notion of adding general words to the Bill which might curtail that flexibility.
The inspection reports will have to cover all pupils in the school, including those in nursery classes. The teams will have to have the necessary competence to deal with the full range of pupils within the school. HMCI's guidance will ensure that. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for her reply, which in a way was rather what I expected. I expected to be told that the amendment was unnecessary. I
692
thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for supporting the amendment. It is particularly in the case of nursery classes and special classes that there is anxiety. It is because there has been this anxiety that we have been asked to put down these amendments.
I hope that the Minister will realise that there is some fuss about whether the inspections will take proper care. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that the Bill requires that they will be fit and proper people, but there are other people who want to be assured that these classes of education will be properly covered. There are legitimate worries on this point with the completely new situation being set up by the Bill. I shall certainly read the Minister's careful reply. I shall take advice, consult and then decide what I shall do at the next stage of the Bill. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 18, line 18, after ("one") insert ("and not more than one").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I ask the Committee to consider with it Amendments Nos. 125 and 126. It relates to the position of lay inspectors and to the curious provision in the Bill that someone who is appointed a member of the team because of financial expertise should not exercise that expertise in the course of his inspection. I find that very puzzling. What then is the purpose of having him in the team? It is like the situation which used to pertain with passenger ships of a certain size that had to carry a ship's doctor—but he was not allowed to treat accident or sickness.
It is part of the curious belief that pervades some of the legislation that the less people know about the subject with which they are dealing the more likely they are to be unbiased in inspecting it. I should like to hear an explanation from my noble friend the Minister as to the exact purpose of the prescription about lay inspectors and inspectors with financial expertise. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I rise only to seek clarification. The amendment now before the Committee was spoken to with Amendment No. 96. I did not hear to which other amendments my noble friend was speaking. It would be most helpful if he could clarify the position.
Lord Beloff: I said that I was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: That is indeed true; the amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 96, 121, 125 and 126. They are all variations on either the inclusion or exclusion of the lay member; or, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, they propose that the number of lay members should be restricted to no more than one.
I simply say that, in the first instance, the Government have said that they believe it will be useful—and, indeed, there was support from around the Chamber—that there should be a lay member. We have sought not to put a restriction upon the number

693
but have stated that there should be at least one lay member. The difference between us is that my noble friend thinks that there should be a restriction. Therefore, I cannot agree the with amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Baroness concludes, perhaps I may point out that I do not believe that there was support from around the Chamber for the concept of a lay member as part of a team of inspectors. Certainly we on these Benches, while always greatly welcoming the idea of lay governors and indeed lay members of health authorities and of any other organisation of a similar kind, find it rather odd that someone who has absolutely no expertise in terms of the curriculum, teaching methods and what goes on in the classroom so far as concerns assessment should be given the job of inspecting a school. I believe that that is a very odd concept.
When it comes to inspection, one ought to have people who know quite a lot about the matter rather than someone floating around not quite knowing what he is looking for, what questions he is meant to be asking or what he is meant to be saying in reports. It seems to us to be undesirable to have lay members in inspection teams. However, if we are to have them, we would certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that such membership should be restricted to one person rather than more. Without that restriction the inspection team will become very large, given all the other particular experts who also have to be members of such a team.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is another side to the matter. I understand the argument just put forward by the noble Baroness, but it depends on what one means by the word "inspection" and on what the job of the inspector is. Many of us have had to deal with things which are not dissimilar to the issue before us. People who are supposed to be experts invariably have some prejudices and definite ideas before they start. In the case of an inspector making a report, if he has infringed his particular prejudice his report could be detrimental—and wrongly so—to someone.
Therefore, provided that the person concerned is an intelligent lay-person who does not presume to have a power that he does not have, the idea is acceptable. What I heard from the noble Baroness was wholesale denigration of the idea and the implication that you have to be an expert before you can inspect anything. In many instances, a report by an impartial lay person may be more valuable. That is why for years no Prime Minister would appoint as a Minister for Health anyone who, as a doctor, knew anything about health on the basis that when it came to forming an unbiased view of the legislation, the prejudices that had been built up as a doctor would interfere with his impartiality. I put that on the record simply to argue against the complete ruling out of somebody for not being a supposed expert. An intelligent layman will be perfectly capable of making a report that might be more valuable in the end.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord's explanation that Ministers were appointed because they did not have
694
any knowledge of the subject might account for an awful lot that we have found rather curious. Why does the noble Lord think that the lay member would be free of prejudice? Is that what he supposes? To say that experts have prejudices but lay people do not seems an unusual description.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If I may put the record straight, I said the opposite. I did not say that the layman and the expert would be any different in terms of their general ability but that if one is an expert in any field where there are different views and strengths one is bound to have a prejudice in one direction or another. If one is a lay person and unable to build up a prejudice because the expertise that would encourage that has not been present, one is more likely to be objective in any value that one puts on anything that one examines. That is all.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord is saying that the expert has a basis of knowledge on which he forms his view and that the non-expert, having no basis of knowledge, is for some extraordinary reason at an advantage because he has no basis of knowledge. That seems a strange argument.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: If one looks at the state of the British education system today, one might conclude that the experts had got it wrong quite a lot. I would like to support my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Having been the only lay person very often on visits of experts to polytechnics over the last nine or 10 years, I must say that if, on occasion, I had had one other lay person, such as perhaps my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with whom I had been able to confer, the result of many of our inspections might have been very different and to the benefit of the system.
Baroness Seear: It is hypothetical—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is not hypothetical.
Baroness Seear: It is hypothetical that a combination of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would have led to a great deal of improvement in the polytechnics.
Lord Elton: I had difficulty hearing much of those exchanges, but I have, on occasion, found myself longing for a second lay person and I wonder whether we should have two lay people. If one is surrounded by experts and starts not to understand what they are saying, one wonders whether that is because they are very clever and one is very stupid or simply that they are talking jargon and one is thinking sense. On those occasions, it is nice to have someone who can also assess the jargon to see how it adds up.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may give an example. It took me a long time to work out what the real meaning of education speak was—for instance, the "participative discussion mode". I discovered in the end that this meant "talks." One spent a long time wondering about the "unit of resource." In the end, one was forced to conclude that it meant a student. A

695
lot of time would have been saved if I had been able to talk to someone normal and discover what was going on.
Baroness Blackstone: I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Speaking with another hat on, as the head of an academic institution, I found his comment about the unit of resource a little odd. I do not think that it would be appropriate for an academic audit of university or polytechnic departments to be carried out by people who know absolutely nothing about the subject. I would not presume to go into a surgical theatre and try to inspect the work being carried out by surgeons. Why, in this Bill, do we think it perfectly appropriate for lay people to comment on the work of head teachers? To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was saying, we are talking now about assessing the quality of work in an institution, not about making general judgments that might or might not be prejudiced. I find this one of the dafter elements of the Bill.
It is causing a great deal of concern to reasonable head teachers who have approached me and others. They are worried about people who have never taught in a classroom in their lives coming in and prescribing things for their schools. I repeat that I do not believe that any of us would want to do that in many other contexts. So why do we think that it is appropriate to do it in schools?
11 p.m.
Lord Harvington: Is not the whole matter most unsatisfactory? We sit here and listen to all kinds of points of view about what should or should not be done about inspections. I begin by thinking that my noble friend Lord Elton is right and I am going to vote against the Government. I listen a little more and I think that he is not so right. Later, I think he is even less right. Then I begin to think that he is right again. I listen to one person after another. We are not doing much good to ourselves or to the teaching profession with this type of debate. The sooner we put an end to this discussion and come to a decision, the better it will be for everyone.
Baroness Warnock: It would be extraordinary if we did not discuss a Bill which has caused great anxiety not just to educationists, who apparently have a bad name for speaking in riddles and for not being able to be understood, but to teachers, and to parents for whom the Bill was supposed in large degree to be drafted. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. It is extraordinary that to be a member of the team the only qualification mentioned is that one should know nothing about education.
One aspect that worries me is that we do not know how many inspectors on the team will go into the school at any one time. It could well be the non-expert, or the non-expert and one other person. It is proper that we should have a chance to express our anxiety. If we cannot keep out the non-expert we should at least take seriously the proposition that the limit should be one non-expert only in the team.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps I may speak for the lay person. I should feel that a great privilege from my position. In so far as we are dealing with a school, the essential elements, as we have said repeatedly, are the moral, cultural and spiritual dimension, discipline and relationships within the school. There is something to be said for someone among the inspection team of experts not necessarily being bound up with the professionalism of the educationists. Many of us in our different disciplines benefit from having someone who can look, listen and reflect back to us from a detached viewpoint. In no department do we want government by, inspection by, reports by, and everything else by experts.
Baroness Blatch: I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was patronising about parents and lay people in the inspection teams.
Baroness Blackstone: If the Minister will forgive me, she is inclined to misrepresent what is said by Members of the Opposition. I did not make one reference to parents. I was talking about lay people. I had an amendment down, which I did not move because I was trying to save a little time, which suggested that rather than merely having lay members it would be better to have parents, because parents have, at least, some commitment and interest in education. I hope that the Minister will withdraw her remark in which she suggested that I was being patronising about parents when I never mentioned them.
Baroness Blatch: I offer the noble Baroness an abject apology for using the word "parents". In my haste to bring an end to the debate, which I know the Committee is anxious to do, I used the wrong word. I meant to say that I thought the noble Baroness was extremely patronising about lay people and their role on the inspection team. I believe also that she was wrong when she said that there was not support from different parts of the Committee for lay people on the inspection team.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who is not in his seat, welcoming the idea of lay people. He had studied this matter in more depth than many Members of the Committee. I believe that I remember—I shall withdraw this if I am wrong—that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelksy, did too. A number of my noble friends on these Benches did so, and I believe I have heard it before from the Bishops Benches. So there is support around the Committee for lay people.
It also needs to be said that no activities that go on in schools are so professionally based that no one but a professional could comment on them. There were some remarks about the ethos of schools, about how parents relate to the staff. Many aspects of school life would benefit and be enhanced by at least a view from a lay person involved in the inspection team.
Lay members will not be chosen at random. They will bring some expertise to bear, even if it is just that of being a parent. That is one point with which I hope the noble Baroness will agree. It will be of a character which will enable them to command respect and to be

697
listened to. It will be their function to bring a fresh perspective to bear. Occasionally I believe that a lay person can ask a pertinent question which will elicit information that it would benefit professionals to consider. It may help to focus the minds of professional colleagues.
We want the intelligent outside view applied to all aspects of a school. Lay members of teams should not be kept in the office and out of the corridors and classrooms. Of course the questions they ask and the impressions they gain will not be the same as those of the professional inspectors. No one suggests that they will be. But they will be a valid and valuable addition to the professional view and will doubtless reflect many of the concerns of governors and parents which need to be addressed if the inspection report is to be of help to these groups.
The lay member may also have as his secondary purpose the provision of financial or management expertise. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that only a professional may make comments and give consideration to that aspect of a school's activity? That role may be taken by another team member who may or may not be a teacher by background. We need that flexibility. The difference between us is fundamental about whether there should be lay members of the team. As to the people who believe that there should be a lay member, the difference between us is that we believe that it should be at least one and my noble friend wishes to constrain it to just one.
Lord Beloff: I do not regret this discussion at all. I thought it was rather interesting to hear the different ways in which people approach the problem of inspection. There must be people in your Lordships' Chamber who would only go down a mine that had been inspected by persons who were not mining engineers. I admire their fortitude.
I believe it comes down to the question, as the Minister said, of one or more than one. I hope that she will give it more thought. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 127 not moved.]
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 18, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) at least one member of the inspection team has experience and expertise in special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 128 and 129A at the same time. They are different but on related subjects. I have no doubt that we shall be told that it is not necessary to insert on the face of the Bill the requirement that:
"at least one member of the inspection team has experience and expertise in special educational needs".
However, I plead that it should be on the face of the Bill for all teams of inspectors. We are committed since the 1981 Education Act so far as possible to keeping at least some children who have special educational needs still in mainstream schools. Many mainstream schools have large numbers of children with special educational needs, whether or not they have statements. In order for a full inspection to be carried out in those schools, it is necessary for a
698
member of the inspection team to have expertise in special educational needs. I do not believe that can be taken for granted among the other provisions that the Bill contains. I certainly do not believe the expression "fit and proper", or whatever the words are, would cover what I consider to be a general demand that an expert in special educational matters should be available.
Amendment No. 129A is a more specific amendment which provides that where an inspection of a special school was undertaken, at least one member of the inspection team is a person who is an expert on the particular disability or need for which the special school in question has been set up. The same would apply to a special unit attached to a mainstream school. That latter provision is just as important as any other provision—perhaps even more important—because at the moment it is not always met.
I know there are special schools, particularly schools for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children, that are inspected by a team of inspectors who know nothing about the taxing demands of children at the schools. Those children constitute the second largest group of special needs children in the country. That is just one example. It is important that for every inspection of a special school there should be an expert available on the specific educational need catered for at the school.
I hope these provisions will appear on the face of the Bill. I certainly do not think that the term "fit person" is sufficient to cover the requirements I have outlined. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As regards Amendment No. 128, the 1981 Act has been in force since 1981 and a number of inspectors have visited schools but have never asked whether the schools contained any statemented children. It is important that inspectors are aware that a school contains statemented children. They should consider carefully whether those children are being adequately cared for and taught.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, too, on Amendment No. 129A. I have personal experience of an inspection being carried out at a school that contained highly emotionally disturbed children where the inspectors admitted—I underline that—that they did not have experience of emotionally disturbed children of the kind they were inspecting. My noble friend Lady Perry is not at present in the Chamber. However, she said that if an inspector visited a school and showed signs of not knowing what he was inspecting the teachers, or the head teacher, would ask him to go. In the school with which I am connected the teachers are far too courteous to ask inspectors to leave if they think the inspectors do not know what they are doing. In fact, by the time inspectors leave a school they know far more than when they arrived about the type of child they are inspecting. I strongly support both these amendments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to cast some doubt on the wisdom of these amendments from two fairly unusual standpoints. I do so particularly on the

699
wisdom of Amendment No. 128. I should have thought it was fairly obvious that the inspection outlined in Amendment No. 129A was being undertaken. I should have thought we could rely on the system we are setting up to make sure that appropriate people were included in the inspection team.
The first of my rather unusual standpoints on these amendments is expressed from the point of view of the father of a Down's Syndrome child, and the second as a former chairman of the special educational needs sub-committee of the teacher education committee of the Council for National Academic Awards. Members of the Committee may know that that council has been responsible for most of the teacher training—or teacher education as it is called in the jargon—in this country.
Both those experiences lead me to believe that members of our special educational needs establishment, which is a burgeoning body within our wider education establishment, are not necessarily the best people to become mandatory members of the new inspection teams. My general worry is that our educationists have become much too enthusiastic about moving children with quite severe mental handicaps, such as my daughter, into schools for normal children. I fear that that policy is often unkind and bad for the handicapped children in question and that it can also compromise the education of normal children.
My more specific worry about the amendments is that it is largely those SEN specialists who inspire that over-enthusiasm and I feel that their duties on the new inspection teams would often be more healthily fulfilled by, say, normal teachers with normal SEN training and awareness. I do not say that SEN specialists should necessarily be excluded from the teams, of course, but I am sure that their mandatory inclusion on the face of the Bill would be a mistake.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to support the amendments. Both are self-explanatory. In relation to Amendment No. 129A, I believe that it is almost inconceivable that one would not include someone who knew exactly what they were dealing with, because any type of special educational need will have its own problems.
In the case of dyslexia, about which I know most, if the inspection team did not include someone who was familiar with the type of problem dealt with by the school, many of the techniques for teaching reading would seem rather laboured and slow. Dyslexic children tend to have bad memories and be poor organisers and have problems with sequencing and timetabling. Unless the inspector understood the specific problems it would be very difficult to judge whether the school was organised properly, whether it made sure that pupils had enough time between lessons, that matters were explained to them regularly and slowly and that people who had difficulty in taking in detail, which is often a dyslexic trait, were
700
able to handle broad concepts. Unless that approach was appreciated it would be very difficult to draw attention to such matters.
The problems affecting children with other special educational needs, such as those who are deaf, blind or in wheelchairs, tend to be more obvious. However, I have learnt from listening to debates in this Chamber that there are many hidden problems. There is also the fact that children are affected by such problems to varying degrees. The degree of eyesight impairment, the degree of hearing difficulty and the degree of mobility are all extremely complicated matters and have to be addressed individually.
In relation to Amendment No. 128, unless one goes into a school knowing what one is looking for one cannot assess that school. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that in this instance it is a mistake to bring certain children together in classrooms. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who was instrumental in bringing the 1981 Act into existence, said in a previous debate that that aspect was a mistake.
Once again I shall use the example of those with dyslexia. If a class of many children is taking in information by means of dictation, for example, dyslexic children should not be there because they cannot do that. However, that does not mean that they should not be present in some classes where other learning techniques are used. Therefore, although on that particular point I agree with the noble Lord, I would add that inspectors must appreciate the type of problem involved so that they can say where certain children should and should not be included. I have no doubt that all Members of the Committee can appreciate that certain children with certain learning difficulties should be in certain classes and not in others because of their different learning curves. They will be able to pick up certain points in different fields. I support the amendments.
Baroness David:I, too, should like to support the amendments. I should like to express some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, but the fact remains that there are a good many children with special educational needs now in mainstream schools and we should ensure that they are looked after when the inspections take place. Therefore it is important that in every school one member of the team who has that experience should be present.
Anticipating one possible response from the Minister—to the effect that one cannot name every category that will appear on the inspection team—there is already one member of the team who is mentioned; namely, a person who must have no experience of education. All we seek in these amendments is that there should be one member who has some experience of this matter. Many people mind about it. I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, did not mention that the National Children's Bureau sent a very powerful brief on this whole matter, to which attention should be paid.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like briefly to support the two amendments. As I understand it, Amendment No. 128 does not intend that only one inspector in the team should pay attention to the

701
special needs. It intends that special needs should be the responsibility of the entire team but that there should be a designated and trained member to co-ordinate the work. I agree with my noble friend Lady Warnock that Amendment No. 129A is the more important of the two amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, explained very well why it is necessary to have someone with specific knowledge of the special need being inspected.
I should like to say that even within the disability itself there are variations. For example, Deaf Accord, which is a consortium of deaf organisations, states that the educational needs of deaf children vary greatly, depending on the degree of deafness and the child's preferred method of communication. It can be a very controversial area where it is essential that an inspector understands the issues involved and is able to make a balanced and well informed judgement. Even within a single disability there may be a great variety of complications. I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: The inspection of educational provision for pupils with special needs is one on which noble Lords have expressed their anxiety. I am aware that it is also a point of great concern to many outside this Chamber. Perhaps I may say at the outset that we are very sympathetic to those concerns and are determined that the new inspection regime we set up will serve to help and reinforce the efforts of those who devote so much dedicated care and attention to this very special group of children.
I remind the Committee that we have included in the Bill's inspection provisions not only all maintained special schools but non-maintained schools and independent schools taking pupils with statements of special educational needs. Some of those schools have never been inspected before. I am sure that they will benefit from this closer and more public scrutiny.
It is very pleasant that we are now discussing a comprehensive and sophisticated system of inspection and that we should now be getting down to the appropriate skills and expertise that are brought to bear in order to inspect different aspects of different schools. But I recognise that this group of amendments focuses on pupils in mainstream schools, including those with Unit 4 pupils with statements. It is certainly our intention that the way in which pupils with special needs are identified and then dealt with should form a key part of every inspection report of every school and a major part in the case of a school with a special unit.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for reverting to my familiar theme of trusting the chief inspectors to do their job. It is for the chief inspectors to set out the details of the different sorts of expertise which inspection teams will need in the light of the type and size of school to be inspected. They will guide inspectors as to the way in which inspections should be carried out and the matters to be covered. I have absolutely no doubt that the chief inspectors will say that all inspection teams will have to be equipped to look at and report on the way in which pupils with special educational needs are identified and catered
702
for, and that those looking at specialist provision will have to focus on that more particularly. It is inconceivable that the chief inspectors should omit such an important point from their guidance and conditions for inspection.
While it would be wrong to pre-empt exactly what the chief inspectors may decide on this as on other matters, I am fairly sure that they will wish to see inspection teams for special schools and schools with special units formed along the lines of current HMI practice. When HMI conducts a full inspection of a special school the team is generally composed of those with various degrees of specialist expertise on special needs issues. Where a school has a special needs unit, one member of the team is likely to be a SEN specialist. The HMI team inspecting every mainstream school must have the competence to report on how pupils' special educational needs are identified and dealt with, but there need not be a single identified specialist on the team provided that the team as a whole can meet all the needs.
As I have said, I expect that the chief inspectors will wish to give similar guidance to the new inspection teams. But these matters are for the chief inspectors to decide and we must trust them to do their job.
Of course the governors or other authorities arranging the inspection will also want to ensure that the team which they select for the inspection is adequately qualified for the job. Governors of special schools or schools with special units will want to take particular care that the inspection team which they choose is one in a good position by reason of qualifications and experience to undertake the inspection. As I said when we discussed the previous group of amendments, we anticipate that both the guidance from the chief inspectors to the registered inspectors and any sent also to governing bodies will stress that point.
I appreciate the anxiety felt by Members of the Committee that, while we can speculate, and can in this case be pretty certain, about what the new chief inspectors will do, we cannot guarantee that they will act as we predict. If it will help the Committee I shall undertake to draw our exchanges on this topic to the attention of the chief inspectors, once appointed, so that they can be in no doubt of the Committee's anxiety and of the Government's firm intention that provision for pupils with special needs should receive the important attention that it deserves in every school inspection and the additional specialist attention that it warrants in a special school or a school which has a specialist unit within it. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the Minister for her undertaking to call the attention of the chief inspectors, when appointed, to the need. Of course those chief inspectors will not remain for ever and one hopes that the next will also be well informed.
I am disappointed that the Minister could not undertake to put on the face of the Bill the requirement among the inspectorate teams. Earlier today we heard that the raw scores of examination results are to be published, and that is one source of information which may be used variously by parents.

703
I believe that such issues will make the reports of inspectors even more important because only through those reports will parents gain a balanced view of the nature of the schools between which they are supposed to choose. I do not believe that they will gain that balanced view unless we can be absolutely assured that at least one member of the team is interested in the children who have learning difficulties or temporary or permanent special needs.
I am disappointed in the Minister's answer. Compatibility of the 1981 Act with the new Education (Schools) Bill has not been thoroughly sorted out. There are incompatibilities to which we may have to return at a later stage. However, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 129A to 140 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 and 146 to 148. These amendments are about the need for inspectors to hold meetings with the governors and staff.
First, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 141 and 148 which relate to staff. It seems to us that it is important that inspectors should have the opportunity to meet staff as well as parents at the school so that they can get the widest possible knowledge about the school.
There is a requirement in the Bill that a meeting should be arranged between the inspector conducting the inspection and the parents of pupils at the school who wish to attend. In order to have the widest possible background knowledge of the school before conducting an inspection, it is important that the inspector should also have the opportunity to meet the whole staff of the school—both teachers and support staff.
That is important not only from the point of view of the inspector learning about the school but from the point of view of the staff understanding the aims and mechanics of the inspection so that they can learn what the inspectors are intending to do and what they are looking at. That will make easier the implementation of any advice given by the inspectors. It will help to avoid possible problems which could arise through poor communication between the inspector and staff of the school. It is likely to be helpful to the inspector as well as to the staff.
When a similar amendment was debated in Committee in another place, the Minister suggested that there was nothing to stop inspectors meeting teachers and non-teaching staff in a group if they and the governors thought that that was appropriate. Indeed, he went on to say that the governors might ask the inspection team about that if they attached importance to it. The Minister went on to say that
704
some teachers are more willing than others to express their points of view in open meetings. Therefore, he argued in favour of smaller and more informal venues.
That ignores the fact that the Bill specifies that a meeting with parents is a requirement. If a meeting of that kind is specified in the Bill, there seems to be no reason why a meeting with staff cannot be included in the statute.
The intended effect of Amendments Nos. 143, 146 and 147 is to require the inspector conducting an inspection to hold a preliminary meeting with the governors as well as with parents who wish to express views about the school. The purpose of the amendments is to give the governing body the right to express its views and anxieties about the school to the inspector.
The main reason for securing that right is to make absolutely sure that the governing body has the opportunity to give the inspector a balanced, considered and informed view which will supplement the views expressed by parents. One must accept that the views of those parents may not be representative of the views of the parent body as a whole because not all parents may attend the meeting.
A preliminary meeting with the governors would give the governing body the opportunity to correct any mis-statments of fact which may have been made by parents or, indeed, by staff, if it is agreed that meetings with staff are acceptable. Since the governing body also has to pay for the inspection, surely it has a right to ensure that its conduct is in no way distorted by any untrue or unsubstantiated points which may be made by individual parents. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to support the amendment on behalf of these Benches. It is a good idea that teachers and the whole staff—including non-teachers—should be taken into the confidence of the inspector's team since they are an essential part of the school.
I feel that over the past few years there has been too great a tendency to set parents—whom this Government refer to as "consumers"—against the providers (the teachers) as though there were a kind of populist alliance against the professionals. In order to break down that concept a general meeting with the staff—teaching and non-teaching —is a good idea. The closer a school can come to being a community of parents, teachers, local authorities and everyone involved in the nurturing of a future generation, the better. It should be a community project and not simply one involving parents and children.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Amendments Nos. 141, 143 and 146 to 148 all seek to provide for additional meetings to be held with the registered inspector before an inspection takes place. Amendments Nos. 143, 146 and 147 seek a meeting with the governing body or proprietor of the school; while the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, want a meeting with teaching and non-teaching staff of the school.
The amendments are all unnecessary. We have provided in the Bill for a meeting between the registered inspector and parents of pupils at the

705
school, because parents might not otherwise have any chance to put their views which we think should inform the inspection process. Parents have never before been fully involved in school inspections; they have often not known they were happening. But the position of governors, proprietors and of teaching and other staff is different.
By the time the provisions of the Bill, once enacted, come into force, the vast majority of schools will have governing bodies or proprietors as their "appropriate authority" for the purposes of arranging inspections. Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 in effect mean therefore that the appropriate authority would be required to arrange a meeting between itself and the registered inspector. Even in those cases where the LEA remains the appropriate authority, the school's governing body will be expected to seek a preliminary meeting with the inspector, who indeed is more than likely to seek such a meeting himself, if, by some oversight, the governing body should forget to do so. I am sure that the guidance on good practice which HMCI will provide will amply cover the point.
The noble Baroness mentioned that the Minister of State in another place said that there is also nothing to prevent the governors or the inspectors from arranging an open meeting with teaching or non-teaching staff of the school. But I am not sure that that would necessarily be the best way to find out teachers' views. The school's staff will have plenty of opportunity to make their views known to the inspection team. Meetings and discussions with the senior management team, with subject departments and—in a less formal way—with individual members of both teaching and non-teaching staff will form an important part of the inspection process. And any member of staff can approach the inspection team if he or she has a particular point to make or grievance to express.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that there is no need to impose further statutory conditions in these respects.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am a little disappointed although not surprised because I had read what was said by the Minister of State in Committee in another place, particularly in regard to staff. However, I do not believe that an amendment in regard to meetings with the governing body was debated in another place.
What concerns this side of the Chamber is that the registered inspector should obtain a complete view, before starting his inspection, from all parties involved in a school—the staff as a whole, the governing body as a whole and the parents as a whole, or those who wish to attend—rather than a partial view. However, I shall take away the Minster's reply and decide whether or not to come back at the next stage with further amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: For a moment we stay with the question of what happens when an inspection is
706
arranged and how the arrangements are made in a rather loose group of amendments. The first of these is Amendment No. 142 which merely seeks to ask by whom the prescription in paragraph 6(a) (ii) will be made. I assume that it is either the Secretary of State or HMCI. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell me.
In Amendment No. 144, I turn to the question of confidentiality. I am not particularly happy with the place where I propose the change—at line 27 on page 19—where it would feature in the arrangements for the meeting between the parents and the inspector.
There will indeed be need for confidentiality on occasion, as I was trying to say at Second Reading. Parents are often somewhat in awe of the school staff. They also regard their children as being in some sense at risk from victimisation if they were to upset the staff. Therefore, they would need to be confident of the confidentiality of any criticisms they made to the inspectorate.
I see that there are arguments in the opposite sense. The staff of the school would not like anonymous criticism and would prefer its critics to stand up and be counted. The balance must always be in favour of the interests of the child, and those interests suggest that there should be confidentiality. There will be other occasions when individual children will require the protection of confidentiality. I believe that that is already provided for, either in the Bill or in proposed regulations. I would like to be assured of that.
Even if there is provision, there is no safety unless the provision is in some way enforced. A great deal has been said about the answerability of the inspectors. We are frequently told that an inspector is dependent for his right to inspect on the chief inspector. The final amendment I have in this group is Amendment No. 182 which tries to give some form to the chief inspector's supervision in this respect. Clause 11(1) gives the chief inspector the right to remove an inspector from the register under certain conditions. The conditions appear in subsection (2). To them I seek to add that the inspector has breached the provisions made for confidentiality. I do not suppose that the amendments are perfect. They are addressed to a general concern about which I hope my noble friend will be able to reassure me, thus relieving me of the necessity of putting down a specific proposal. I believe that my noble friend Lady Brigstocke also has an amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Brigstocke: Perhaps I may return to the question of the meeting between the parents and the inspector. In speaking to Amendment No. 145A, I want to make sure that the head teacher of the school is there when the inspector and the parents meet. Schedule 2, paragraph 6, asks that the appropriate authority arrange a meeting between the inspector conducting the inspection and the parents of registered pupils. I hope that such a meeting will produce positive points as well as criticism. It may be that it is implicit in the Bill that the head teacher should be present. Surely, to give the meeting a sharp focus it should be explicit to have present the head teacher. It is the heads of the schools, in their own right who in that capacity are the people responsible

707
for delivering the curriculum, the deployment and management of the staff, the discipline, the good order, the relations with parents, industry, commerce, and the local community. The full inspection must comprise those areas.
In the past it has always been the case that before and after carrying out an inspection the HMI in charge has a meeting with the head. I know from my own experience that it can be very confusing and cause a great deal of unpleasantness and misunderstanding to have a meeting with the inspector and the parents without the head of the school being present. I thought for some time about asking for the head teacher and the staff to be present, as has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, but parents are sometimes shy or think that their children might be handicapped, or "got at", if they are too explicit in their own criticisms and I can see that some parents might be intimidated if a large number of staff are at a meeting. However, for good management and organisation of the school surely it is necessary to have the head teacher at such meetings.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to take issue with my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I should have thought that precisely because parents are often afraid of speaking their minds in public it is very important for any inspection team to meet parents without the head teacher being present and precisely because the head teacher is the most important element in a school. The fish rots from the head down and that is nowhere more important than in a school. If the head is starting to rot the parents must have the opportunity of saying that privately, without the head present.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Elton has some concern, in suggesting Amendments Nos. 142 and 145, that there should be proper arrangements made to ensure the smooth and effective running of the meeting which will be held between the registered inspector and the parents prior to the inspection taking place. In order for the meeting to achieve its objectives it must be properly organised and have clear guidelines and aims.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 therefore enables certain details to be prescribed for these meetings—in particular, who may attend them and how they are to be arranged. There is, however, no need for the amendments which my noble friend has suggested—"prescribed", under Clause 18 of the Bill, means "prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State". The Secretary of State is therefore empowered to make regulations in the normal way to cover all relevant matters. I recognise his point that Amendment No. 152 would require that it has to be specified here that the Secretary of State is to do the prescribing, but I am not sure that I agree, unless he seeks also to amend Clause 18.
I have some sympathy with the purpose behind the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—
708
Amendments Nos. 144 and 182—concerning the confidentiality of proceedings at the parents' meeting. The noble Lord is concerned lest parents might be inhibited from speaking frankly to the registered inspector about weaknesses in the school's management or teaching provision, because of understandable fears that their children might be made to suffer by teachers or other staff who resented their complaints. I suggest, however, that a meeting with parents of the kind envisaged is hardly the sort at which any cast iron guarantee of the confidentiality of what is said could be given. The registered inspector would observe it, but who could ensure that the parents did? Parents will anyway have been notified that an inspection is to take place and of its timing, and the main purpose of the meeting is formally to give them the opportunity to express their views to the inspector. Some parents will be less inhibited about doing this than others. Some might prefer to write with their concerns, or seek a private talk with the inspector after the meeting or on a different occasion. There will be nothing to prevent that, and it might well be that HMCI's guidance will encourage inspectors to remind parents of their rights in this regard. There is no need to provide for such matters in regulations.
Pupils' individual records will, of course, be confidential. There can be no question of their being published in inspection reports on the school. Clause 16 makes clear that no information published in comparative tables can name an individual pupil to which it relates.
I cannot prejudge what regulations may be made under this paragraph. There are matters which remain to be considered —not least in the light of points of view expressed in this Chamber and in another place. But I can assure my noble friend that the important points he has raised concerning confidentiality in relation to the views which parents may express at such meetings, as well as the method of dealing with an inspector who is considered to have broken that confidentiality, will be carefully considered when these matters are looked at after the passage of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 145A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, which comes from a rather different standpoint. My noble friend was, of course, a very distinguished head teacher herself. One can well imagine that in her school there would never be any question about her being welcome at such a meeting as that proposed in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2. But I am not at all sure about the wisdom of making such attendance an enforceable right, or even the general expectation. As my noble friend Lord Elton stressed, parents should feel able to speak freely at these meetings. Their purpose is to allow parents to express their views to the inspector. My noble friend Lord Pearson has also expressed his worries on this matter.
I am sure that inspectors will not simply take all such views at face value. They will use them as background to their work and will only reflect them in their report if they find them fully justified. It may be right in some cases for them to discuss with the head, without specific attribution, points made at the

709
meeting. But I do not think our aim of a free and open expression of parental views will necessarily be served by giving the head teacher a right of attendance.
There are, of course, other occasions for parents to express their views to the governing body and the head teacher—most notably the annual parents' meeting provided by the Education (No.2) Act 1986. There will be ample opportunity for the head teacher and the governors to express their views to the inspector. But in the light of the points made earlier we must give very careful consideration to the question of who should be invited to these meetings when the regulations which will govern them are being drafted. I hope that what I have said will have convinced my noble friends not to press their amendments.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. It leaves me with some residual doubt because a great deal of what she said about the confidentiality of information about individual pupils rested upon Clause 16. Clause 16 deals not with inspectors' reports but with the publication of information by proprietors and governing bodies of schools, which is not what we are actually considering at the moment.
I am concerned about the reports. What happens to the reports is set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 Subparagraph (5) states:
"The appropriate authority shall—(a) make any report and summary sent to the authority under subparagraph (3) available for inspection by members of the public".
Heading (b) of the subparagraph states:
"provide a copy of the report and summary, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment … to any person who asks for one".
If any personalised information gets into that report, it will be all over the shop unless there is something to stop that happening. My noble friend has not convinced me that that something exists except in convention at the moment. If she wishes to add now to what she said and if there are regulations which affect what can go into that report, or if it is proposed to have regulations which will affect what can go into that report, I should be most grateful to hear from her. Otherwise, perhaps she can write to me before the next stage and I shall keep the door open until then.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may repeat to my noble friend the fact that I cannot prejudge what regulations may be made. But the matters being considered and the views on confidentiality expressed in this Chamber and in another place will be taken very much into account in drawing up the regulations. I hope that that will give my noble friend some comfort.
Lord Elton: I shall try to express that form of tentative satisfaction which does not preclude later dissatisfaction after reading the Hansard report of the response. However, I hope that I shall not need to use that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos 143 to 150 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151:
710
Page 19, line 36, at end insert ("and
(c) a right to attend any lesson or period of instruction or supervised activity given on the premises of the school, or given elsewhere by members of the staff of the school, to pupils registered at the school as part of their education").
The noble Lord said: Although I spoke to this amendment earlier, I am not aware that my noble friend addressed the latter part of it in her reply. I merely wish to draw to her attention my concern that inspectors should be able to see the activities of children supervised by staff away from the school. I absolutely understand about their access to all premises. I do not expect my noble friend to answer now because the amendment has already been spoken to. However, if that point has not been covered, perhaps she can write to me on the matter. Having said that, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 20, line 6, at end insert ("and shall consult with the headteacher and appropriate authority on a draft of his report and summary").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 156, 168 and 169. All those amendments are tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. I shall also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 156A and 169A tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, which have been grouped with my amendments.
The four amendments tabled in my name refer to paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. They relate to the inspectors' reports. Subparagraph (2) of paragraph 9 states:
"When an inspection has been completed, the registered inspector shall, before the end of the prescribed period, prepare in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report".
We are seeking by way of these four amendments to ensure that the inspector shall also,
"consult with the headteacher and appropriate authority on a draft of his report and summary",
and that the,
"headteacher and the appropriate authority shall both be entitled if they so wish to have published with the report and the summary such comments or commentary on the report or summary as the case may be as they may think fit".
If the Government believe in informing parents about schools, there should be no objection to additional information being provided. Schools must have the right to comment on the body of the inspection report under the new system. It is possible that inappropriate or inaccurate comments may bring about personal attacks on members of staff. The report may affect the livelihood of staff and the future of the school. It is an essential safeguard that the head and appropriate authority shall be entitled to add their comments to the body of an inspection report, which will itself be sent to all parents. As the inspection is once in every four years, it is only right that there should be a formal procedure for the school to comment.
Without such a procedure, inaccuracies in any report will undermine schools. The school and appropriate authority need to be able to criticise

711
inspectors' recommendations, particularly where an inspection team fails to meet the set criteria. The inspection team may prove to have a lack of expertise and understanding of or disregard for special educational needs, despite the requirements of the school. There is a particular need for such a safeguard given the lack of a code of practice and confidentiality safeguards in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred to this.
Consultation with the teaching staff and appropriate authority should take place in any inspection, and the amendments write that into the Bill. It is especially important that the head and the appropriate authority should be consulted at the draft report stage to allow them to clear up their responsibilities to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of pupils, parents and teachers.
The amendments do not seek to interfere with the independence of schools' inspection. They provide safeguards under a new private system of inspection, its cycle of inspection being every four years. Formal consultation would allow for formal comments to be included in the information circulated to all parents. That would give a rounded picture of the school and allow parents to pursue areas of concern through the appropriate authorities. It would improve the facilities for co-operation between parents and teachers, thus increasing genuine parental involvement. I hope that it will not be said that there is an alarmist attitude about this. I believe that allowing the head and the authority to comment is a safeguard. It seems only fair that they should be able to comment on the report before it goes out. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Brigstocke: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 156A and 169A. I can accept that it can be intimidating to have only one person, the head, at a meeting of the governors, the parents and the chief inspector. But I cannot see why the Bill cannot provide for the inspectors' reports to be sent to the appropriate authority for the school, to the chief inspector, the school's head teacher and the local education authority. It seems absolutely ridiculous that the report should not be sent to the head teacher. I know that in some grant-maintained schools heads can serve on the governing body, but there are plenty of examples in local authority schools of heads pulling out and refusing to serve on the governing body. It is important that it should be made explicit that the heads, in playing their role as head with responsibility for delivering education in their schools, should be sent the inspectors' report.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to give expression to a worry about the question of the inspectors' reports. I understood from a retired HMI to whom I spoke before the Bill came before the Chamber that the preparation of a written report may be a lengthy matter—that it might be weeks before a full written report was produced—but that in the meantime there would be consultations with the head teacher with regard to any matter that required
712
immediate attention on the part of the school. It therefore seems relevant that the inspection team should consult with the head teacher immediately in case there should be anything requiring urgent attention and long before it is possible for the inspector to produce a full written report of his inspection.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We would expect with the reports of both the registered inspectors and the inspectors of denominational education that the head teacher and the appropriate authority—the governing body, the LEA or the school's proprietors, as the case may be—would be given an opportunity to read any inspection report before it is finalised. That is standard practice in consultancy work and, I stress, has long been the practice of HMI when preparing inspection reports. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that anything urgent is drawn to the attention of the head teacher or the appropriate authority. I expect that HMCI's guidance on the conduct of inspections will include advice on that point.
But it is essential that, following any discussion of the draft, the inspectors have the freedom to publish an objective report which reflects their views accurately, and parents have the freedom to receive it as written. We do not want attachments from different sources setting out different views which might confuse the reader. The inspection report must be just that: the report of the inspection team.
We are not in the business of preventing comment and discussion about the report. Governors and heads can address their parent body in a number of ways. They may want to hold a meeting to discuss the report and give their views; they may want to send round their commentary as a basis for that discussion. We are certainly not removing their power to do so. But we say that the commentary should be kept separate from the report so that its source is clearly understood.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 156A and 169A tabled by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. Since the head teacher is entitled to be a member of the school governing body or, if he or she chooses not to be, to attend all governors' meetings, the head teacher will automatically see a copy of the inspection report and summary when finally issued.
I hope that that explains why we consider those amendments are also unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness David: Do I gather from what the Minister said that there will be consultation on the draft report and summary with the head teacher and the appropriate authority?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I confirm that that has long been the standard practice of HMI. It will be part of the normal consultancy practice which will continue.
Baroness David: So the Minister agrees with Amendments Nos. 154 and 168, but I take it that she does not want them written into the Bill. It is reassuring to know that that practice will continue. I understand that in relation to Amendments Nos. 156 and 169 the Minister does not agree that comments

713
should be published with the report. There has been some reassurance about this matter. I should like to think about the two amendments and after consultation consider whether we want to bring them forward. There has been some reassurance about Amendments No. 154 and 168, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 156A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 20, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) The registered inspector shall report separately to the Chief Inspector on the performance by any body named in sub-paragraph (3) or (4) of this paragraph in relation to a school inspected by him under the provisions of this paragraph and the Chief Inspector shall provide a copy of that report to that authority with his comments.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment addresses what may be a little corner of cosiness left unexposed by the Bill, which is intended to deal generally with cosiness. The inspector is called upon by the relevant authority to report on the performance of the school, the staff, the children and the resources but is not at any stage required to report on the principal ingredient of the machinery, which is the relevant authority itself.
The amendment is principally aimed at governors, who have a relationship to the proper management of schools. They are not entirely at arm's length. They are expected to work out with the head teacher and staff a suitable behaviour policy. They also have the important business of appointing suitable staff, which is critical to the success of the school in the years after the appointment.
It occurred to me that I should like to hear the Government say how it is expected that this function will be monitored. It may not done by the, I suggest, rather odd provision that those who are appointed by the relevant authority should then report on that authority to the chief inspector, who is to forward the report to the relevant authority with his own comments. I realise that that is Byzantine, but I do not see any other way of achieving a necessary aim if this is all to work as it should. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I appreciate my noble friend's desire to make sure that the performance of governing bodies, local authorities and diocesan boards of education is kept under review. But I am not sure his amendments really secure that.
To deal first with the performance of the governors, it would be quite impossible for the report on the school not to reflect quite clearly on the way in which the governors as well as the head had discharged their responsibilities. In reporting on the causes of particular aspects of good or bad performance, the involvement (or otherwise) of the governors will be mentioned when appropriate. That view will then become public knowledge and not be fed into a separate reporting process direct to the chief inspector. It is the public accountability of governors to those—including parents—who elect and appoint them which is at the heart of our reforms. They will
714
quite rightly be judged mainly by the fruits of their efforts in terms of the overall quality of their school. The inspection reports will make that quite clear.
We would not wish to require HM inspector to consider in detail every inspection report and append his comments about the governors or anything else. He cannot second-guess registered inspectors at a distance. It is not for him to advise every governing body—also from a distance—on how it might improve its performance.
As for the local authority, which may or may not also be the appropriate authority for the school, and the diocesan body which supports a Church school, much the same general arguments apply. Where their action or inaction is relevant to the quality of education seen in the school, the registered inspectors will mention that and it will be publicly known. The local electorate or Church membership will be able to join with the school if necessary in pressing for changes. Again, we look to processes of local accountability rather than confidential central reporting to secure any necessary improvements. I hope that that is a process which my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to understand as appropriate and effective.
Lord Elton: I shall read that with great care. The Committee is aware that all is not well with all governing bodies at the moment. I am trying to find some means of injecting light and reason into the more dark and difficult patches that governing bodies have recently got into. As I said, I am not confident that this is the right approach. I am grateful to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 20, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("an") and insert ("The governing body of a school about which").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 157A, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 158A and 159A to 159E, all of which stand in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Essentially, the amendments change the part of the Bill which deals with action plans and show that that part of the Bill can be amended clearly and logically to place the responsibility for the action plans in the hands of the school governors. In my judgment, that is exactly where they ought to be. In other words this provision does not interfere with the basic logic of the Bill—the scheme of inspection if one cares to put it that way. If anything, it enhances it. The amendments are transparently clear and the Bill can still be workable. I hope therefore that the Government find the amendments acceptable. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Members on the other side of the Chamber have been playing fast and loose with the concept of appropriate authority, as I indicated earlier. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to a part of the Bill with which he is certainly familiar. I refer to Clause 9(5) where the term "appropriate authority" was originally defined.

715
If he is seeking to substitute for that turn of phrase "the school's governing body", what does he think that does for schools in subsection (5) (a) and (b)?
Clause 9(5) (a) states:
"in the case of a maintained school (other than a grant-maintained school) whose governing body does not have a delegated budget, the local education authority for that school".
Is it the case, then, that the noble Lord seeks to dispossess, as it were, the local education authority from the responsibility which would otherwise be its own under the parts of Schedule 2 to which he refers? What would he do in the case of Clause 9(5) (b) which states:
"in the case of a school falling within paragraph (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (3), the proprietor of the school"?
Those are matters which the noble Lord appears to have overlooked in his amendment, although that surprises me as he and his noble friends have given some attention to this subsection of the Bill.
I have another question for the noble Lord which I believe I asked him by implication earlier. What is he proposing to do with the other cases in Schedule 2—there are only two or three of them—where the term "appropriate authority" remains unamended in his extensive raft of amendments? The first example appears in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, at line 21 on page 19 of the Bill. There is a further example in paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 2, at line 8 on page 20. Thirdly, there is an example in paragraph 9(5), at line 22 on page 20.
If the noble Lord is dealing with the concept of appropriate authority, it is inconvenient if the notion of appropriate authority is left in the air in the manner I have indicated. It is doubly inconvenient if there are still some cases where the term "appropriate authority" continues to be unamended in Schedule 2. If I may say so, we are discussing a rather imprecise set of amendments. Basically, this matter is a bit of a dog's breakfast. It might be appropriate to do the job properly and get the amendments right or perhaps not trouble to move them at this stage.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord, Lord Peston, respond to those points as they are important to our reading of the amendments?
Lord Peston: If the noble Baroness wishes me to do that, I shall respond, as always, to her wishes. However, I prefer to debate my own amendments on the Marshalled List. They are as they are. The noble Lord has asked me what I intend to do as regards amending other parts of the Bill. If he will wait until we reach those parts, he will be perfectly satisfied on that. What I seek to demonstrate here is that there is no difficulty in amending the Bill appropriately so that what I regard as the essence of the Bill from the Government's point of view can be saved. However, it was not my intention to produce all those amendments at this time.
On the whole I endeavour to speak to the amendments in the grouping I am discussing. What I am trying to do here is to indicate that in this case one can substitute governing body for appropriate authority. The noble Lord will discover that my
716
imagination and drafting ability extends to dealing with other cases as well. In other words, I am trying to convey to the Committee that because the Government have defined the concept of "appropriate authority" that does not mean that the rest of us, in scrutinising the Bill in as expert—or inexpert—a way as we can manage, must be constrained by that definition. To do that would mean that we would always be discussing the whole of the Bill at one time which, to my certain knowledge of logic, is never a sensible thing to do.
I repeat that we have before us amendments which I believe to be very clear, although when the noble Baroness replies she may ask me some more questions. They show that in this case we can substitute for "an appropriate authority" the words "a governing body". If the noble Lord will bear with me I shall demonstrate to him subsequently how, with no difficulty, I can do the rest of the job. However, I do not think that it is fair of him to ask me to deal with every part of the Bill simultaneously. I might add that, a fortiori, I think that it is doubly unfair of him to ask me to do so at this time of night. I feel that if we put down amendments the amendments should be referred to as they stand. That is what we are here for. Is that of any help to the noble Baroness?
Baroness Blatch: Not a great deal. In some ways the unanswered questions leave confusion as to how the noble Lord will proceed from here to make sense of the amendments. Amendment No. 111, which was voted on earlier, also leaves the amendments in a state of flux. While the present amendments might make some sense as consequential amendments arising from Amendment No. 111, they certainly could not suffice independently and are therefore inadequate. I wonder whether it would make sense to defer discussion on the amendments until we have looked in more detail at the other consequences and decided how best to proceed. Again, without prejudice to our discussions on the matter, I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree with that course of action.
Lord Peston: I am most obliged to the noble Baroness. Her intervention has been extremely helpful. I certainly do not think that it would be appropriate, especially as Members of the Committee have spoken on the matter, for us to debate Amendment No. 111 again. That would be most improper and was not my intention. The Committee has pronounced on that matter and we now come to these subsequent amendments. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that it is not my intention to divide the Committee on the amendment.
If it were the Committee's wish that we did not spend any more time on the subject there would be no difficulty in persuading me of that, quite irrespective of the time. However, in view of the time and as it is the Committee's view that it would not be helpful to proceed with the matter at this time—I see enough nodding to indicate that the Committee has taken that view—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 158:

717
Page 20, line 45, after ("period") insert (", and in consultation with the head teacher of the school concerned").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 158 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 164 and 166. The amendments relate to action plans. The first amendment provides that the appropriate authority to whom the inspector has reported under the schedule should, before the end of the prescribed period,
"and in consultation with the head teacher of the school concerned"
prepare a written statement. That proposal is in line with what my noble friend Lady Brigstocke suggested and concerns the involvement of the head teacher in what ought be a natural part of his or her function.
I regret that the amendment does not also bring the inspector into the process. Perhaps I may give notice that that is a point which I should like to raise with the noble Baroness because it seems to me that the best inspection reports will contain not only the seeds of an action plan but also suggestions which the inspector may discuss with the school as to how that action plan can best be drawn out.
The second amendment is Amendment No. 164. It is designed to elicit from the Government how it is to be ensured that action plans are put into effect. So far as I can see, the Bill takes one up to the point at which there is an inspection, shortcomings are discovered, ingenious ways of putting them right are devised and plans are published, notified to parents, incorporated in the annual report of the governing body and then disappear. They will not be of any use unless action is taken on them. I do not feel that the duty to put them into the governors' report should expire until action has been taken.
In connection with schools deemed to be at risk, one needs to be rather more brisk than that. That is why in Amendment No. 166 I propose that the Secretary of State should arrange:
"for action to he taken … if the proposals set out in the action plan have not been fully, or in his opinion, sufficiently carried out within a period prescribed".
Those are the three limbs of what I propose. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would use this opportunity to explain what, if anything, the Government have in mind for action in those three areas. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My name is on Amendments Nos. 158 and 164. I raised the matter of accountability at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, one is carried up to a certain point and the action plan is apparently made but then we do not know what will happen.
Lord Elton: As the noble Baroness has launched a torpedo, perhaps I may intervene. She and her friends launched a torpedo which sank the part of the Bill to which this amendment is addressed because the appropriate authorities are now quite other than they were when I drafted the amendments. It may well be that I can save the time of the Committee now and say that I shall consider this matter again between now and Report stage, reserving the opportunity to aim some kind of counter-salvo. That is the best that I can devise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
718
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158A to 159E not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 21, line 29, after ("who") insert ("with reasonable cause").
The noble Lord said: This little amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 161 and 200, is devised simply to get over what could he a vexatious problem. Amendment No. 200 is in the group, but not in my name.
The first two amendments are devised to prevent the existence in the Bill of an open-ended requirement to produce an unlimited number of copies of papers for people who have no reasonable cause to have them and to charge people who have no reasonable cause to ask for them, thus extinguishing the nuisance or making it profitable. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My name appears to Amendment No. 200. I should like also to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Amendment No. 200 is a probing amendment to find out why local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers are allowed to charge for documents supplied under Section 22 of the Education Reform Act but not under Clause 16 of this Bill. It is possible that there could be quite considerable costs incurred in producing some documents. It seems only right that the responsible body should be able to recoup at least some small part of the cost. For instance, a school might devise an innovative way to present information about its examination results or -dare I say? - it might even find a way of implementing value added in presenting its examination results. It might then be possible that many other schools would like to have a copy of the document to see whether they could develop similar expertise in the presentation of the information. Why should not a school, which has paid for development work in this way, be able to recoup some of the cost in supplying information to other schools, local education authorities, registered inspectors, research bodies or the Department of Education and Science?
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Blotch: I appreciate the concern of my noble friend Lord Elton for economy but I believe that Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would complicate the Bill's provisions unnecessarily. Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 7 of the schedule allows for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations what fee is to be charged in what circumstances for a copy of the action plan. That power can and, I expect, will be used to secure that those other than parents, staff and others with a direct interest can be charged a reasonable fee. I believe therefore that my noble friend's point has been met.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Seear, propose in Amendment No. 200 to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to authorise local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to make a charge sufficient to cover the cost of providing documents in accordance with regulations made by him under Clause 16. The duties to be

719
imposed on governors under the clause will be the transmission of information for comparative tables to the Secretary of State or someone he authorises for that purpose and possibly the distribution of the tables through pupil post. In neither case will there be any significant extra cost involved and a charge will not be appropriate.
In the case of the tables themselves, it is our intention that once prepared they should be made freely available on request and indeed published in local newspapers. But we have no intention of making regulations which will require the LEA, for example, to give 200 copies to a local estate agent. In such cases the authority may decide to go beyond its statutory duty and supply the copies requested. It would be able to charge the estate agent a fee for what was supplied. There is no ability to charge for school prospectuses in the 1981 regulations, and I should not wish to go down that route for comparative tables.
The power to charge for information in the curriculum under Section 22 of the 1988 Act is because parents are entitled to ask for copies of detailed documents which are made available at the school but not otherwise widely published. I hope that in the light of that explanation the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Elton: I am reassured by my noble friend's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 21, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The duty in sub-paragraph (6) above shall not be deemed to have been fully discharged until either all the proposals have been carried into effect or other proposals have been substituted for them.").
The noble Lord said: We turn, I hope with more success, to the question of what happens to an action plan. However, I must say that I preferred my earlier amendments which were destroyed, inadvertently or otherwise, by the noble Baroness and her friends. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a governing body does not extinguish all its duties with regard to an action plan simply by publishing it in the first of its annual reports after the action plan has been completed. There is a requirement in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 10 that it should publish a statement of the extent to which the proposals set out in an action plan have been carried into effect in its governors' report. However, so far as I can see it would be possible to give a general progress report in the first year and thereafter say that the statutory duty had been completed. I do not believe that that is the intention of the Bill but that is how it can be read. My amendment proposes that that duty shall not be completed until either the proposals have been carried into effect or others have been substituted for them.
Rather surprisingly, Amendment No. 165 is grouped with this amendment. It addresses a slightly different point but it may assist my noble friend to answer if I keep it in the group. I imagine that her
720
notes are presented in that expectation. The amendment relates to schools considered to be at risk. Paragraph 11(1) states:
"Where the registered inspector conducting an inspection of a school is of the opinion that the school is failing, or is likely to fail, to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education".
That suggests that it relates to all the pupils. The distinct point is that the requirement in the schedule is that the registered inspector shall express an opinion only if it seems that all the pupils are unlikely to be receiving an unacceptable standard of education. It is important that particular classes of pupil should not be neglected; for example, pupils in need of remedial education, pupils with special educational needs or pupils who are unruly—I use the old terminology. I should like to be reassured that that paragraph will have effect in those circumstances as well as in a school which is thought to be generally defective. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Elton wishes to ensure through Amendment No. 162 that the governors' annual report should continue to include a statement of the extent to which the action plan has been implemented until either the action plan is complete or new proposals have been substituted, presumably via a new action plan following the next inspection.
The Bill secures that already. Schedule 2, paragraph 10(6) does not limit the report on the action plan to a single governors' report. Sub-paragraph (8) makes it clear that proposals relating to the most recent inspection report will replace those relating to a previous one. Therefore, I trust that the amendment will not be pressed.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, did not speak to Amendment 163. Perhaps she would like to do so now.
Baroness David: Amendment No. 163 is linked to Amendment No. 162 and I shall speak to that now. LEAs must be sent action plans, but there is nothing in the Bill about what they should do with them, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said earlier. This amendment requires LEAs to use their powers to assist governing bodies to implement action plans.
The Bill states that it is the duty of the appropriate authority, which in most cases, with the introduction of local management of schools, will be the governing body, to write an action plan of the action it is proposed to take in the light of the report from the inspector and the period of time within which it proposes to take it. A copy of the action plan is required to be sent to the LEA where the governing body is the appropriate authority and the school is not grant maintained. However, the Bill does not state that the LEA must take action on receipt of the action plan.
Indeed, in Committee in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in replying to an amendment tabled by Mr. Jack Straw on LEA advice on action plans, replied:
"How can governors properly assign responsibility for the action plan back to their Council when the action needed—whether on the curriculum, staffing or the allocation of resources—is the statutory responsibility of the Governing Body and not the Council".

721
Mr. Fallon was clearly indicating in his reply that the LEA had no statutory role. Yet much of the work required within the action plan may not be within the capacity of the governing body. Surely it would be appropriate for a statutory responsibility to be given to the LEA to oversee the implementation of the action plan. That is particularly important in the case of a school which has received a poor inspection report and which needs a considerable amount of support in order to improve the education provided. There is a danger that, without help from the LEA, a school in that position will be unable to respond effectively to the criticisms made in the inspection report.
There is a gap in the Bill and perhaps the Minister will tell us how it is to be filled.
Baroness Faithfull: What sanction is there if governors do not implement provisions in the Bill?
Baroness David: That is what I want to know, too. It is a point I raised at Second Reading. Who is accountable? Nobody is accountable.
Baroness Blatch: I begin with the question of my noble friend. The whole purpose of the system is that it is so exposed. The idea would be that if a critical report is produced, all interested parties would receive it. It would be discussed in draft form before being published in final form. An action plan would follow. That would have to be reported to parents. It would have to go on being reported to parents, as I said in relation to the first amendment, and we leave the accountability of the school and governing body to the parents. In other words, they must keep saying: "We know that there is something wrong with the school but we have (or have not) done something about it". Of course, four years later along comes the inspectorate.
Baroness David: I am sorry, but I cannot hear the Minister's reply when she turns away.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. If the school continued to refer to an action plan which it had not implemented then, first, the LEA could exercise its own powers under the Act to do something about that and, secondly, it would be subject to another four-yearly inspection when the problem would be picked up again. A good LEA certainly would have enough knowledge that a school was defaulting on its powers under the Act.
Where the governing body of a maintained school is responsible for drawing up the action plan, it must send a copy to the LEA. I am sure that the LEA will wish to help as far as it can to ensure that appropriate action is taken, and to offer the governing body any assistance it needs. In many cases the LEA will simply be responding to requests for services from the school which will be able to meet the costs from its delegated budget.
In the unlikely case of an LEA failing to take reasonable steps to provide help in the area of its own statutory responsibility—for instance, by failing to meet an identified need for capital investment by including a project for the school in its forward
722
programme—the governors will be able to draw attention to this in their reports to parents, and the problem will be highlighted in the next inspection report on the school. The strength of the new system is its openness: matters which could once be conveniently ignored by local authorities and, indeed, by governing bodies, will be exposed to public view.
I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no need to add to LEAs' statutory responsibilities as her amendment implies. Their existing responsibilities fully cover the need she has identified.
Again, I sympathise with my noble friend's intentions in Amendment No. 165 but I cannot accept the solution. Amendment No. 165 seeks to remind us that a school should not only be judged to be "at risk" if all its pupils are failing to receive an acceptable standard of education. We certainly cannot allow the school to fail in its basic duty to a signifcant minority of pupils before needing to activate the "at risk" provisions. But we must beware of writing into statute words like "any", which could have an unintended effect.
It may be that the school has failed to prevent one troublesome pupil from being a persistent truant, or has not been given the extra resources it feels it requires to meet the special needs of a specific child. Both would be serious cases, and we would expect the inspector to draw attention to them in his report and suggest what might be done. But I do not think they would justify the serious and public step of identifying the school as a whole as "at risk" of failure.
The object of the "at risk" provisions is to provide extra help and support to those schools which are judged to be so poor in terms of their management that it will be hard, if not impossible, for them on their own to devise and implement an adequate plan to tackle the weaknesses in provision which have been identified. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a final question to clarify the matter. From what the Minister said it seems to me that it will be the LEA's responsibility—in fact a duty—to consider the action plan and use its powers to ensure that it is implemented if the governing body does not do it. Is that right?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. If the LEA has reason to believe that the local education authority, which has been subject to an adverse or even in part a critical report, is not acting on it and that becomes evident either through the annual reports or complaints through parents, the LEA would have a duty to go into that school and do something about it.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend has ever sat on a parochial church council of the Church of England, and I mention the quinquennial report, I perhaps need to say no more. She will know how easy it is not to act on a report even when it is regularly made on the same subject.

723
I ask my noble friend to look at the wording of sub-paragraph (6) to see if she can cause it to read more readily to the layman in the sense that she says it reads to draftsmen.
My second amendment deals with a delicate and important area which, late as the hour is, I would not want to pass over quickly. In my inquiry into disciplinary schools I and my colleagues discovered that there were pupils who were not properly catered for in schools that were doing their best. They were not a majority of the school, but they were a confounded nuisance and they would be noticed. The danger is that if the relevant authority is to be the local education authority, it may find it very difficult to face up to the shortcomings of a school for which it is responsible when it is also a school where that authority is responsible for curing the defects. I recognise that one cannot have a de minimis provision. One cannot have wordings such as I suggested which mean that if one single child is not properly catered for then the whole majesty of the law is involved in re-jigging the school. If there is a significant proportion of them, then it is exceedingly important that it should. Given that cautionary remark, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
12.45 a.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 164:
Page 21, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (6) and (8), the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the relevant Chief Inspector and any bodies appearing to him to represent appropriate authorities and head teachers of schools, make arrangements to ensure that proposals set out in an action plan are carried into effect and monitored.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we have covered this ground. The amendment is again about how action plans should be enforced. We have dealt with that sufficiently tonight. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 169A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 169B:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert ("and the Chief Inspector"),.
The noble Lord said: I believe that we are now at Part II of the schedule, line 45. The Committee will recall that, speaking to an earlier amendment, I said that it was important that the chief inspector should have some impression of what was going on in schools over the country, even in those fields where he was not responsible for inspecting the content or the manner in which it was taught. We have reached the part of the Bill where it is possible to supply the missing piece of the patchwork quilt by requiring the inspector who is reporting on a Part II denominational education inspection to copy the report to the chief inspector. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am very happy to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I think that this amendment will further strengthen the points which we have been trying jointly to make.
Baroness Blatch: In this amendment we are asked to require that all inspection reports under denominational provision are sent to the chief inspector. That is the case for other inspection reports. Indeed for the other inspections the chief inspector will also have access to supporting information for monitoring purposes and to feed into his national database. But HMI do not have the same interest in the inspection system or the provision made for denominational religious education. It is by definition not a provision that can be aggregated to give a national picture. The provision is governed by rules specific to the faith in question, and in some cases to the school in question, through the trust deed. It is not for HMI to draw national conclusions about such very diverse activity nor is there any justification for requiring copies of every report in terms of oversight of the inspection system, since the inspectors of this provision need not be trained or registered by the chief inspectors nor work to their guidelines.
This is a very different role. It would simply be a courtesy or no more. To write that on the face of the Bill would be wrong. If it has to go to the chief inspector it must be for a purpose. We believe that the chief inspector in this case has no locus in the matter.
Lord Elton: I think that in trying to save the time of the Committee I have not addressed this amendment adequately. I should remind my noble friend that the purpose of the training of inspectors who make these reports is to see that they are effective in giving them. I have also said that there is no intention that that training shall be addressed to doctrinal matter.
It is worth spending a moment considering not only the situation as it now is, but the situation as it soon may be. There are sects within the Christian faith which hold extreme views about how human life should be conducted and how human beings should behave towards each other. The same is true of other faiths. It is usually those who hold their views with the greatest sincerity and enthusiasm who are the first to establish educational foundations for their propagation.
We shall soon have schools—not only Christian schools, but others—in which it is quite possible that extreme views will he propagated in the guise of religion which are, in fact, political indoctrination. I have cast around for examples with difficulty, because it is so difficult not to attract opinions to a particular case if one cites it in illustrating a general theme. However, I assure the Committee that it is a general theme that I address when I refer to the recent fatwa addressed to Salman Rushdie. That has been presented as a religious act, but it has been reacted to properly by Her Majesty's Government as a political movement.
It seems to me that if extreme political positions of such a movement—and I do not necessarily say that movement; it might be, say, the Moonies—are to be advocated under the secure cloak of denominational

725
anonymity, which the Bill now provides, that could be divisive to the fabric of our society. The chief inspector ought to be in a position to advise the Secretary of State in that respect. If he is not to receive that information he cannot give that advice and the Secretary of State can take no remedial action. That is what I am pursuing. I hope that my noble friend will consider that further before Report. Before I withdraw the amendment I await her assurance that she will do so.
Baroness Blatch: Of course I shall consider between now and Report all that has been said during the course of the debate on this amendment, and indeed all others.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed.
Clause 10 [Registration of inspectors]:
[Amendment No.170 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 178 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 180 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 113:
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("such conditions together with").
The noble Lord said: This is what is known as a googly—it is bowled in one direction and bounces in another. Amendment No. 113 is printed in the wrong place on the Marshalled List. This is an amendment to which I know the answer, therefore I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 7, line 3, at end insert:
("(10) The Chief Inspector for England may make the granting of a fresh registration under this section to an applicant who has previously been registered by him conditional upon the applicant satisfying the requirements of paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(11) The Chief Inspector for Wales may make the granting of a fresh registration under this section to an applicant who has previously been registered by him conditional upon the applicant satisfying the requirements of paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is a more substantial amendment which I shall speak to as briefly as I am able. It relates to the granting of renewed registration to an applicant who is already registered as an inspector. The Committee will recall that the chief inspector has the power to set the period for which a registration is valid and then to re-register. The Bill is quite specific that an original applicant for registration must have some training. All along I have tried to point out the importance of retraining, particularly for someone who has not taken advantage of the ability to get himself registered again as soon as his original registration expires. A common experience with
726
teachers and nurses is to return to the profession after having raised a family. A person reapplying for registration under those circumstances would be very out of touch with developments and ought to have some training. This amendment seeks to provide for it. Subsection (10) deals with England. Subsection (11) is the same provision relating to Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I recognise that my noble friend wants to ensure that registered inspectors are up-dated as necessary through in-service training. Of course I have a great deal of sympathy with that aim. However, I hope I can demonstrate to my noble friend's satisfaction that what he seeks can be achieved through the provisions already in the Bill.
The chief inspector could refuse re-registration to anyone whom he believed no longer competent to inspect and he could take into account in forming that judgment the need for additional training. Alternatively, he might make it a condition of re-registration that the inspector underwent a particular course of training within a set period.
It will be for HMCI to determine the period of registration of each inspector, but we envisage that some may be registered for shorter periods than others so as to allow, for example, for closer monitoring of less experienced inspectors. If an inspector is registered for a year and then has his registration renewed for, say, five years because he has performed well, the chances are that he will not need a second training course after that first year.
Lord Elton: Would it interest my noble friend to know that I am entirely satisfied by what she has already said? I do not need to be further persuaded.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am delighted and grateful to my noble friend. I thank him for that intervention.
Lord Elton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Removal from register and imposition or variation of conditions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 7, line 17, leave out from ("is") to end of line 18 and insert ("in whole or in part, seriously misleading").
The noble Lord said: This amendment came to me in draft from the National Association of Head Teachers. It draws attention to something so extraordinary that I thought that I ought to table it.
Clause 11(2) (d) states that a chief inspector may remove the name of an inspector from his register if,
"he has knowingly or recklessly produced a report of an inspection which is, when taken as a whole, seriously misleading".
That is an extraordinarily odd restriction. Why does it have to be seriously misleading as a whole? Why can it not be seriously misleading simply about the calibre of the staff or the achievements of the pupils? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I recognise my noble friend's concern to prevent inspection reports resembling the curate's egg—good only in parts. As drafted, the Bill

727
allows the chief inspector to remove from the register any inspector who deliberately or recklessly produces a report which is seriously misleading. I do not think there is any disagreement among Members of the Committee that such a provision is essential. The inspection report is the public result of the inspection process and it is the responsibility of the registered inspector to get it right. To emphasise the importance of the reports, the Bill makes specific provision for the chief inspectors to give guidance to inspectors on the writing of these important documents.
However, I think that we should avoid being too ready to withdraw registration—and with it an inspector's livelihood. It is the overall picture which counts and which the inspector must be sure he is portraying accurately. An inspector who offered a "soft" report which overlooked weaknesses and mentioned only the best aspects of the school would quite rightly be a candidate for instant removal from the register, subject to the necessary appeals procedure.
But there are bound to be times when an inspector misinterprets one particular aspect of a school's performance—quite possibly through no fault of his own but because he was given mistaken information. One such error should not be expected to result in instant removal from the register.
1 a.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has suggested that an inspector might fall into the trap of being supplied with misleading information and using it. But the clause requires him to be "knowingly or recklessly" producing such a report. That is what makes it so extraordinary. It could be "knowingly or recklessly" written in a way that was seriously misleading—and those are heavy legal words—in respect only of the finances of the school and that would not be grounds for dismissal. I find that fact extraordinary.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may continue. One such error should not be expected to result in instant removal from the register. But I am sure that any error—whatever it may be—drawn to his attention would be noted by the chief inspector. It would certainly not be acceptable for a registered inspector to make a string of even minor errors. If that were the case, I have no doubt that he would be considered to be no longer capable of competently and effectively conducting inspections and would therefore meet the condition for removal set out in Clause 11(2) (b).
The chief inspector could judge that the inspection team, or the registered inspector, had acted "knowingly and recklessly" and that that had led to misleading information. The judgment would then be made by HMCI. Of course, poor reports may be brought to the attention of HMCI by parents who, whether inside or outside the governing body, will want to ensure the highest standards for their children's school. They will have a chance to express their anxieties to the inspectors in the meeting before the inspection and will want to ensure that they are properly addressed. They will have access to published
728
comparative information which will show if the school is doing less well than its neighbours and will ask questions if what is clearly an over-generous report is written. If such a report is "knowingly and recklessly" written, it will have to be picked up by a third party; that is, either by the head and the school staff and/or the parents.
However, I am aware of my noble friend's anxieties. We do not need a definition of the words "knowingly and recklessly"; indeed, we all know what they mean. But we do need a definition as regards a situation in which something was done "knowingly and recklessly" and was seriously misleading about an important aspect of a school's activity, however small. I think that I shall need to refer back to my noble friend with a definitive answer about what action could be taken in such circumstances.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps I may intervene. I had assumed that what the Government had in mind here is what the noble Baroness said earlier; namely, that she was really concerned to protect someone from an error. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is entirely right. The clause as written does not actually correspond with what the noble Baroness says the Government have in mind. I think that I understood her correctly. I believe she takes very seriously what is said.
It seems to me that any action which is "knowingly or recklessly" misleading really should make the person unacceptable. That is quite different from what the noble Baroness said—with which I entirely agree—that, if you happen to blunder, then of course you are at least entitled to a second chance. I hope that the Minister will look at the wording with a view to responding positively to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: I believe that the fact that my noble friend turned around to address me was the reason for the noble Lord not hearing her say that that is precisely what she will do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Provision of inspection services by local education authorities]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("he").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would remove what I regard as a syntactical tautology. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I must congratulate my noble friend on noticing the repetition of the reference to the "Secretary of State" and taking the trouble to table an amendment suggesting that such repetition be removed. I very much appreciate the helpful spirit in which this was done. Of course, my

729
noble friend is grammatically in the right. However, I have to say that on this occasion the repetition is meant to be helpful.
We want the Bill to be as accessible to readers as possible. My noble friend will appreciate that the first mention of the "Secretary of State" is eight lines above the second at the beginning of subsection (5), with two further subsections intervening. It will assist the reader to have the repeated reference to the Secretary of State as that obviates the necessity of checking back to ascertain the identity of the "he" to whom reference is made. I trust that my noble friend will accept that argument and will not press his amendment.
Lord Elton: That is the most extraordinary argument about the English language that I have ever heard, but it is such an extraordinarily late hour that I can only sit with my mouth open in disbelief and, in so doing, beg leave to withdraw my admirable amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Power of Secretary of State to require information]:
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 187A:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert:
("(1A) In exercising his powers under section 16(1) above, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make special provision relating to the provision of information by special schools.").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that I heard the Minister say earlier that she would consider including in the information that is provided about special schools, the number of pupils who are statemented and whether the school contains a unit for special educational needs. If that is so, I shall be happy not to move the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy to give that reassurance to my noble friend.
[Amendment No. 187A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 10, line 23, after ("parents") insert ("including parents of children with special educational needs").
The noble Baroness said: I am afraid that I shall move this amendment which stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Clause 16 of the Bill indicates that the Secretary of State will issue regulations to specify what information must be published about each school. Subsection (3) indicates the aims of the information that is to be published. This amendment specifies that one of the aims of the regulations will be to assist parents of children with special education needs in choosing schools for their children.
The regulations arising from the original clause have been issued in draft form, so it is possible to discover quite clearly what the Government intend. The draft regulations will require schools to publish
730
examination results, truancy rates and the destination of school leavers. The Royal National Institution for the Blind, Mencap and Deaf Accord are all concerned that the publication of this data alone will mean that schools are judged largely on the basis of examination results and that schools will therefore be motivated not to accept children with special needs, who might bring down the average examination results.
The long-term answer to the problem of how to recognise the achievements of schools in relation to their pupils is by introducing some way of assessing "value added" or "distance travelled." We went along that route earlier today, or rather, yesterday. In the short term, however, if parents of children with special needs are to be given the same amount of relevant information about schools, then the draft regulations should be amended to require schools to publish two additional pieces of information: first, the number of children who are the subject of statements; and secondly, whether any specific provision—the fact, for example, that the school is for blind children, has a unit for children with severe learning difficulties, or is for the deaf—is made for children with special needs.
In another place, the Government misunderstood the purpose of the amendment to mean that the "new data" on examination results would be changed in some way by deleting the number of statemented children. That is not the purpose. The intention is to increase the information to be published, to put the examination results in a truer perspective, and to offer more useful information for parents of children with special needs. We hope that the Government may be prepared to concede the underlying request for a change to the draft regulations. I hope that that is the correct assumption. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, who explained the position clearly.
Baroness Warnock: I too support the amendment. It is a rational, logical move to supply more information to all parents.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment. It would be inexplicable were we not to provide this type of information about a school function which will not be covered adequately merely by publishing examination results and truancy levels. Recognition must be given to those with special educational needs and the information should be made readily available.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important and sensitive subject. There is no difference between us as to our objectives. The provisions of Clause 16 relates solely to performance tables. Our intention at present is that those tables will be published annually, will cover all schools in each locality, including special schools, and will include information about pupils' public examinations and naitonal curriculum assessment results, the destinations of school-leavers and truancy rates. In order for that information to enable parents to compare schools it must be provided in a common format by all schools.
The Bill will of course help expose unequal treatment and unsatisfactory provision in a number of ways which I am sure my noble friends will welcome:

731
first, by requiring special schools of all kinds to have regular inspection, with reports and action plans published; and, secondly, by making the results achieved in special schools public in the same way as those of mainstream schools. The bodies representative of the main groups here concerned, including Mencap, have not opposed this provision. Like us, they recognise that good schools have nothing to fear from having that information placed in the public domain. As I said earlier, it is just as important, from whatever level of ability, that the progress of a child from A to B is properly recorded and known.
I should make it clear that we intend the information about schools which will accompany the tables to include the type of school as well as its address. Those reading the tables will therefore be aware of which schools are designated "special" and the sort of special educational needs for which they cater. Secondly, we intend that in the future, as now, the bulk of supplementary information about each school's nature, ethos and achievements in areas other than those covered by the tables will be contained in its prospectus and annual governors' report. Special schools will be able to publish whatever information they consider relevant to explain their provision, objectives and achievements in that way. They will not be judged solely on the basis of the information which appears in the performance tables.
I accept that it may be more difficult for special schools to demonstrate achievements in the relatively easily measurable aspects of performance to be included in the tables than it will be for other schools. I think parents too will recognise that, and read the tables with that in mind. It is not our intention to hold special schools up to unfair comparison; but we believe firmly that the parents of pupils with special needs have the same right to that basic information as other parents.
The noble Baroness will be aware that our plans for comparative tables have recently been the subject of public consultation with a wide range of bodies; in fact responses are still coming in. We shall be very happy to consider suggestions about how the presentation of information about special schools might be handled to reduce her worries and those of other Members of the Committee. I hope that all Members of the Committee who have expressed an interest will look carefully at our proposals with that in mind and quickly let us have their views so that we can take them on board. With those words and with my assurance to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke that we shall also be sensitive to statemented children in mainstream schools and mainstream schools with special units, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness David: I am grateful for the support that I have received from all around the Chamber. But I was disappointed by what the Minister said. She spoke so fast that I am not sure that I took it in properly, so I shall have to read what she said. At one moment it appeared that she thought I was referring to special schools only. Of course I was not. I was referring to all
732
schools. I shall have to read carefully what she said, consult and take advice. It is possible that I shall come back on Report.
Baroness Blatch: I referred to all schools—special, mainstream with children with statements and mainstream with special units. They were all covered by the assurance I gave to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke.
Baroness David: I understand what the Minister says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 192 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 193 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 199 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
1.15 a.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 11, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) Before exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the entire group of amendments deal with consultation. Amendment No. 201 brings Clause 16 into line with Section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It requires consultation prior to the making of regulations by the Secretary of State.
In another place, the Government said that that was not required as the DES always consulted people. That is true, but all major regulation-making powers have a statutory consultation requirement contained within them—for example, regulation-making powers on the national curriculum, local management of schools, appraisal of teachers and education support grants. What makes this clause on information requirements different? I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Committee will realise that this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 202, 203B, 203Q, 203U and 205. Because there is a Scottish element in Amendments Nos. 203B, 203Q and 203U, I wish to say a few words.
As concerns Scotland, although the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated his intention to consult on the details of the information to be collected, no duty appears in the Bill. His intention was made public in a press release by the Minister of State at the Scottish Office dated 7th November 1991. But to date no details of the public consultation timetable have been announced.
This is in contrast to the situation in England and Wales, where a consultation document was published on 10th January this year. Despite repeated assurances during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place and the commitment from the Government Benches during the Bill's Second Reading in this House, a consultation document for Scotland has still to be produced.
The silence from the Scottish Office on this issue is a matter of concern, given that the Bill gives the

733
Secretary of State dictatorial powers on educational issues in Scotland. To allay these concerns, a duty to consult similar to that included within Section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 should be included.
It is insufficient that Ministers give assurances to consult. Although this may be the case at present and the Minister may give the assurance with complete confidence and honesty, that does not, as we frequently learn in this House and in the other place, commit the Minister to consult unless the requirement is on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Scots seem to be a great deal more reasonable than the English in this case. I should be obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he could tell me under what circumstances the Secretary of State would not consult persons with whom it appeared to him to be desirable to consult. It seems an extraordinary request.
Lord Addington: We want it on the face of the Bill, to try to get this provision into line with those relating to the other regulations. It may well happen, but it is part of our job, as I see it, to make sure that these matters are covered in extraordinary situations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Amendment No. 201 is grouped with Amendment No. 202, to which I wish to speak. It seems odd to me that we should have to argue the case for consultation, which ought to be a standard and automatic procedure in any organisation. In a Bill dealing with education it is manifestly essential that there should be consultation. The system simply cannot work if the wide range of people involved in it are not consulted. I am talking about teachers, clerks, caretakers, cleaners, helpers, governors and others.
A little earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Elton, argued eloquently on the matter contained in my amendment. The Committee may recall that the power to make regulations under the wide-ranging provisions of Section 22(4) of the 1988 Act requires prior consultation by the Secretary of State with,
"any persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable".
There is virtually a parallel situation in the context of this Bill. Therefore I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment.
During the dinner break this evening some of us were debating the Coal Industry Bill. We remarked that consultation with employees in that industry relating to some major changes in coal mining law was necessary. We received what we considered to be a sympathetic reply from the Minister. This Minister should take that parallel into consideration.
I must make it clear that we are talking about consultation before legislation is finalised. Too often so-called consultation takes place after Bills have gone through Parliament. Correct—that is to say, prior—consultation ensures that the legislation is as effective as it is possible to make it before implementation. No government or Minister holds a monopoly of wisdom or experience. They ought to listen to people who have
734
such an important stake in the service. I do not believe this is a party political matter. I hope the amendment will receive support from all sides of the Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde: It has always been the practice to consult widely before making regulations such as these. This tradition is longstanding and largely independent of statutory backing. Of course there are cases, such as those regulations made under Section 22 of the Education Reform Act, where consultation is laid down in statute. But in other cases it has been a matter of good practice, as with regulations made under the 1980 Act which affect prospectuses, or those made under the 1986 Act which affect the proceedings of school governing bodies.
We have always intended to consult appropriate bodies before making the regulations covering the requirements for the publication of comparative data. Indeed we have been consulting widely on the dry run of the arrangements for publishing comparative information this year. We shall certainly consult again about the full regulations in 1993. We want to ensure that the regulations are as informative, and the procedures as cost effective, as we can make them. Consultations will help achieve both those aims.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about publication of the Scottish consultation document. We intend to publish the paper before we reach Report. I hope I have given a full explanation of the Government's thinking and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord's reply was not everything I had hoped for. However, I shall read exactly what was said and consult on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 203 and 203A not moved.]
Clause 17 [Information as to schools and pupils: Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 203B not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203C:
Page 11, line 43, leave out from third ("to") to ("such") in line 44 and insert ("education authorities").
The noble Lord said: Given the sensitivity of much of the information that may be disclosed, the phrase "such persons" seems rather broad. I believe it needs to be refined. As presently drafted, the Bill could force schools to disclose information to anyone the Secretary of State wished. That could involve schools in time-consuming and financially burdensome activities, wasting scarce resources which could be better employed elsewhere. In addition, it could allow the Secretary of State injudiciously to give the power to people who have no right to have it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It may assist the Committee if I explain how we envisage the arrangements will work. New Section 28I(1) allows regulations to require information to be provided to the Secretary of State, to education authorities and to other prescribed third parties. The inclusion of third parties in the section

735
will facilitate publication by ensuring that any organisation, such as professional organisations or voluntary bodies, which is to publish the information can receive it directly from education authorities or the managers of schools. That is a sensible provision which allows for maximum flexibility.
Similar provisions for England and Wales are included in Clauses 16(1) and 16(4). The consultation paper which my right honourable friend proposes to issue shortly will propose that, initially at least, education authorities will be the prescribed persons who will publish information. However, in future it might well be appropriate for third parties to do so. The amendment would unduly restrict the flexibility of the present provision. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think that the Minister has satisfied me, but perhaps he will allow me to consider carefully what he said and perhaps bring the matter back at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203D:
Page 11, line 46, at end insert ("so far as is compatible with the purposes set out in subsections 3(a), (b) and (c) below").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if in speaking to Amendment No. 203D I speak also to Amendments Nos. 203H, 203K and 203R. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that regulations, when made, are used only for their stated purpose.
At present the Bill allows the Secretary of State to require that any amount or type of information be provided at any time or in any form. That appears to be too wide a power and should be restricted to ensure that only the principles of the Bill can be achieved. Enabling legislation should not be enacted which gives power to Ministers which may be used in ways Parliament did not intend or was unaware of when granting those powers. The amendment therefore seeks to define the purpose of the regulations which can be made by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendments all relate to the criteria which my right honourable friend is required to follow in terms of new Section 28I(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 when he makes regulations about comparative information under that section. New Section 28I of the 1980 Act should of course be read as a whole and subsection (3) clearly applies to all regulations made under it. I can therefore assure the Committee that Amendments Nos. 203D and 203H would simply make explicit the fact that regulation-making powers are subject to the criteria set out in subsection (3) and are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 203K seeks to apply the same criteria to the Secretary of State when he publishes the information which has been gathered in accordance with regulations. That again is unnecessary. In all cases information will have been collected in accordance with the criteria set out in Section 28I(3).
736
The Secretary of State will therefore in practice be in a position only to publish information which complies with those criteria.
Under new Section 28J the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring education authorities and certain other school managers to provide to prescribed persons, by which we have in mind parents or in some cases prospective parents, prescribed information or documents, or categories of information or documents, relating to school education.
Regulations made under new Section 28J will apply to information about school education generally. By contrast, Section 28I is concerned only with information about particular schools. Section 28I(3) defines the purposes for which such information is gathered and published and its terms are appropriate only to information about schools. While in many cases the information and documents published under Section 28J will meet the criteria under Section 28I(3), in other cases the Secretary of State may wish to prescribe more general types of information or documents made available to parents. Amendment No. 203R would therefore be unnecessarily restrictive and I could not accept it. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203E and 203F not moved.]
1.30 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203G:
Page 12, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks clarification as to what information is thought likely to assist in assessing the degree of efficiency by which the financial resources of a school are being managed. The subsection was introduced in the Bill during its final stages in another place and therefore no opportunity has arisen as yet for the Government to explain what is intended by its inclusion. I hope that the Minister will be able to help in this case. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: During the debate in Committee in the other place, the question was raised by the Opposition as to whether the powers to arrange for the publication of comparative information about schools contained in Clauses 16 and 17 extended to the collection and publication of information about financial efficiency in schools. My right honourable friend the Minister of State agreed to consider the point.
In the event, it appeared that there was a weakness in the Bill. Accordingly, the Government brought forward amendments at Report stage in the other place to insert into the Bill what is now Clause 16(3) (c) and new Section 28I(3) (c). These provide that the comparative information about schools may include

737
information likely to assist in assessing the degree of efficiency with which the financial resources of schools are managed.
I should say that it is our intention that initially the regulations in Scotland should provide for the publication in school handbooks and comparative tables of the running costs of schools on a per pupil basis. That will build on the provisions already in place for school hoards to be given statements of the running costs of their school. It is of course possible that in future more sophisticated indicators of the financial efficiency of schools will become available; for instance, as a result of work undertaken by HMI or, in England and Wales, the Audit Commission. It would then be possible for those indicators to be published in school handbooks or comparative tables. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for having satisfied me. However, he will realise that I shall take advice since this is the first time that an explanation has appeared. It seems all right to me and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203H not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203J:
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("name") and insert ("serve to identify").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the anonymity of pupils. It is assumed that the wording in the Bill seeks to ensure that information will not be published in such a form as to allow individual pupils to be identified. However, to use the word "name" is not sufficient, as people can be identified other than by name. For instance, in a small school there may be patterns of information which would easily allow recognition of a pupil.
During the Committee stage in another place, the Under-Secretary for State at the Department of Education and Science expressed sympathy with the amendment and stated that both he and the Secretary of State for Scotland would consider how best to secure anonymity of pupils when drafting the regulations and that they would seek comments on that during their consultation exercises. If that is so, there is no reason why the primary legislation should not be clarified to reflect the position.
I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister on whether he agrees with Mr. Fallon and the views which obviously came indirectly from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I have spoken about the importance of confidentiality in other parts of the Bill and therefore I sympathise with what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. However, I do not believe that what he proposes will achieve that because it will produce a countervailing difficulty. If there were a suicide, abduction or a death at the school, it would make it impossible to entreat of it at all. If one were referring to a death it would be obvious to which pupil one was referring.
Lord Strathclyde: I have some sympathy with the principle of the amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord thought that I would say that. I can assure Members of the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to ensure that individual pupils should not be readily identified on the basis of information published. That is the purpose of Clause 17(5).
We still need to consider further how best to secure that before drafting regulations to implement the new arrangements. Having given that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that essentially we are on the same side on this matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that he wants confidentiality. The question is: when will we have the regulations? Will that be after this stage of the Bill or before Report? I am reassured by the Minister's obvious intention and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203K not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203L:
Page 12, line 29, at beginning insert ("without prejudice to section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 203T may conveniently be taken together. They are intended to ensure that the information which the Secretary of State requires to be published by an education authority does not involved it in a breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986. Section 2, as amended, prohibits a local authority from publishing any material which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. That has already been mentioned in the Committee tonight. Reference is made to the content and style of the material, the time and other circumstances of publication. This prohibition applies to any matter which is a question of public controversy which is identifiable as a view of one political party and not of another.
Many educational issues, including the publication of league tables, have assumed a strong political character. In becoming involved in publicity on these matters on behalf of the Government of the day a local authority could be accused of contravening the terms of this Act.
During the Committee stage in another place the Government accused authorities which, following legal advice, decided not to distribute the parent's charter leaflet as acting as censors. Several times authorities which did distribute the leaflet were accused of not doing so. For the information of the Committee, the education authorities in Scotland which did distribute the leaflet were Strathclyde, Highland, Dumfries and Galloway, Lothian, Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles and Fife. Authorities which refused to distribute it because they thought it was political and which are not controlled by my party were Borders, Grampian and Central—in fact Central is so controlled. Tayside did not distribute it but agreed to make it available at schools on request.
The Minister will see that this matter requires some clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, because I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. I certainly do not wish to upset the noble Lord at this time of night. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 prohibits a local authority from publishing any material which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. That measure was introduced in order to curb the wholesale issue of political propaganda by certain Left-Wing local authorities in the early 1980s and its introduction was amply justified.
The provision of information about schools and school education is an entirely different matter. The comparative tables, which will be published in accordance with the provisions of regulations were made under new Section 28I of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, will contain objective information about school performance. No question arises that that information could be taken to be designed to affect public support for a political party. Regulations under new Section 28J of the 1980 Act may require education authorities and other managers of schools in Scotland to distribute information or documents about school education. The information or documents could include information supplied by the Secretary of State. For example, the noble Lord mentioned the leaflet which my right honourable friend produced describing the provisions of the Parent's Charter in Scotland. That leaflet, like all similar government publications, is required to meet strict conventions designed to ensure that it does not contain party political material. Any such information or document specified in regulations to be made under new Section 28J will not, therefore, contravene Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.
The powers which my right honourable friend proposes in new Section 28J are necessary because in Scotland we have recently seen some education authorities take it upon themselves to attempt to withhold information about their children's education, in the form of a leaflet on the Parent's Charter, to which parents have a right. My right honourable friend's new powers will ensure that education authorities are no longer able to block the issue of information to parents.
The amendments are unnecessary because the Bill is not intended to overrule Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986. I am advised that it will not have that effect. They are unnecessary also because they are irrelevant to the purposes of new Sections 28I and 28J of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will see that his amendments are not appropriate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, surely he will accept that all the Scottish authorities take these matters extremely seriously. They obtained legal advice and some were obviously not happy with it. Their interpretation of it was that it was unwise to proceed. Other authorities received different advice. I
740
do not know whether the Minister can give an absolute assurance that there is no possibility of legal involvement because of the distribution of leaflets issued by the Scottish education department.
I wish to take away this amendment to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203M not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203N:
Page 12, leave out lines 37 to 39.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 203P. The object of the amendments is to clarity what is meant by "areas" and why the Scottish Office may wish to ascertain certain information in one part of Scotland but not in another. There is no reason why, if the public are to be given the maximum assistance in choosing a school for their children, information on certain topics has to be provided in some parts of Scotland and not in others.
Anxiety should also be expressed that that may be a device whereby Ministers seek to compare individual schools within an education authority. In some ways the amendment has been overtaken by the events of Friday when information was provided in a rather brutal manner. Given that the information to be provided is likely to stress academic achievement alone, it will be extremely misleading simply to compare schools in areas such as Possilpark against those in Bearsden by using that single factor. CoSLA, which represents all education authorities in Scotland, supports the provision of information which will allow meaningful comparisons by including factors such as socio-economic background and so on.
Strathclyde, the largest education authority in Scotland, is pioneering a scheme to ensure that meaningful assessments of a school's performance can be made. Such assessments are powerful tools which allow schools to take the necessary action to improve their performance far beyond any benefit which could be derived from a single league table of examination results. Although we have discussed the matter thoroughly today, we have not received an answer from the Scottish Office. The issue seems to be coming to the boil rather more quickly in Scotland. I beg to move.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: These are standard provisions. They are simply intended to allow necessary flexibility and no more. It is obviously sensible that any of the regulations to be made under the new powers should be able to make different provisions for different classes of case—for instance, different types of school. To take a simple example, it will clearly be necessary to make different provision for primary and secondary schools. It is also sensible that provisions on information about schools and school education in new Sections 28I and 28J should allow regulations to make different provision in relation to different areas. The Bill simply allows for flexibility.

741
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no intention at present to make different provisions, but in future it may be sensible, for instance, for comparative information about schools in one education authority's area to be published by the authority, and information about schools elsewhere in Scotland to be published by the Secretary of State or an independent publisher. I hope that that response was useful.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That is an interpretation which seems almost too simple to be the only point contained in that specific section of the Bill. Again, it is a point not properly discussed in the other place. Also it is highlighted by the events of the weekend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with a view perhaps to re-introducing it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203P to 203R not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203S:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("to prescribed persons").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks clarification of "prescribed persons" in the context of the Bill. No definition is contained in the Bill or the Notes on Clauses, and no information was given in Committee in another place. That gives cause for anxiety because one must assume that they include not only parents, but also the police, the social work departments, the RSPCC, the Ministry of Defence and any other body the Secretary of State chooses to prescribe without reference to the democratic process. That may be described as a Mikado form of government by which the Secretary of State may, "have a little list" for whatever purpose he chooses, again revealing the injudicious nature of purely enabling legislation.
I hope that the Minister will realise that this could be a complicated matter. It is important that a fairly tight description of "prescribed persons" is given. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The intention of Section 28J of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is to ensure that information or documents about school education can be supplied to parents, and particularly to prevent education authorities from blocking the distribution to parents of information that they consider to be undesirable or unwelcome.
I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that the section will not be used to require the provision of information to any other recipient that he may mention. The reason why the clause allows specification of the persons to whom information is to be provided is simply that in some instances it may be appropriate to require provision of information to a slightly wider category of people than simply parents of current school pupils. For instance, in relation to information about school entry arrangements it might be appropriate for regulations to require distribution to parents of children who are shortly to become pupils of the school. I hope that is clear.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has met my point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203T and 203U not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 203V:
Page 13, line 16, leave out from ("regards") to ("at") in line 18 and insert ("any pupil attending a school (except a nursery school) shall be supplied to parents of that pupil").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 203VI shall speak also to Amendment No. 203W. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that parents of children attending any school have the same rights in relation to receiving information. It is also to seek clarification as to whether this provision overrides the rights of authorities in terms of the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Those regulations came into force on 1st October 1990 and provide for access by pupils and parents to manually maintained records held on pupils by education authorities, subject to certain exceptions and restrictions, and impose requirements on education authorities comparable to those already in existence for automatically processed records held by local authorities. That, I presume, means a computer-type record. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This group of amendments relates to the scope of the regulation-making powers in new Section 28K of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 introduced by Clause 17. They seek to probe the application of regulation-making powers in new Section 28K of the 1980 Act relating to pupil report cards. It is important that a standard form of pupil report card should be produced for education authority schools and for self-governing schools in due course. It will be possible to prescribe the form of report card for these schools through the powers in Section 28K. However, it would not be right for the Secretary of State to seek to impose similar requirements on independent schools. Most grant-aided schools in Scotland are special schools, for which the standard form of report card would not be appropriate. If in future my right honourable friend nevertheless decided that the standard report card should apply to grant-aided schools he could, if necessary, make that a requirement of the grant that he gives them.
Amendment No. 203V also seeks to ensure that reports on pupils should be supplied only to the parents of the pupil to whom the report refers. I can reassure the noble Lord that the clause as drafted achieves that objective. Regulations will require that reports should be supplied only to the parents of the pupil to whom the report refers.
I would also like to make it clear that nothing in the Bill or in the proposals of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on school report cards affects the right of parents or senior pupils to have access to records held on pupils by schools and education authorities in terms of the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulation 1990. Nothing affects

743
the safeguards for the confidential information contained in those regulations. I hope that the noble Lord is content.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203W not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 207:
744
Line 2, at end insert ("and for connected purposes").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 114A my noble friend gave me hope that we might need to make a change in that part of the Bill later. I fear that that amendment might be out of the scope of the Bill as it stands. Unless my noble friend signals that she would be prepared to accept the amendment now, I merely give notice that I propose to move it again at Report stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give my noble friend the assurance at this moment that I shall accept the amendment.
Lord Elton: Having made the point that I reserve the right to return with the matter at Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes before two o'clock.