Education (Schools) Bill

HL Deb 02 March 1992 vol 536 cc648-744

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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 105: Page 5, line 38, at end insert: ("( ) the standard of behaviour which is regarded as acceptable at the school by—

1. (i) the governing body; and
2. (ii) the head teacher;

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

1. (i) promote among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority,
2. (ii) encourage good behaviour on the part of pupils, and
3. (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 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—

1. (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—
1. (i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority;
2. (ii) encouraging good behaviour on the part of pupils;
3. (iii) securing that the standard of behaviour of pupils is acceptable; and
4. (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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 108: Page 5, line 38, at end insert: ("(4A) The registered inspector shall inspect—

1. (a) details of punishments administered to any child in the school, and
2. (b) details of any complaints made by any person about the school.

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

1. (a) the manner and form in which punishments shall be recorded, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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).

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 said, Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 have been marshalled in the wrong order. We therefore move on to Amendment No. 114A.

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—

1. (a) universities; and
2. (b) other institutions.

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

1. (a) the quality of the training provided by the institution;
2. (b) the standard of training achieved in the institution; and
3. (c) whether the financial and other resources made available to the institution are managed efficiently.

(5) In this section appropriate authority" means

1. (a) in the case of a university, the senate of that university;
2. (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

1. (a) the training of students for the purpose of enabling them to become teachers in schools; and
2. (b) the training of teachers already qualified to teach in schools, for teaching in schools.

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

1. (a) make provision as to the period within which the first inspection of an institution under this section is to begin
2. (b) make any such provision by reference to the time when funds for the first inspection are made available to the institution; and
3. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) provided by the Chief Inspector for England; or
2. (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.

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 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 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—

1. (a) require appropriate authorities to give the Chief Inspector such information as may be prescribed or as he may specify; and
2. (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—
1. (i) any tender invited under this paragraph, or
2. (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 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: On an application duly made under this section the Chief Inspector may—

1. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 151: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 moved Amendment No. 158: 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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 158A to 159E not moved.]

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 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 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 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". 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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). 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 207: 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.