Lords Sitting of 20 April 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Poole— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Organic Food Production: Support
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to redress the adverse balance of payments caused by subsidised organically-grown produce imported from other member states in the European Community.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, a consultation document on environmental schemes was issued on 26th March. Included in that was a proposal for an organic aid scheme. It is hoped that that will contribute to a growth in the area under organic production in England.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. It is good news for organic farmers that at last their names are being recognised by MAFF. Will my noble friend tell the House how much money is being allocated to the ESA programme by MAFF? Also, how much of that will be allocated to organic farmers who presently farm around 35,000 hectares, already fully meeting the rules under the ESA? Will he remind his right honourable friend Mr. Gummer that the Germans, who are largely responsible for this imbalance in trade, are receiving a subsidy of £213 per hectare on arable land and that the German Government are preparing to spend £35 million on organic support alone in 1993?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the current ESA budget is £31 million a year. This package will add a further £12 million a year to the ESA budget, bringing the annual ESA budget to £43 million per annum. There will also be £19 million a year new money by 1995–96 for the other proposed new schemes, of which the organic aid scheme is included.
I understand that the current German scheme is available to producers of certain agricultural produce who undertake to reduce output by at least 20 per cent. That can be achieved either by taking land out of production or introducing less intensive ways of farming, including conversion of the total farm to organic production. Our information suggests that payments vary according to the Länder involved and that the maximum amount payable would be a little less than my noble friend suggests—around £206 per hectare. The German scheme ends this year and will be replaced by one based on the European Community regulation for agriculture and the environment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to organic production in England. Will he be good enough to tell us whether what he says is applicable in Wales and Scotland? Welsh farmers also are interested in his remarks.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the proposals are along similar lines throughout the United Kingdom. However, some schemes may not be relevant in all four territories. For example, there will be no new nitrate measures in Wales since it has no significant nitrate problem. Some scheme details have been adapted to reflect varying environmental circumstances in different parts of the United Kingdom; for example, differences in heather coverage on moorland in England and Scotland.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are not those figures minuscule compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds being lost by fraud in illegal payments to tobacco growers and non-existent olive growers throughout the Community?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asks another question. I would point out that there is a Question next week and another the week after that on tobacco and olive oil fraud.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl reassure consumers in the United Kingdom that organically-grown produce imported from other member states in the European Community is subject to the same degree of control ensuring that it is organically grown as applies to such produce grown in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, we have strict controls on pesticides and other chemicals used in farming and processing. Therefore, it is not generally necessary to buy organic food to ensure a good and healthy diet. Some people prefer food produced in an organic way and their demand should be recognised, not least because a little of what one fancies does one good.

PSBR
2.42 p.m.
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportions of the projected figures for the PSBR for each of the years 1993–94 to 1997–98 are cyclical, and what proportions are structural.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, it is hard to make precise estimates of the proportion of the Budget deficit which is structural and the proportion which is cyclical. The measures announced in the Budget will improve the structural balance by 1.5 per cent. of GDP by 1995–96. Adherence to the tight public expenditure plans announced in the Autumn Statement will achieve a further improvement in the structural position.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. I am particularly grateful since

1365
the last time I asked this question he refused to answer it. Given that the PSBR figures announced today show an out-turn for 1992–93 which is already £1.5 billion in excess of that which the Chancellor forecast just one month ago, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government's policy to balance the budget over the cycle? Will he further confirm that it remains the Government's policy that structural deficits should be met by increased taxation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to give the answer to the noble Lord that he sought earlier now that it is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. I am even more pleased to give him the precise information that he wanted. It is true that over the term we seek to get a balanced budget.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that if the noble Lord opposite would contain himself and his impatience he would see very shortly the cyclical nature of the PSBR? I say that because the other news on the tapes today not used by the noble Lord opposite is that the CBI is expressing optimistic sounds about consumer spending, the building societies are expressing optimistic sounds and indeed the Stock Exchange is responding to those optimistic sounds.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I am sure that the whole House will welcome some of the encouraging signs that we see in the economy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that opinions differ widely as to what is cyclical and what is structural? Does he agree that what is really important from the economic standpoint is whether the forecasts are in accordance with what some renowned economists have referred to as rational expectations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his first question. That is why I said it is very hard to make precise estimates of the proportion of the Budget deficit which is either structural or cyclical. Indeed, Professor Currie has argued that half the deficit is structural and Professor Minford has said that none of it is.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Christopher Riley, who is the senior Treasury official in charge of medium-term forecasting, told the Commons Treasury and Civil Service Committee that one-third of the deficit is structural? Is he further aware that the answer which he gave to my first question suggests that the Government intend to raise taxes by a further £14 billion in 1995?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, what he says coincides with the view of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said that about two-thirds of the level of the PSBR might be cyclical. But with regard to his second question, this is an imprecise science and the answer is that he takes the wrong interpretation.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that I thought that his initial answer was rather forthcoming but that then he subsequently confused me? If it is his view that one cannot distinguish between the structural and cyclical aspects of the deficit, why did he give a very precise figure in saying that the Budget would reduce the structural deficit by 1.5 per cent.?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is confused. If I may make myself absolutely clear to him, I said that it was very hard to make precise estimates of the proportion of the Budget deficit which is structural and the proportion which is cyclical.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that my noble friend misinterpreted the second answer, is that a categoric assertion that there will be no increase in taxation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, taxation is a question for the Budget, which is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Youth Training
2.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the records for the youth training service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Employment Department keeps under constant review the records required to administer youth training. If practical improvements are identified then they are introduced.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I heard with pleasure. Does he recall saying in a number of answers that the information was not available? In the light of those answers, may I ask him what records the Department of Employment possesses on youth training? How are they compiled, and by whom; and what types of information are discoverable from them?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl's first question is yes. The answer to his next question is as follows. We collect a wide range of information on youth training and the characteristics of those in training. In deciding what information should be collected a balance has to be struck between ensuring that we get what is necessary for the management of YT and accountability to Parliament alongside the need to ensure that an unnecessary administrative burden is not placed on employers and training providers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, did the noble Viscount hear Bill Jordan, of the engineering workers' union, say on the radio yesterday that the slight recovery in manufacturing industry was already being characterised by our running out of skilled labour, a situation which many of us forecast would come about? Does the Minister agree that much greater

1367
attention to skills training at all levels, but particularly for 16 to 18 year-olds, and full information about what is going on become urgently necessary if the recovery is real, as we all hope it is?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. I did not hear the words of Bill Jordan that she mentioned. What this indicates is the great need for youngsters to apply themselves to youth training. After all, they have the opportunity, if they do not wish to remain at school, to take up youth training. Youth training is now becoming one of the acknowledged forms of entrance to some sectors of the workforce.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what information is collected about young people who are unemployed and for whom a youth training place is not yet available? What steps are taken to ensure that they are properly looked after? What arrangements are made in relation to special hardship allowances to cover the situation where they have no income at all? What information is available on this group of people?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government believe it wrong in principle for school-leavers to be offered benefit-supported unemployment as an option. Therefore, as I said in the first instance, we would encourage all those people to offer themselves for a place on youth training. We have set TECs the target of ensuring that no young person guaranteed a place on YT has to wait more than eight weeks.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about statistics. I believe that in March 1993 statistics showed that there were 5,500 young people in youth training. Barnardo's has just produced a report called Youth Aid which shows those figures to be grossly wrong. I understand that the real difficulty lies in the fact that there are a certain number of youths who are not eligible to claim benefit. Is my noble friend aware that those are not shown in the statistics?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures are these. In March there were fewer than 5,500 young people in England who had been waiting for more than eight weeks for a place on youth training. That figure is considerably lower than the one for February. Only 3,300 young people had not previously had the offer of a place. My noble friend quotes from a report from the organisation Coalition on Young People and Social Security, which I believe to be very confused and misleading. The report is highly selective in the figures it uses. The figures include many who are in full-time education. The figures which I have given to my noble friend are the right ones; those quoted in the report are grossly misleading.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the average, as opposed to the intended, duration of the length of a YT placement? Can he also say how many young people close to the age of 18 years have been refused a place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, those who are subject to the guarantee—those between the ages of 16 and 18—are guaranteed a place on youth training. That does not mean that when one course finishes one is not entitled to join another. I can understand that people who leave youth training towards their 18th birthday want to put themselves on to the labour market when they have gained a qualification. They may not want to go into further youth training.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister say how many young people are on youth training schemes and what percentage of them gain a recognisable qualification at the end of their term?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. At the end of January 1993, around 300,000 were currently in training in Great Britain. Fifty-three per cent. of all those who complete their training gain a qualification. Perhaps I may add that 75 per cent. of those who complete their training either go into jobs, further education or some further training.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, referring to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does the Minister agree that a necessary part of youth training is apprenticeships, particularly since we are looking for skilled personnel at the end of the training? Can the Minister say how many apprenticeships there are in existence at the moment—for instance, in engineering?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not have that figure. To a certain extent the youth training guarantee has taken the place of apprenticeships, although apprenticeships may still be awarded by some industries and companies. Youth training has taken their place.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government collect various forms of information. Can he tell us what those forms of information are? Therefore, when he tells his noble friend Lady Faithfull that her figures are wrong, can he tell the House how he knows?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The main sources of data on the YT are the following: the certificates issued when young people leave the programme; the YT follow-up survey which is published and a copy placed in the Library; the operating agreement, a copy of which is also in the Library; TEC invoices, which obviously come to our department because they are required for the payment of training delivered; and the careers service monitoring return. Those give us the information that we need.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in hearing a silence and that there is no information on waiting lists for youth training?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, the noble Earl is wrong. I indicated that the careers service monitoring return indicates information, in agreement with the TECs, that we collect on waiting times.

The Prison Service and Privatisation
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their policy of privatisation of the prison service and related services in the light of recent escapes by prisoners under escort by a private security company.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. Competition from the private sector is a valuable stimulus to the prison service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not surprised at the Minister's answer. The Minister will know that we understand that, as the prison population contains a percentage of dangerous, cunning and clever people, escapes will always take place. However, does he not agree that the present spate of escapes from private sector escorts and prisons makes it seem like a growth industry—perhaps the only one which the Government have at present? Can the Minister tell us the real causes of the escapes? Was it poor or inadequate training, bad equipment or lack of direction from the top? It is said that Mr. Derek Lewis, the new director general of the prison service, has had no training whatever in running a service as complicated as this. If that is the case, will the Minister say that the Government will seek to remove him as quickly as possible?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties. He is quite correct in saying that escapes occur. That is a fact of life and we regret every one of them. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that that has anything to do with the new director general who has taken over the responsibilities.
As regards court escort, Group 4 has taken over a very large area which before comprised seven counties, 20 prisons, 72 magistrates' courts, 10 Crown Courts, seven police forces and 71 police stations. The responsibility for dealing with all those court cases was divided among a number of organisations and now it is to be under one authority.
The noble Lord asked about prison escapes. Group 4 has been responsible for the Wolds prison for one year, and two people have escaped. I understand that one returned of his own accord. Apparently he wanted to go out for his birthday. He tried to get back unobserved and nearly did. The other one was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary for a knee operation. The hospital would not treat him while he had his handcuffs on and so they were removed. Although he was in for a knee operation he legged it while he was being put in a wheelchair.
As regards escorts, there have been five escapes. Three of those people returned and two were inadvertently released. Of those who were inadvertently released because of the fault of the court, one was on two charges. The first was dismissed and the court instructed the guards to release the gentleman, not realising that there was a second charge pending. The second prisoner was being bailed with the condition of a surety, but he was released before the
1370
surety was entered into. His bail has now been changed to remove the need for a surety. I am afraid that that is a long answer, but the noble Lord asked for the information.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the record of Group 4 in this matter is somewhat damaging to the concept of privatisation which both he and I support? Can he assure the House that for the future, if Group 4 is to continue in business at all, it will be able to keep the people in?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a matter which is obviously of considerable concern. The director general of the prison service is seeing Group 4 to try to improve the position. I remind my noble friend that Group 4 has carried well over 1,000 prisoners in each of the two weeks in which it has been involved and that has been a great success. I assure my noble friend that, regrettable though it is, escapes also occurred under escorts conducted by the police service and the prison service.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, leaving aside escort duties, may I ask the Minister to say who decides which prisons shall be privatised? I have read various reports in the press suggesting that the decision rests with the director general of the prison service (if I have got his title right). Can the Minister confirm that any such report would be misleading? Can he explain (perhaps in a little more detail) just how the responsibility for the privatisation of prisons is divided between Ministers and the director general?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is a fairly lengthy one which it would be inappropriate to go into at Question Time. The answer to his first question is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary decides which prisons should be privatised—which he would like to be contracted out—and asks for tenders to be given by a number of different organisations, including the prison service itself.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, do I have any prospect of getting an answer to the last part of my question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes, but I am bound to say that at the moment I have forgotten what it was.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it was: How is the responsibility divided between Ministers and the director general?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is entirely responsible for setting the conditions for the prison service when the service is contracted out, for setting the standards by which contracted-out prisons will operate, for receiving tenders and for deciding which organisations to accept. He is also responsible for monitoring. The actual carrying out of work within the prison service when that work is contracted out is performed by the contractor.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, first, whether he saw the report in the

1371
Independent on Sunday which attributed a statement to Mr. Lewis, the chief executive of the prison service agency, that almost every type of prison would now be put out to contract to private firms? Is that true? Secondly, it was said that plans are now based on 20 existing prisons being handed over to the private sector. If that is true, why has Parliament not been told?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not see the report in the Independent on Sunday to which the noble Lord refers, but it is perfectly possible in theory for prisons to be contracted out. I can assure the noble Lord, however, that at the moment the Wolds is the only private prison in operation; Blakenhurst will open later this month; the bids are being evaluated for Manchester Strangeways; and Doncaster is the only new prison which is not yet complete. That is the position at the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the prison service business plan published this month states an objective of no more than last year's figure of 155 escapes from custody over the course of a whole year? Since Group 4 is responsible for only one-tenth of prisoner movements, is not Group 4 in grave danger of running out of its scope for escapes for the whole year in the course of less than one month? Does that not in turn raise the question of whether the specification for the privatisation of the prison escort service in the Group 4 area was correctly drawn up?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think so. There were 150 escapes from prison service court escorts over the past year, and 46 escapes in two years from police custody escorts in the area concerned. Group 4 has had five escapes from escorts during the past two weeks. With regard to prisons, there were about 300 escapes during the year from closed prisons. Group 4 has had two escapes from one prison in one year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that we have a conflict of evidence. My understanding is that the business plan of the prison service applies to the national total and that it was a national total of 155 escapes last year, not a total in the area for which Group 4 is now responsible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that there may be some misunderstanding. There were 300 escapes from closed prisons in the course of the year. There have been two escapes from the prison for which Group 4 is responsible. There were 150 escapes per year from prison service court escorts—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nationally?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nationally. There were also 46 escapes in two years from police custody in the particular area with which we are concerned. In that area, five escapes have taken place from Group 4 custody.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the practice of taking questions from either side of the House alternately is correct and works well, on this occasion the noble
1372
Lord, Lord Allen, who wanted to pursue his point because of his special experience in this field but was not allowed to do so, should have been allowed at Question Time to pursue his point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has asked a question of that nature which does not really require a reply from me.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the Sunday Times also carried a report similar to that to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, indicating clearly that a decision has been made that a further 20 prisons will be privatised? Bearing in mind the performance so far of Group 4 within its present area of responsibility, would it not at least make common sense for the Government to postpone any such decision on those further 20 prisons until they are totally satisfied that Group 4 and the other organisations that are putting in tenders can carry out those functions to the satisfaction of the community, which is what this is supposed to be about?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's anxiety but I assure him that the prisons concerned are not being privatised. It is merely the running of them which is being contracted out. It is quite limited. The noble Lord might just as well be correct as incorrect. Of course, we are concerned to see that any operation that is contracted out is performed successfully. It is not only Group 4 which has responsibilities. There are also other contractors. It will be up to the director general of the prison service to ensure that anyone with a contract carries it out correctly —albeit that periodically, however good the system, there will sometimes be failures.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl inform the House what notice has to be given to Group 4 to terminate its contract should it prove inefficient? Is he aware of the trouble being caused to the police—already overtaxed and possibly undermanned—by these escapes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the final analysis, the contract can, of course, be rescinded, but it would be a pity to talk about that because what we are trying to do is to get over a teething problem. I cannot tell the noble Lord what the length of notice is. I quite accept that it is inconvenient for the police and everyone else. Nobody wants prisoners to escape, and that is the reason why we are doing our best to ensure that they do not, but mistakes will be made, even by the police.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hate to press the Minister—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have reached the 30th minute and I am afraid that I cannot give way.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be

1373
adjourned at around 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Education Bill
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General duty of Secretary of State]:
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I wish to consider with Amendment No. 1, Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 342. Members of the Committee who were present on Second Reading will understand the background of the principal amendment to which I wish to speak; namely, Amendment No. 8, the purpose of which is to exclude universities from Clause 1. For those Members of the Committee who were not present on Second Reading perhaps I may recapitulate briefly what has happened.
When the Bill first appeared before the other place it dealt solely with schools and further education and was treated in Committee in the other place along those lines. The reason why Amendment No. 342 is included is that it is an amendment to the Title of the Bill which would put the Bill back into that happy position. It was only on Report in another place that the present Clause 1 was added, so that it was never discussed in Committee. It could have been argued, and, indeed, might have been argued, that it should therefore probably refer only to schools and further education, but in discussion on the Bill in another place the Secretary of State said, in so many words, that the universities and other institutions of higher education were included in the Bill; and so it became necessary to ask why that change had taken place.
It is to the regret of those who have connections in the university world that we have never had any inkling of an explanation as to why that was done and what had happened between the Bill's introduction in the other place and the Report stage that made it suddenly necessary to include that reference. I hope, among other things, that my noble friend the Minister will at last be able to satisfy our curiosity.
When the question as to the desirability of giving further powers to the Secretary of State in relation to higher education was raised on Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister gave, as part of the defence of the Government's action, the fact that the powers of the Secretary of State were circumscribed by Sections 68 and 81 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Indeed, Ministers and the
1374
department seem rather to pride themselves now on the protection for academic freedom which was given in that Act.
However, I should like to point out to my noble friend the Minister that the Government are not entitled to use that particular defence, for two reasons. First, it is a well-known principle of the interpretation of statutes that a later statute has priority over an earlier statute; therefore, powers which would be granted in the present Bill, if it became an Act, would supersede, in so far as they contradicted them, restrictions on the powers granted in the earlier Act.
The second reason for being unable to accept that defence is that Section 68, the so-called academic freedom section, was not, of course, the work of Her Majesty's Government or the Ministers at the time; it was imposed upon the Government by a vote in this Chamber. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister, who now uses that defence, voted against that proposal. It is therefore rather difficult to see how we can accept fully a defence of academic freedom in April 1993 from someone who voted against it in February 1992, although of course there have been conversions of various kinds to which one could point.
We heard after Second Reading that the department was understanding of the concerns of the universities which had been expressed by a number of speakers in the debate and that it proposed to meet them by an amendment in Committee. So we waited with bated breath to see what that amendment, or those amendments, would turn out to be. Those are the other two amendments in the present grouping.
Well, the amendments duly arrived. Thanks to the activity of my noble friend the Minister some of us saw them before the weekend, some on Monday. What was our conclusion? I can only describe it in the words of the poet:
"Parturient mantes nascetur ridiculus mus".
Since Latin is, alas, lacking in the national curriculum, for a free translation perhaps I may offer:
"The Department for Education has gone into labour and produced a ridiculous mouse of an amendment".
Why it is ridiculous is that it does not meet the concerns of the universities, and that is, I have it, on the best legal advice. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and possibly later to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to explain why it is that the government amendments still leave the universities vulnerable to interference by the department.
But those are not the only pieces of legal advice to that effect that I have received. The vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, an eminent lawyer, has made it plain—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will speak for the university in due course—that in his view the amendments are insufficient.
I have also been able, by a fortunate chance, to take legal advice myself. Members of the Committee who were in the Palace this morning will have witnessed various garishly dressed personages who were the Silks being given their new role by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I was fortunate enough to intercept one of the newly elected Silks as he emerged from the Royal Gallery. It is not every day that one can get a free consultation from a Silk. He

1375
turned out—it is a trifling matter perhaps—to be the vice-chancellor elect of the University of Oxford. He also empowered me to say that in his view these amendments were insufficient to meet the anxieties which he and his colleagues in Oxford felt. So I have, I believe, fairly good grounds for saying that this will not do.
Many Members of the Committee may well say, "Surely Oxford and Cambridge can look after themselves. They survived Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell, and James II. Surely they can stand up to John Patten". I would, on the whole, be inclined to agree with that. However, we have not two universities but something like 100 universities. I am thinking, for instance, of the newly-promoted—if that is the right word—polytechnics, which now have university status. They are strongly represented in this House by my noble friend Lady Perry, who I am sorry is not in her place —well, not in her usual place—and by two of their chancellors; my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Platt. Perhaps the Committee might wish to congratulate my noble friends on their elevation.
Let us see what has happened to those universities. When Parliament passed the legislation the universities were told they were being emancipated from the thraldom of local government. They put on their new robes and designed their new crests. They emerged into the light of day with great hopes of what they would do in an independent existence. Suddenly they are informed by Clause 1 of the Bill, "Don't make that mistake. You have certainly escaped from the thraldom of local government but, of course, you are subject to the direction of the Secretary of State".
That reminded me of a possible rewriting of the final act of "Fidelio". Members of the Committee will remember that in the nick of time the hero is saved from assassination by the villainous governor of the prison, Don Pizarro, by the arrival of the Minister, Don Fernando, who liberates all the prisoners. It all ends in one of the most famous and moving operatic scenes. But let us suppose that Beethoven had been a different and more pessimistic type of person. Could we suppose that Don Fernando was not so much a Minister of the Crown of Spain but a Minister in the Department for Education and would have said, "Of course, you are all being released from the dungeons of the villainous Pizarro but only to be incarcerated again in my own set of dungeons in a neighbouring castle"? That is roughly the position of the new universities.
Therefore, we must ask Her Majesty's Government for some guarantee that the position which we thought we had attained when we amended the Further and Higher Education Act will now be preserved. I must say, first, that I did not draft the amendment; it was drafted by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The simplest answer is for the Government to say, "We accept the amendment. It excludes universities from the clause and therefore you have nothing to worry about". I still find it difficult to understand why they did not follow that course but perhaps the mind of my noble friend the Minister is still open. So is mine.
Therefore, I humbly suggest to my noble friend the Minister that we might come to the following agreement. If my noble friend will undertake to withdraw her two amendments and to engage in negotiations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in order to find a form of words which satisfies both her and the committee by the time of the next reading of the Bill it will be incumbent upon me not to prejudge that. But nothing other than that will enable me and my colleagues to withdraw the amendment for the following good reason. Our main worry is not only the content of Clause 1 but the fact that not for the first time the Government are legislating on a matter which has not been properly discussed with the people most involved.
After the anxieties which were voiced on Second Reading there was nothing to stop Her Majesty's Ministers from telephoning the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and saying, "Would you depute a couple of vice-chancellors to come to the department to discuss what we can do to allay your anxieties?". Nothing of the kind happened. On the contrary, amendments were brought to birth in a rather peculiar way but wholly within the department.
We do not wish to wait and therefore if the Minister says merely that she will come back with another amendment that will be insufficient. An amendment must be reached in agreement with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals so that the position of the universities is fully understood. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to intervene at this stage. It is an intervention so no one is precluded from speaking after me. I recognise the genuine and sincere anxieties about the issue. I know that they were expressed most strongly on Second Reading. I must express some disappointment at my noble friend's interpretation of my intentions and the way in which I, parliamentary counsel, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and colleagues in my department have gone about addressing the anxieties of Members of the Committee since Second Reading.
While the Clause 1s intended to replace Section 1(1) of the Education Act 1944 it was always the intention to preserve broadly the scope of Section 1 of that Act. That meant making changes to reflect the fact that some schools, as well as colleges of further and higher education, are no longer LEA maintained. Given the statutory basis for funding universities introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988 and now in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 it also seemed right that the Secretary of State's general duty to promote education should now extend also to education in universities.
However, as I explained on Second Reading, nothing in Clause 1—I repeat, nothing—extends the power of the Secretary of State over the universities. His powers in that respect remain those already provided for, and limited by, existing statute; most relevantly the Further and Higher Education Act.
This Chamber debated that Act rigorously and in detail. Members of the Committee were satisfied that the Act would secure the continuing and essential independence of universities; and in particular, that

1377
Section 68 would prevent any Secretary of State from using his powers over funding to influence the universities' own control over academic issues. I reiterate that nothing in Clause 1 changes that. It will continue to be the case that universities are governed by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which is the statute containing the substantive provisions. There is nothing inconsistent about the voting record of this Chamber in that at the end of the day another place accepted its amendment and Parliament endorsed it in giving it Royal Assent.
However, I also acknowledged on Second Reading the strength of feeling on this issue and indicated that I would consider whether anything further could be done to put at rest the minds of Members of the Committee. I find, therefore, that I have reached the same conclusion as my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others, and decided that Clause 1 should be amended.
The amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would disapply universities from the whole of Clause 1. However, I hope that they, and everyone, would agree that it is right and proper that the Secretary of State for Education should have a duty generally to promote the education of all people in England and Wales, and that that must apply to promoting education in universities as much as it does to promoting education provided in other institutions.
On Second Reading I promised to register the concerns of this House about Clause 1 as it relates to higher education. I had thought, until a day or two ago, that the amendments tabled in my name had put beyond doubt that the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) do not extend to institutions in the higher education sector.
From what my noble friend Lord Beloff said today, and indeed from informal contact that we have had in recent days—and I include in that the CVCP—I have reached the conclusion that there are still concerns to be met. I note that there remain some anxieties—in particular, as regards subsection (2) (a), covering the Higher Education Funding Council. It does indeed but only in so far as that is a reflection of the Secretary of State's general duty to promote the education of the people of England and Wales.
I note that concern and will consider the matter further. My officials are already in discussion with those interested parties, including the CVCP. We shall continue those discussions in an effort to meet the remaining concerns. I shall return to the issue on Report. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw my amendments.
However, it would be extremely helpful if the Committee would at least recognise the general duty put upon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to be concerned generally about promoting education of all people in this country, but in so doing to put it absolutely beyond any doubt on the face of the Bill that this Bill does not apply to and does not cut across the 1992 statute as it relates to further and higher education.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that speech. I am sorry if she should have thought that anything that has been said has reflected discredit on her efforts to bring about a settlement because those efforts have been welcomed and respected. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the trouble that she has taken over the weekend to keep me informed of what was going on. I congratulate her on being a good deal more fortunate with the post than my noble kinsman Lord Henley who once sent me three letters to give me information in such a situation and none of them reached me. However, both the letters from the noble Baroness reached me and I am grateful.
I accept entirely what she said that her amendments put beyond doubt Clause 1(2) (b) and Clause 1(3). However, there is an interesting discrepancy between what the noble Baroness said and what the Secretary of State said to the chairman of the CVCP. The Secretary of State said that Clause 1(2) had no reference to the universities. That is a particularly interesting discrepancy since many of our anxieties were concentrated on Clause 1(2) (a) which gives the Secretary of State powers,
"in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which … carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for education is made in, or in any area of, England or Wales".
That is a ball which is so slow and so highly flighted that any batsman would be looking for the googly. However, the difficulty in looking for the googly is that by the time it has bounced, it is too late.
It is Clause 1(2) (a) on which our desire for reassurance is concentrated. We are concerned also about the question of the funding councils. At least we have clarified the matter now that the noble Baroness has said that the funding councils are covered. I am not, in ignorance, going to make an adamant and categorical case against the inclusion of the funding councils. However, before the Committee approves any Clause involving the funding councils, I should like to know precisely why it is felt necessary to include them and precisely for what purpose, because all along the main question of doubt has been that we wanted to know why this Clause is in the Bill so that we could pass judgment on it.
The noble Baroness mentioned a general duty. I am prepared to listen further but she did not tell me why a general duty is needed in this particular place at this particular time or for what particular purpose. Before any final agreement is reached, as I hope it will be, it would be helpful if that could be spelt out.
I heard what the noble Baroness said about the 1944 Education Act. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is now in her place. I hope that she may have something to say about that. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since 1944.
I am grateful for all the trouble that has been taken on this. I hope that we may reach agreement, but before we do that we must understand what we are approving. I do not think that we have yet reached that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I am personally to my noble friend

1379
Lady Blatch for the great courtesy that she has accorded and the help that has been given by her department on this particularly difficult problem of construction, because that is what it is. It is a problem of legal construction and inevitably on that I shall make a very dull speech, but somebody has to make it.
Clause 1(1) acknowledges the general duty of the Secretary of State to promote the education of the people; and as I see it, rightly so. The Minister seeks agreement to that but I am also not quite sure why that general duty has to be in this clause of this Bill. Perhaps I may leave that, because if it is needed and is properly defined and limited it could do no harm.
The problem is the implementation clause—Clause 1(2) (a) —because in implementation of that general duty to promote the education of the people he, the Secretary of State, shall,
"exercise … his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds … for securing that the required provision for education is made".
Therefore, the question immediately arises—it is the old ghost which stalked the previous debate—whether, in the exercise of those powers of implementation, annexation of institutionally specific conditions to the grant to an institution of higher education is excluded; that is the great fear. That is why I was asked by my noble friend to explain. As I see it—and I am glad I am not alone because other lawyers also see it in that way—the universities are vulnerable.
It is no use anyone saying that it is the essence of Clause 1(2) (a) which causes the problem. In parenthesis, perhaps I may say at once that government amendments to Clause 1(2) (b) and 1(3) wholly subsume the spirit of the "Beloff" amendment. As the Committee will know, Clause 1(2) (a) has its origins in the 1944 Act. It has never been called into question and it has never been tested in the courts; but the situation between the universities and the Secretary of State as regards grants to universities has, over the past 50 years, suffered a sea change. It is essential now to ensure academic freedom on the face of the Bill.
I shall not take very much longer over what I have to say. As a matter of construction, it is much to be doubted whether Clause 1(1), as implemented by Clause 1(2) (a), excludes the annexation of those conditions. It was in order to resolve that doubt that the Beloff amendment (for which, together with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I take joint responsibility as regards the DIY draftsmanship) was put in simple, straightforward exclusory terms, which of course would never appeal to any self-respecting parliamentary draftsman. Therefore, it comes as absolutely no surprise to me that it is not acceptable as drafted. But, if it were accepted, it would put an end to the whole problem with which we are concerned. But life is never as simple as that. It is because of that doubt that we drafted the simple exclusion clause (Amendment No. 8) together with its sister amendment to the Title of the Bill (Amendment No. 342).
The gremlin of doubt which infects the construction of Clause 1(2) (a) remains. It may only be resolved either by Amendment No. 8 or by some such amendment as my noble friend the Minister has been
1380
good enough—and I am most grateful to her—to consider producing for the Report stage. It is perhaps important to note that it was proposed on Second Reading at col. 166 of Hansard that that doubt should be removed by a comfort letter addressed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
On 16th April an assurance was given by another letter that Clause 1 would not extend to higher education. Having dealt with my noble friend the Minister, and more recently with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I want to say here and now that I wholly accept the sincerity of their intentions and the fact that they believe the assurances that they have given are valid on the matter of construction. However, on the matter of construction, the point is—and I say this with respect—that the advice they have received is incorrect.
There is no precedent for comfort letters or letters from any Minister serving as an aid to the construction of a statute. That is not the traditional or the acceptable manner in which doubts as to construction are resolved either in this Chamber (as a revising Chamber) or by the courts. There is little more to be said, except to repeat my gratitude both to my noble friend the Minister and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: While we have made some progress—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—it still remains my conviction that to include universities in the clause, as was done at a late stage in another place, makes it either otiose or dangerous. It seems to me that few things could be more frivolous and foolish than suddenly on Report in another place to bring universities within the framework of the Bill without, as was then the case, any prior consultation and I doubt much prior thought. That would be so in any case, but it becomes doubly so when it is remembered that this is the third general Education Bill applying to universities which we have had in the past five years.
As regards the Secretary of State and subsequent correspondence with the Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the noble Baroness sought on Second Reading a month ago to justify the lurch—for such it was—by saying that it was necessary to bring the Education Act 1944 up to date. I wish that this Government would learn something from the wise, consensus speaking, calm and constructive statesmanship of the author of that Act. Mr. Butler (or Lord Butler as he became) did not think that the right way to provide a legislative framework for education was to have an Act every other year. He had one Act, introduced after the fullest consultation, which lasted, broadly speaking, for 40 years and which rightly, and unusually, came to bear his name. But now successive Secretaries of State seem to think that the only way to make a reputation in the brief interval between their over-promotion and a reshuffle is to introduce another piece of legislation

1381
—restless legislation. It seems to me—and it is a subject on which I doubtfully venture—to make a mockery of the word "conservative".
It is particularly unfortunate that universities should be constantly at the receiving end of that restlessness with all the measures designed—if they are designed to do anything at all—to introduce, as I understand it, more of the enterprise culture into our university system. That is peculiarly misconceived, for not only are the values of the enterprise culture particularly unsuited to the fostering of academic excellence (anyone who doubts that should read the brilliant polemical passages at the end of the lectures of Cardinal John Henry Newman on The Idea of a University given in Dublin in 1852 where he dealt with that precise point in a most devastating way) but also in this now rather battered, perplexed and disillusioned nation one of the few things which we do outstandingly well is running universities.
Indeed, nearly all the things that we do outstandingly well take the form of public service issues. For example, the Army has come out very well, as has the Civil Service, which is perhaps a little battered by the past 15 years but is nonetheless outstanding. There is also the example of public service as regards broadcasting and television—at any rate until fairly recently. They are things that we do outstandingly well.
However, we do not in fact do the enterprise culture very well, despite the incubus which has been placed upon it. The Italians, for instance, are much better at the enterprise culture than we are; but they are not nearly as good at running universities. Notwithstanding the great traditions of Bolognia and Pavia, at present the University of Rome, with its vast enrolment, its lecture-dominating system and its hundreds of thousands left to sink or swim—a very high proportion of them sinking rather than swimming —is a sad farce compared not only with Oxford and Cambridge but also with many other British universities.
It is certainly the case that in the world league of universities, with Harvard, perhaps on account of its graduate rather than its undergraduate work being accorded the first place, nearly every impartial judge would put two British universities within the next five. How very different that is from our level of achievement in nearly every other sphere. There is no other European university which would get in. It seems to me a peculiar perversity that, confronted with that situation, this so-called Conservative Government, far from leaving well alone, can do nothing but interfere, interfere, interfere. The case really is overwhelming for not subjecting universities for the third time to a piece of ill-thought-out, ill-consulted, legislation such as that before us.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: We are indeed having an academic field day with Bologna, Pavia, Cardinal Newman and "Fidelio". I am hopeful however that the course of debate on this issue will be very different—there is every sign that it will—from the course of debate on the 1992 Further and Higher Education Bill when it was not, I believe, until Third Reading that an
1382
agreeable solution was found by a vote of this Chamber to precisely the problem now being discussed. It was with a sinking heart that every Member of this Chamber read the new clause, the zero clause, that is now Clause 1 which was introduced on Report in the Commons with the implications it clearly carries, or could carry, for the higher education sector.
Let me say at once that it looks as if the course of this debate will be very different. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, speaking to his amendment, made a generous offer which was, I understood, to withdraw his amendment at this stage if he received satisfactory assurances. What is very significant and different from the position last time round, if I may put it that way, is the fact that my noble friend Lady Blatch has already tabled amendments which seek to allay the fears—perhaps they do not entirely succeed in that aim—which all of us in the higher education community have felt on this matter. The noble Baroness has indicated that she is willing to take her own amendment away and modify it in the light of the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others have made.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right to focus on Clause 1(2) (a). I believe it is agreed on all sides of the Chamber that my noble friend Lady Blatch has proposed a satisfactory amendment in relation to Clause 1(2) (b) and to Clause 1(3). That point has already been conceded by my noble friend behind me. Many of us, and certainly the academic community, seek a satisfactory amendment on Clause 1(2) (a). I understood from the words of my noble friend Lady Blatch that she will take her amendment away with the intention of proposing an amendment to Clause 1(2) (a) broadly along the lines of the amendments she has already proposed to Clause 1(2) (b) and to Clause 1(3). That leaves only the matter of Clause 1(1) which states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
That is a duty, but it does not in itself afford powers. So long as it remains a duty without being followed up with specific powers, I myself see no harm in it. Indeed I believe it would be mildly disappointing if we were to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which states,
"The provisions of this section shall not apply to any institution of higher education".
It would in a general sense be a disappointment if the Secretary of State did not feel it his duty to promote institutions of higher education as well as those in the primary, secondary and further education sectors. I remind the Committee that this very wording—
Lord Beloff: I wish to point out that we have been referred to the 1944 Act by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. That Act imposes a duty upon the Secretary of State to further education in relation to the people of England and Wales. However, the Act specifically states that education is defined as what goes on in schools and colleges of further education; in other words, the 1944 Act itself deliberately excluded universities. It worries us that that aspect should be included in the 1993 Act.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I do not believe that the noble Lord and I are in disagreement. I was intending—before he intervened—to quote the opening words of the 1944 Act which states:
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister … to promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
It is perfectly clear that it then deals with primary education explicitly, secondary education explicitly and further education explicitly. However, nowhere in my reading of the Act—I must admit I have not spent a long time reading it recently—does it explicitly exclude higher education. Indeed, I do not believe the universities are mentioned in that Act. Happily, I do not believe they will be mentioned in this Bill either if Clause 1(1) remains. The clause states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
I do not wish to speak any longer. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was right to say that the solution is that he and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals should meet the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Minister has offered to produce an amendment. I hope and believe that the amendment which she will produce to Clause 1(2) (a) will meet the requirements outlined by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. There is no doubt still room for considerable debate about Clause 1(1) but to my own way of thinking so long as that indicates a general duty and cannot by any manner of means be construed as conferring additional powers upon the Secretary of State, I believe all will be well. I hope very much that the offers which have been made on both sides can be accepted and that we can proceed now to debate primary, secondary and further education. It is for that reason, I believe, that most of us are here today.
Lord Glenamara: I wish to make clear to the noble Baroness that there is tremendous strength of feeling in the northern universities about this measure. I have received representations from a number of vice-chancellors and also from my own university. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that there are three chancellors of the new universities in this House and not two. The new clause is causing widespread alarm. One vice-chancellor said that,
"we are concerned that in its current, very general form, the Education Bill may extend the Secretary of State's powers over universities in wholly inappropriate ways".
We are all aware that recently a case took place in which it was held that proceedings in Parliament can he taken into account in construing a statute. If that is so, we must take into account the words uttered by the Secretary of State on 2nd March in another place where he made it absolutely clear that the term "educational institutions" includes universities. The clause we are discussing does not mention universities but because of the case I have referred to, it must be held to include universities.
If we consider Clause 1 to include universities, it would give the Secretary of State unprecedented powers over the universities. It would give him power over the number of courses, the type of courses, numbers of students, remuneration of staff and standards. The clause contains the catch-all phrase,
1384
"among other things". That phrase would allow him to interfere in any matter in the universities. It therefore gives him unprecedented powers. The noble Baroness said today—she has said so previously in this Chamber—that the measure does not add to the Secretary of State's powers. I hope that the noble Baroness does not misunderstand me, but that is quite untrue. I know that she believes that it is true, but it is not true. No one else believes that. It gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I accept the concern that I did not entirely meet the anxieties of the Committee. I said that I would take the matter away and I promised the Committee to put beyond all doubt, by addressing the concerns in respect of Clause 2A, that the Bill applies to schools and such further educational establishments and not to universities. I have said that I shall do that. It would be very helpful if I could be taken on trust now, at least until Report stage when noble Lords will have a legitimate right to return to the matter if I do not meet their concerns. Then we could continue with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Glenamara: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She has now gone considerably further than she went in her earlier remarks. She has been much more specific. She has now said that she will introduce an amendment which will specifically exclude universities. If that is what she has said that is marvellous. We would accept that.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that I believe that the most important characteristic of a university is its independence of the state. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, mentioned that greatest of all Victorians, Cardinal Newman. In his book on the concept of a university, the independence of a university from the state is central. That is as true today as it was then. It would be a sad day indeed if education in this country degenerated to the point of government interfering in the running of universities.
I am very pleased that the noble Baroness said what she did.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I know that we want to make progress, but last week I happened to spend two days at the University of Wales and its constituent colleges when we discussed research and its funding. Concern was expressed about this particular clause. I am very glad to hear the advance which the noble Baroness has made this afternoon. Her amendments would have helped a little but, nevertheless, the concern that has been aroused about this matter is of such a character that I believe that she would be well advised to take the matter away and come back with an agreed amendment.
I am not quite sure what better amendment than that of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, can be devised that would entirely remove the suspicion that has been aroused. Although it is not for me but for the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to decide, in view of the concern that has been aroused I would certainly give the noble

1385
Baroness the room that she wants to discuss the matter further. We can return to the matter at Report stage. I believe that the best way to deal with it now is specifically to exclude the universities by a provision stating that that should be so, even though there can be argument as to whether additional powers are being conferred.
I say that because, as the noble Baroness will know from her own speech at Second Reading—a copy of which was given to me last week in Cardiff—she said herself when she introduced the Bill:
"As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated in another place on introducing the amendment, it covers all the relevant education institutions and bodies, including universities and the higher education funding council".—[Official Report, 23/3/93; col. 311.]
That is an example of the Government shooting themselves in the foot. Every single clause in the Bill is concerned with schools. I looked through the chapters. Chapter I concerns the Funding Agency for Schools, Chapter II covers responsibility for education at school, Chapter VI covers the funding of grant-maintained schools and Chapter IV the establishing of new grant-maintained schools. So it goes on. There is nothing about universities in the Bill. It is beyond my comprehension why on earth the Government had to introduce that particular note and say that it covered universities as well. However, that is water under the bridge and there is no point in pursuing it.
In conclusion, I would prefer to see an amendment with the words of that put down by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, carried, but not necessarily today. That would make the position absolutely clear. However, I see no reason why we should not give the noble Baroness another opportunity to produce something even better if she can.
Lord Peston: I agree entirely with the noble Baroness and hope that we can get a move on. Secondly, I accept entirely her bona fides. There is no problem with that.
What is it that we have agreed? Rather like my noble friend Lord Callaghan, I am intrigued as to what the Government were up to originally, but we do not need to discuss that now.
I do not know what is wrong with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I should like to see two outcomes. First, I should like to have the status quo ante the Bill, because I thought that that was the state of affairs we should have. Secondly, it is my judgment that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and his noble friends achieve that outcome. I accept that the noble Baroness wants to take the matter away. By all means let her do so. However, I hope that she will come back either with amendments identical to those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which I consider satisfactory, or with amendments which are equally satisfactory. I believe that she accepts that her amendments do not achieve that.
I hope that we can proceed. Speaking from this Front Bench I do not wish to hold up the proceedings, but I know the outcome which I want, which is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, outlined to the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may make my intentions clear. I hesitate to say that I shall put matters beyond all reasonable doubt because I am decidedly nervous about what will satisfy the Committee at the end of the day. These are my intentions.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn put the matter very well. In the Education Act 1944 there is a general duty for the Secretary of State to concern himself with the education of people in England and Wales. That duty has been repeated in this Bill. Just as with the 1944 Act, we intend that the 1993 Act should then move on to specific powers which relate to particular sectors of education. It will not be my intention, nor should it be the intention of legislation, to state that "this shall not apply" to certain aspects because it will not apply to all sorts of things. It will be my intention to make sure that the powers of the Secretary of State shall apply only to schools and to such further education institutions. As part of that we shall discuss the matter with interested Members of the Committee and we shall continue to discuss it with the CVCP. I hope that I can return at Report stage with something that is acceptable to the whole House.
Lord Beloff: In the light of the assurances given by my noble friend, it would be churlish to deny her the opportunity of producing an alternative amendment. However, I should make it clear that I remain of the same opinion as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it would be difficult to improve upon the wording.
Perhaps I may take up again the point that the 1944 Act defined education in a way which referred only to schools. It described the various stages through which a young person's education passes, but it does not go beyond further education. Therefore there is an innovation even in the duty to look after the provision of higher education. It is that innovation which has given rise to the present anxieties.
That having been said, it appears to be the wish in all quarters of the Chamber that my noble friend should withdraw her amendments today and come back at Report stage with an amendment or amendments which achieve what has been the wish of every speaker, namely that no powers of any kind should accrue to the Secretary of State in relation to universities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 11 and insert ("have the duty of promoting the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and of securing the effective execution, under his control and direction, by local education authorities and such other bodies as are established under this Act with functions in relation to schools, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.")
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that it is all too characteristic of this doctrinaire and ill-prepared Bill that we are compelled to start the Committee stage by debating amendments to a clause which was hastily introduced in the other place at the last moment without proper notice and with no consultation. It is a clause bereft of any positive contribution

1387
whatsoever to the improvement of the education of the people of England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, so powerfully said, what a sad contrast it all makes with the wise, characterful statesmanship of Rab Butler in 1944.
Clause 1 is relevant to the heart of our educational system and its spirit. It is also highly relevant to the relationship between our educational system and democracy itself. Do we believe in pluralism or do we not? Do we believe in decentralisation or do we not? Do we believe in subsidiarity or do we not? If we believe in them for Europe, why does that belief stop at Whitehall? Do we believe in community or do we not? If we do believe in community, why are we not ensuring that the educational development of our children is seen as one of the challenging responsibilities of the communities in which they live and that children in their schools grow up with a living sense of being part of a closely interwoven community to which they have clear responsibilities? Is that not all highly relevant to our current anxieties about delinquency, crime and social irresponsibility?
As we have heard, Section 1(1) of the Education Act 1944 put a duty on the Secretary of State to,
"secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area".
Clause 1 of the Bill sweeps all that away. There is no mention of the role of local education authorities. What has been described as the historic settlement of 1944 embodied a partnership between central government, local government and the Churches in the organisation and governance of education. It is also widely agreed that the post-war decades established a further partnership between those bodies and education professionals in the development and implementation of education policy.
What is now proposed destroys all that. Instead we have sweeping references to choice and diversity with absolutely no tangible evidence as to how those will be related to quality—the application to education of the hollow PR language of this Government's charters as distinct from substance. The new clause refers to the role of the Secretary of State alone. There is not one word in the clause underpinning the role of parents, governors or schools about which Ministers sanctimoniously love to preach. The harsh reality as distinct from the sales talk is that we shall have a future of school against school, rapidly discovering their impotence as they fight for their individual interests against the massively reinforced centralised bureaucracy of the Secretary of State and his non-accountable quangos. That prospect would be sinister enough in more tranquil educational times, but at a time of almost unrivalled anxiety about the competence of political leadership in education, it is frankly bizarre.
The Minister took exception at the Second Reading debate when I quoted the Conservative Education Association as saying,
"We believe that [the Bill] represents a massive and dangerous increase in the power given to central government".
But perhaps the Minister will take more note of Councillor T.H. Macnamara, OBE of the
1388
Conservative Hampshire Education Committee, which is not noted as a wildly romantic left-wing administration. In a letter to me, and I suspect to other noble Lords, he wrote as recently as 14th April last that,
"Conservative county councillors in Hampshire are supported by Liberal Democrat and Labour Councillors and by governors, heads, and teachers in wanting two key matters changed".
With reference to the first of those, he states:
"On the provision, planning and organisation of schools, the Bill's proposals are undemocratic, confusing and cumbersome … In Southern Hampshire, where the age of transfer to secondary school has been 12, the County Council is committed to making it 11 to fit the National Curriculum stages and practice in 95 per cent. of the country. We are also taking the opportunity of removing many hundreds of surplus school places. During the past year members and officers have been engaged in a massive consultation and decision making exercise involving some 700 local meetings. Such planning and consultation can be carried out properly only by a local democratically-elected body supported by high quality staff.
"A national funding agency can distribute money but it should not be expected to plan and consult. If the Bill's proposals in clauses 1 and 10 survive, parents, governors and teachers will not know who is responsible and a great deal of time and money will be wasted in bureaucratic procedures".
My amendment to Clause 1 is frankly designed to maintain the partnership between central government and local democracy for the provision of education and between the local community as a whole and the local schools. It is also designed to reinstate the need for both a varied and comprehensive education service and a national policy for education. That is not to argue that everywhere local democracy has produced equally good education. There have been some disgraceful examples. However, the point about democracy is that accountability gives room for correction. How on earth will the Secretary of State and his impersonal bureaucratic quangos be effectively accountable to all the parents as far apart as Cumbria and Cornwall?
The challenge to us all is surely to make democracy work, not to cut it out. But, as Councillor Macnamara from Hampshire has argued, Clause 1 is intrinsically linked to Clause 10, with which a subsequent number of amendments grouped with Amendment No. 49 deal. Much of the ground covered by this amendment and that group is therefore the same. As the Bill stands, the local education authority will share a duty to provide sufficient school places with the unelected and non-accountable funding authority once 10 per cent. of the pupils in its area are attending maintained schools. Quite apart from the problems of how such a shared responsibility can work, we surely have to consider how the planning of the education service can be kept democratically accountable.
Such accountability is necessary to ensure parental choice. That is why our later amendment will propose leaving the planning role with the LEA so long as it maintains an interest in providing schools. The LEA is clearly the most appropriate body to plan and provide the range of places needed. Yet, as proposed in the Bill, it would have to share the responsibility with another body which would inevitably be more remote from the locality's needs and would be unable to cover more than partial provision. Democratic accountability of the education service must be

1389
ensured by maintaining local education authorities as partners in the provision of that service and by ensuring that they retain the lead role for planning school places in their areas. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 look back to where we once were and take no account of where we are, not to mention where we should be going. It must be clear that, while the framework envisaged by the Education Act 1944 was right for its time, the education world has changed considerably since then, particularly with the growth of the grant-maintained sector. We would be remiss not to recognise that, and to ensure that education legislation reflects this changed world.
Clause 1 preserves the position of the LEA as a key component of our educational infrastructure. But we have to recognise the reality that the local education authority of the future will play a different role in our education system. It will have important functions, as the Bill makes clear and as I shall want to emphasise over the coming weeks as we discuss it. But it will not be the role envisaged for it under the Education Act 1944. Increasingly responsibility for the provision of education will fall to other bodies and to schools and colleges themselves.
I have no wish to denigrate the contribution that LEAs have made, and are making to the provision of education. Given my own involvement in local government in Cambridgeshire, I readily acknowledge the vital role carried out by the local education authorities. But my experience in local government convinced me that not only were there ways to secure high quality education for young people other than through the LEA as monopoly provider, but indeed that there were occasionally better ways.
The thrust of the Government's reforms has been based on the premise that individual institutions respond best to independence; and that the best way to secure higher standards in education is to give responsibility for its delivery to those who have the greatest interest in seeing their institutions succeed—parents, governors, teaching staff and the local community.
We have already put this into practice. Our universities have long enjoyed independence, and we have just had a debate about making sure that that independence is secure. Universities and their students have benefited from it. We have given similar powers—and, I must add, responsibilities—to what were the polytechnics, and they too are responding positively.
The Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which was the subject of extensive debate in this House, also created a new self-governing further education sector which came into effect on 1st April. It gave further education and sixth form colleges new freedoms to respond quickly and flexibly to the needs of their customers, students and local employers, and to play their part in building up the supply of young people and adults with the technical and other skills the country needs.
1390
We have given parents the right to choose to take their schools out of the control of the local education authority, and over 800 schools have already chosen this route. The evidence shows that self-governing state schools are adapting well to their new status. We aim to build on that. I have no doubt that increasing numbers of parents will choose self-governing status for their schools so that they too can reap the advantages to be gained as a result of schools having greater control over their own affairs.
There is an important practical reason why Clause 1 should not make specific mention of the LEA. Clause 1 is designed to stand the test of time and I see no advantage in listing individually all the bodies with educational responsibilities. As I have made clear, already there are no grounds for singling out just one of those bodies. I urge the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Turning to Amendment No. 7, I have yet to hear arguments pressed for it and if the Committee will forgive me, I wind up on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 but reserve the right to come back on Amendment No. 7.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I support what was said by the noble Lord on the Labour Front Bench on Amendment No. 2 and wish to refer to Amendments Nos. 3 and 7. There is a difficulty which I hinted at on Second Reading. When we deal with private legislation to do with education and other major areas of domestic policy for England and Wales in this House, we legislate together. In the Bill we are dealing with two Secretaries of State. That seems to be a mystery which is not understood by the educational press in London. There was a huge furore only a week or so ago about the fact that the national curriculum in Wales in regard to the teaching of English appeared somehow to be different from the national curriculum in England.
Let us be clear about the Education Reform Act 1988 with which I was associated as a member of the Standing Committee in another place. There are two national curricula: one for Wales and one for England. Both curricula are administered by separate bodies and we shall deal later in the Bill with the reorganisations of those bodies.
In my remarks on Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with Amendment No. 2, I shall refer to both Secretaries of State since I believe that the principle of partnership between local education authorities and the Secretary of State for Wales, in the case of Wales, and the Secretary of State for Education in the case of England, is an essential part of any future education service. When the noble Baroness says that there must be no reference to local education authorities in the clause because it has to stand the test of time, that adds to my concern about the lack of democracy which may well be at the heart of the clause.
That is further complicated by another issue to which we shall come later in our debates—the projected reorganisation of local government. Wales is again, unfortunately, to be in the lead as the first area of experimentation. We may well see there a major issue concerning the link between local education

1391
authorities as reorganised and the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State in the administration of the education service in Wales.
Partnership with local education authorities has provided the basis for the education service in England and Wales. I believe that in Wales it will continue to do so. There may be a difference of emphasis in the two countries. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness were to remind herself, if she does not have the information immediately to hand, of the numbers of schools which have already opted out of local authority control in Wales, both primary and secondary, and how many have expressed an interest. She may find the figure minuscule compared with the figure which she has just quoted for England. That again indicates the fact that partnership with local education authorities is seen to be the way which is preferred by parents, pupils and teachers within Wales.
For that reason, I believe that reference to local education authorities as the major player—to use that phrase—in the partnership between the Secretaries of State and the deliverers of the local education service should be included in the Bill. I hear the Government's arguments. I am alarmed by the noble Baroness's attitude and the clear intention to relegate local education authorities completely, at least in England.
I come to Amendment No. 7. Here again, I believe that the wording and the spirit of my amendment are very much in line with what the noble Baroness said. If the clause is to stand the test of time and be a statement of educational principle, then to follow the present wording of Clause 1(3) in encouraging diversity of choice with references to the educational needs of local communities under a multicultural society seems to me extremely apt. There are key words here which I believe to be fundamental to the effective delivery of education policy in the local community. The words are "local" and "community" and the notion of a multicultural society. It concerns me very much that the whole issue of a curriculum for a multicultural society, which was a major feature of the educational debate 10 years ago, now appears to have been completely relegated in the Government's thinking. We have seen the attempts of the teaching profession and the educational institutions to continue to provide sensitively for the needs of the whole population in a multi-ethnic society throughout the world, but particularly throughout the United Kingdom and, in the case of the Bill, throughout England and Wales. Despite those attempts, there is little support at the level of public policy and little effective funding for those objectives. One thinks of the years spent in deliberation in the Swann Committee and other fora on the central issues of delivering a curriculum for a multi-ethnic, multicultural society. However, in the whole debate on the national curriculum, all those issues have been relegated.
Diversity and the maintenance of ethnic identity within a harmonious multicultural society are still issues which are central to the future of the nations and communities of the kingdom. I hope that the Government, if unable to include such wording on the
1392
face of the Bill, can at least indicate clearly that, as concerns the curriculum and the ethos of schooling, the emphasis on providing for the needs of local communities within a multicultural society is in line with their thinking.
When we speak of a multicultural society, we mean schools not only in inner city areas but throughout our communities. An awareness of the multifarious nature of our European identities and the levels of identity and ethnicity making up the populations of the whole of Western Europe is now a central issue. The recent re-emergence of racism and racist attacks on mainland Europe and in some parts of the United Kingdom gives cause for deep concern. It was those concerns which motivated the then government of the day, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to set up an inquiry, not just into the policing of inner cities but into the delivery of the education service and the need to ensure that people from all backgrounds and all forms of ethnic identity could relate to the curriculum in schools and benefit from it.
Those anxieties have not gone away. My worry is that by not addressing the issues in times of tension, we shall only exacerbate future social conflicts. For all those reasons, I ask for confirmation from the Government that those issues are still to the fore, if not on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Young: We have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Elis-Thomas, with interest. However, I say to my noble friend the Minister that it seems to me that if Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were to be accepted they would be wrecking amendments. I shall turn later to Amendment No. 7, which addresses a completely separate issue. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are an attempt to put the clock back or to maintain the status quo.
Like my noble friend the Minister, I have had long experience in local government. I was a local councillor for 15 years. I served on an education committee. I was a governor of many maintained schools. I follow with great interest all debates on education. So my remarks in no way denigrate local education authorities and what they have done.
However, the great educational debate is about the standards and quality of what our children learn in schools, for which the local education authorities have to bear a large measure of responsibility. We have heard time without number that our children are not doing as well as children in competitor countries in Europe, let alone in countries such as Japan. That problem needs to be addressed. Therefore I think it quite proper that Clause 1 of the Bill should make general statements of intention about where we are going. We have very considerable evidence already to show that grant-maintained schools are succeeding very well in what they are attempting to do. There is some evidence too to indicate that as a result of the other government reforms standards are rising. To put the clock back would be quite wrong; I do not support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 7 addresses a very different issue. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his general remarks about a multi-ethnic society. One part of the world about

1393
which I know a little is the Caribbean. No one can visit Caribbean schools (as I have done on many occasions) without being struck by the excellence of education there. It is the ambition of every parent to pay for those very good schools. Many of those parents, on coming to this country, were, I believe, very disappointed at what they found in the inner cities. What any child wants, whether that child is white, or comes from the Indian sub-continent, the Caribbean or any other part of the world, is a good education which qualifies him to get a job. If that happened, I believe that many of the problems that we face in inner cities would be reduced. I do not say that they would go away; but they would certainly be diminished. It is very encouraging—I may not be correct on this point, but I believe it to be true—that if one took a census of the sixth forms of maintained schools, one would find children from the Indian sub-continent doing very well indeed. That is welcome and much to be encouraged. I hope that children from the Caribbean will do equally well. What they require, I believe, is the process of the national curriculum, backed by testing, to make sure that every child, whatever the school, gets an equal opportunity. That applies just as much to people from the ethnic minorities. So, although I share the spirit of what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. To write such a provision into Clause 1 would be to write in a whole series of other general issues. What is encouraging is that the government reforms are benefiting children from ethnic minorities. That is the important point.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: As Amendment No. 2 stands also in my name I should like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is not intended as a wrecking amendment. Indeed, it specifically acknowledges other bodies. The noble Baroness referred to the success of grant-maintained schools. The issue of maintaining quality in such schools is one that we may need to address later in the course of the Bill. We on these Benches join with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in believing that it would be right to write into the Bill the partnership with local authorities, not as a matter of a knee-jerk defence of local authorities but because the issue of direct democratic accountability to which he referred is one which deserves recognition.
Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with their great experience of membership of education authorities, school governorships, and so on, know the value of talking to parents and of dealing with very small, very precise issues. With the best will in the world, neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister—who could not be more energetic or more assiduous—cannot deal with that level of detail. The Minister may say that that is a matter of detail, not of strategy. But dealing with the detail informs the strategy. A close understanding of the needs of different local communities and an accountability to them cannot be achieved by the responsibility being held in the person of the Secretary of State.
Direct contact is relevant for strategic matters. The Bill provides for a strategic role to remain with the
1394
local education authorities on, to mention just one matter, the question of statementing of children with special educational needs. The Minister said that allowing self-governing status had meant more schools taking it up, leading to an increased number of grant-maintained schools. That may be so. But is it right to send out the message, which I believe is implicit in writing out of legislation the partnership with LEAs, that parents should not trust schools which have not become grant-maintained? I fear that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy that there will be more grant-maintained schools if the message goes out that only grant-maintained schools are to be trusted. I know that the Government believe in partnership; the Prime Minister says so. I believe that we should allow it to flourish.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder if she can clarify a point on Amendment No. 2. The first part of that amendment seems so like the Bill as it stands that it would include universities. I wonder therefore whether it is not at odds with what the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Peston, said.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry. There was a sort of "transatlantic feedback" over the last part of what the noble Baroness said. I did not catch her last few words.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not wish to detain the Committee. My point was that the first part of Amendment No. 2 seems to include universities. The second part does not. But the first part at any rate would not exclude universities. Therefore, is it not at odds with what the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Peston, said?
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe that it is, and that was certainly not the intention of the draftsman.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I have two main objections to the wording of Clause 1(1) as it stands. The first, and least important, is an aesthetic one. There was a fine, resounding ring to Section 1 of the 1944 Act which this amendment, with suitable modification, seeks to follow. If, as the Government claim, this Bill is designed to last for a generation, it could at least start with something a little more inspiring than the present pedestrian wording.
The second objection, echoing what has been said by other speakers, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in particular, concerns the role of the local education authorities—written out, as it were, between lunch and tea in the Bill's passage through another place. That is no way to abolish a partnership which has stood the test of time whatever its shortcomings, which the present Government so like to exaggerate; nor to centralise power so exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of State.
The Government deny that this is a centralising Bill. They point to the devolution of power to individual school governors under the grant-maintained provisions. They are right in the sense that schools which do decide to opt out—and, as we have heard, not many of them have done so—will have

1395
more day-to-day freedom to manage their affairs. But the Government cannot deny that the ultimate power over GM schools—for example, to open them, close them, enlarge them and change their governors—will rest with the Secretary of State. Nor can they lightly brush off the vast number of extra powers which the 1988 Act and the present Bill are handing to the holder of that office, a factor which caused deep disquiet five years ago and brought not unreasonable comparisons with totalitarian states in the not-so-distant past. One may say that the English Secretary of State would not use those powers in a high-handed way. What happened to the direct grant schools? If one pictures one's least favourite politician of the opposing party in possession of the proposed new powers, one will get some feel for the undesirability of concentrating so much responsibility at the centre where children's hearts and minds are concerned.
Since 1944 it has been largely a matter of checks and balances in the delivery of an education service. Neither partner in central or local government has had too much power. If the Bill goes through unamended, it will be goodbye to all that. Clause 1 is where it starts.
At Second Reading the Minister said that local authorities would still have important things to do, and she said it again just now. A more accurate view was that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that they would be left with the bits that nobody else wanted. There is a fund of solid, disinterested expertise in the local education service that the nation can ill afford to throw away. Like previous speakers, I was there for years and saw it at first hand. That is particularly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in the realm of school planning and provision—we shall be coming to that later in Clause 10. With its knowledge of local conditions, housing, industry and transport and its intimate links with social services and planning departments, the LEA is far better placed to take the lead role than the Secretary of State or any of his unelected national bodies—not the only role, but simply the lead role in this instance. Other such instances might be school admissions, special needs, outdoor education, extra-curricular music, nursery and adult education. All are areas where strategic oversight combined with local knowledge are important.
The LEA is not yet dead. It would be a sad and sinister day for the balance of power in our society if it were. Any move to write local democracy out of the equation should be resisted. For that reason above all I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 2 and I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will take it away and think about it further. I shall have to say a word or two in regard to the drafting, but the amendment also contains several fallacies and gives rise to several problems of interpretation and construction.
First, with regard to the drafting, the amendment replaces the simple proposition stated in Clause 1, which will be the subject of further consideration in the light of our earlier debate. That simple proposition was borrowed from part of Section 1 of the Education Act 1944. If the amendment were accepted it would
1396
give rise to one of the longest sentences that I have seen for a long time in a subsection in even one of our modern Bills.
Coming to the substance of the amendment, it contains one or two fallacies. The first is the idea that the Secretary of State has control and direction of local authorities. What does that mean? I have always understood that education authorities have a high degree of independence limited only by the terms of various Acts of Parliament which, for the most part, do not give the Secretary of State control and direction of education authorities. That is the first fallacy, the first problem of construction. Although there are several, I do not want to take up too much time because the points are clear and persuasive.
The last two lines of the amendment state,
"with functions in relation to schools, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area".
There are a number of comprehensive schools in this country. Do those words mean that the Secretary of State and local authorities must aim at having comprehensive schools? Is that what "comprehensive educational service" means? There is a doubt. There is some confusion with what already happens. It could be said that to speak of,
"a varied and comprehensive educational service",
is in itself a contradiction in terms.
I do not believe that it would be right for the Committee to accept the amendment. With regard to the drafting I would go further and point out that it overlaps and repeats phrases which are included, and will be included after further consideration by my noble friend, in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. The net result is that subsection (1) would become a frightful jumble of overlapping ideas. That is not the way for us to legislate.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may deal first with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I have great respect for him and have enjoyed my relationship with him in this Chamber and in another place for many years. But I am a little surprised that he does not have a better understanding of the Education Act 1944, which has stood us in such good stead for half a century. The quotations he selected are taken directly from that Act and are unashamedly about maintaining the present situation. Indeed, there have been references to "wrecking". The amendment is not about wrecking; it is about conserving what is best in the tradition of education in Britain and building upon it.
I am compelled to ask the Minister if, as she has argued, Clause I indeed changes the local education authority role and is therefore "fundamental", to use her word, why was it not introduced until the Report stage in the other place? I am confused by that.
I am afraid that the other point which has been misunderstood by Members of the Committee is that the amendment specifically deals with anxiety about universities. One need only look at the last sentence on the first page of the Marshalled List to see that the amendment deals with functions in relation to schools, specifically dealing with this point.

1397
I am afraid that, in view of the failure of the first clause —introduced in such haste at the last moment in the other place—to deal with accountability and with the principle of partnership, or to underwrite the role of parents and governors, as opposed to the new, enlarged and gigantic bureaucracy headed by Field Marshal Secretary of State and in view of the failure of the Minister to reassure us in her remarks this afternoon, I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I have not exercised my right to reply on the other amendments and the debate should run its course.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will clarify a point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. Is it the intention that the references to "promoting the education" and "the progressive development of institutions" shall relate to institutions of higher education?
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may make two brief points. I reserve my position with regard to the role of local authorities to Clause 10, particularly Amendment No. 50. Secondly, the words,
"such other bodies as are established under this Act",
are not clear. I am not sure what they mean. Before I saw the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I had drafted another amendment. We must take into account that we must consider the effect on social services, health authorities, voluntary, charitable and private organisations which contribute to the education of children in this country. The amendment as drafted does not answer those questions.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Judd, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, could help me on the question of democratic accountability. It was my understanding that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. There seems to be no better form of democratic accountability than that, particularly in view of the fact that education is of such immense national concern at this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the extent to which this country is falling behind some of our competitors in Europe. We face the fiercest possible competition in world markets over the next decades. We have at this time 3 million unemployed, many of whom will find it very difficult to get jobs because they lack the education and skills which are required by modern industry and therefore cannot deliver the levels of productivity which are needed to make them attractive in the labour market. Perhaps I may quote to the Committee a discussion which I had recently with an official of Eurotunnel, who told me that there has been a large differential between the productivity of individuals in the French construction teams and in the British construction teams—something like 20 per cent. This was attributed mainly to the poorer educational and training standards of the British workforce and line management.
Local education authorities have been in charge of
1398
education for 50 years. They clearly have not delivered the standard of education which the country needs at this time. Surely it is time to change the bowling.
Baroness Blatch: As I come to wind up the debate perhaps I may say that I do not think that this group of amendments has been the best example of the Committee obeying the procedure. I looked around the whole Chamber when I stood up to speak. As no one else stood I came to reply to the debate but then discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was to speak to his amendment. In any future groupings, if we are going to behave in that way, we shall take much too long to get through the business.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may intervene at this point to explain to the Minister that I observed what happened from my seat, where I perhaps have a better view of the Chamber than she can have. I was proposing to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and saw that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was trying to intervene and in fact began to do so before the Chairman had introduced the amendment. There was then a hiatus as noble Lords were waiting to see what others would do. I was a little taken aback by the Minister rising to speak. We all wish to get on but I think that, as a matter of explanation to the Committee, it is worth explaining what happened at that point.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say to the Committee that I did in fact look around. I waited for someone to speak and the noble Baroness, in the same way as she did just then, could have risen to say that she wished to speak to those amendments. I said at the outset that I was going to be summing up on those amendments.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish to confirm the events as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was rising within my field of vision when I was about to rise. That might explain events. He was obscured behind the Minister's back. I do not want to waste any more time on this matter but I think that sets the record straight.
Baroness Blatch: I spoke inclusively when I said that it was not the best example of the Committee obeying procedure. I was including myself too. If noble Lords want to speak on amendments before I sum up it is important that they make that known. If I do rise to wind up on an amendment it would be helpful if noble Lords would indicate that they would like a chance to speak.
My noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy pointed out the defects. But apart from the defects there are still good reasons for rejecting Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I did not ever say that Clause 1 changed the Bill or changed the role of LEAs. I said that it accommodated change within the education sector as the grant-maintained sector grew and that LEAs would be one of the bodies among the other bodies which were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that

1399
I do not think it is pedestrian to charge the Secretary of State with the duty to promote education for all the people of England and Wales. I believe that that is plain English, unequivocal and a laudable duty that he should be charged with.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, had another concern. This clause does replace Section 1 of the 1944 Act but it does not, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, centralise. It excludes the words of Section 1 of the 1944 Act. Amendment No. 2 seeks to restore them,
"securing the effective execution, under his control and direction".
That is pure centralisation. There is no attempt to centralise. We seek to encourage a broader and richer partnership between all the bodies and institutions concerned in education.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, raises an important point in Amendment No. 7. It may help him if I set out the Government's policy in this area, because I think it will answer all the concerns underlying the amendment. Following publication of the report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups in March 1985, the then Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, defined government policy as being, first, to raise the performance of all pupils and to tackle the obstacles to higher achievement which are common to all; secondly, to give ethnic minority pupils the same opportunity as all others to profit from what the schools can offer them by meeting their particular educational needs—for example, by promoting good practice in the teaching of English; and thirdly, to secure that schools should preserve and transmit our national values in a way which accepts Britain's ethnic diversity and promotes tolerance and racial harmony. This remains our policy and I am convinced that it points the right way forward.
We have taken, and continue to take, action to support this policy, including measures specifically targeted at meeting some of the particular needs that pupils from ethnic minorities may have. I do not have the time to provide a comprehensive run through all these measures but they include, on initial and in-service teacher training, increasing the recruitment of ethnic minority teachers, funding for pilot projects on meeting educational needs in a multi-ethnic society and action on the curriculum and on examinations. These and other targeted measures are important. We shall continue to take specific action as we feel it is necessary, but it is our overall commitment to meeting the needs of all pupils that is vital.
I remind the Committee of Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which requires the school curriculum to promote,
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".
That recognises no difference in the entitlement of any pupil, whatever his or her background, and is supplemented by Section 2 of the Act, which requires all maintained schools to provide the national curriculum to all its pupils. This amendment adds nothing to that which is already guaranteed in statute and confirmed in the Bill. If I read the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was saying, he
1400
wished to have confirmation that that is the case. I hope that in the light of what I have said he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Minister for the way in which she has replied to the points that have been made. I must underline two points. First, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the great point about democracy in our country and the tradition of democracy is that it is not just a centralised democracy. It is a dispersed democracy. The importance of local government is very rich in our traditions. What has been understood and well understood in the 1944 Act is that education should be in the hands of a partnership between local democracy and central democracy. That was basic to the principle. What the Bill is doing in Clause 1 so hastily and in such an ill-judged way introduced at the last moment—we cannot emphasise that too strongly—is removing that whole tradition and partnership. We do not believe that the case for doing that has been established.
Furthermore, we are fearful for the position of numerous individual schools and their governors up and down the country when, once the euphoria of the first stage is over, they find themselves as isolated schools trying to stand up for their rights against this enhanced bureaucratic, centralised administration. For those and many other reasons, we have no alternative but to press the amendment to a Division.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 171.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Addington, L.

Galpern, L.

Airedale, L.

Geraint, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bottomley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bramall, L.

Howell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hylton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Carver, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Judd, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Eatwell, L.

Listowel, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ennals, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Longford, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

1401

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Rochester, L.

McNair, L.

Russell, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Seear, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mayhew, L.

Serota, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shackleton, L.

Meston, L.

Stedman, B.

Mishcon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Parry, L.

Thurlow, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Warnock, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Adrian, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Aldington, L.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Faithfull, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ferrers, E.

Annan, L.

Flather, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Gainford, L.

Astor, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Auckland, L.

Geddes, L.

Barber, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Beloff, L.

Goschen, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blyth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Boardman, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Henley, L.

Brentford, V.

Hertford, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Brightman, L.

Hives, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Holderness, L.

Brookes, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hothfield, L.

Cadman, L.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Huntly, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Killearn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knollys, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Layton, L.

Cawley, L.

Leigh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Lucas, L.

Cockfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cox, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cranborne, V.

Margadale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Monson, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Morris, L.

Derwent, L.

Mottistone, L.

Donegall, M.

Mountevans, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nathan, L.

1402

Nelson, E.

Sherfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northbourne, L.

Skidelsky, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Onslow, E.

Strafford, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Palmer, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swansea, L.

Pender, L.

Swinfen, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Swinton, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tebbit, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Prentice, L.

Teviot, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Radnor, E.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Renwick, L.

Westbury, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wilberforce, L.

St. Davids, V.

Windlesham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wise, L.

Savile, L.

Wynford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Young, B.

Selborne, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
5.8 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 19, after ("standards") insert ("and, subject to section (whole school behaviour policy) below, including standards in pupils' behaviour")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 92 and 287. At an earlier stage I was expecting also to find in this group Amendment No. 73 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. But this is group three and he felt that he was better placed elsewhere, and rather like the people subject to Group 4 at Question Time, he has made his escape.
The debates which we have had so far have been largely about the organisation, funding and responsibility for the system. It was for my noble friend Lady Young to raise the point that what this Bill is really about is what goes on in the schools. The whole of this Bill will be entirely useless and our time completely wasted if the result is not that what goes on in the schools is what we want to go on in them. We have to ask ourselves what that is.
What we want our schools to be are places where our children and grandchildren can, in security and to their profit, spend the greater part of their childhood and their youth and emerge confident, happy, honest, contributing members of society. That requires both academic rigour, which is something that has for too long been on the back burner, hence the shock when my right honourable friend started talking about standards, and something else that goes beyond it and without which much academic effort will go to waste; that is what we call discipline.
In 1988, just five years ago, when we last had a great upsurge of disorder and violence in classrooms, Kenneth Baker, then the Secretary of State for

1403
Education and Science, asked me to chair an inquiry into discipline in schools. I shall spare your Lordships most of its findings for they were numerous, but some of the things that we found were acutely relevant to what we are discussing today. To begin with, as I reminded your Lordships on Second Reading, we found without question that one can find very good, high achieving schools in depressed inner-city areas suffering every other mark of social deprivation and one can find disorderly, violent, corrupt and otherwise undesirable pupils in schools in wealthy, desirable, high value, leafy suburbs.
What made the difference was what in old-fashioned language we call discipline. But it is not discipline in the sense that we mean it in relation to the Army. It is just as effective and it produces behaviour that is just as suitable for its environment, but the environment is not a fighting regiment; it is the antechamber to adult life. It is possible to run schools in a way that brings out the best in pupils and enables them to shake out the worst from themselves and each other. It produces not only good manners—although, goodness knows, we need those—but the constructive, considerate, creative and honest conduct that a society needs of its members if it is to thrive. It produces them as a natural and habitual feature of their lives. I think that that is sufficiently important to flag it in the first clause of the Bill, which is why I have had the cheek to table the amendment where I have as a marker for the rest of the group.
Bringing order to disorderly classrooms improves academic achievement and—this is acutely important at the moment—makes teaching vastly more enjoyable. It improves job fulfilment and makes teaching a career worth following. In too many schools that is simply not happening, and this golden opportunity to make it happen must not be passed up.
The two amendments which Amendment No. 6 signals are Amendments Nos. 92 and 287. Amendment No. 92 amends Sections 20 and 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. If your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 92, you will see that it addresses those sections of that Act in that order, but the logic of the thing is to look at the second section first—that is, at Section 22. The effect of the amendment may be thought to be narrow but it is effective. Turning first to Section 22, the amendment makes good a gaping hole in that section which requires that,
"The articles of government for every county, voluntary … school shall provide
(a) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to determine measures … to be taken with a view to—
(i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority".
My first substantive effect on that section is to insert the essential words "and for others" because lack of respect for others is at the bottom of a great deal of bullying and disorder.
I do not think that it is necessary to spell out in detail how this group of amendments would work, especially as the Committee is anxious to get on, save to say that, first, it ensures that the process of evolving a policy to control—I think that "control" is the right word—the behaviour of all pupils in a school involves
1404
all those in the school, including not only academic staff but non-academic staff, and certainly including the parents. What is the good of inculcating certain standards of behaviour, honesty and diligence in a child if the parents are arguing the contrary every time he goes home? What is the point of inculcating good behaviour and consideration among pupils in class if they are allowed to throw the custard at each other or to call each other filthy names in the dinner break? What is the point of trying to inculcate respect for each other in the classroom and assembly if pupils are allowed to get each other into corners and to bully others either physically or psychologically when they are not in class? All these things hang together. What is the use of instilling into children courtesy, good manners, respect and patience and then having the staff bawling their heads off at them and losing their tempers? There must be mutual respect among all people in a school.
All that sounds rather airy fairy and as if it is a marvellous idea that will not work, but I must advise the Committee that it has worked and is working. I was fortunate enough to be asked to write the foreword to a book from a schools adviser (which I did yesterday) reporting the extremely efficient way in which this approach has turned round schools in difficulty, making them a pleasure to teach in and to attend as pupils. The policy has to be generated by all the people involved. The pupils then regard it as theirs. Instead of wondering how to score a point by writing something naughty with a spray can behind the bicycle sheds, they are out to stop people messing up their beautiful school. That makes a complete difference.
The second object of this group of amendments is to ensure that this information is published along with the other information which Section 20 of the Act requires to be published for the benefit of parents when they want to know how a school is run. The provisions also require all information of that sort to be made available to people who may wish to consider putting their children down as registered pupils at that school because such information is something on which that choice should be based.
My final amendment seeks to introduce that requirement into the later 1992 Act. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch who is assisting me with her notes. This will enable me to give her answer, but I cannot yet see whether it reads "Resist". I sincerely hope not. In fact, it is the 1986 Act. I am most grateful to my noble friend and hope that she will not resist my amendment. I am glad that I have not seen that word there.
I do not say that this is necessarily the right way to achieve this end. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has another way in Amendment No. 73 to which I have to refer because it is an alternative. As time is pressing I shall not go through it line by line, but the difference is that it is very specific in what it requires to be done. I believe that one must leave the detail to the people involved for two reasons. The first is that they must not think that they are operating in a straitjacket, and the other is that they must not think that they can

1405
constantly go to court with a case. I am very much against children and parents becoming involved in unnecessary litigation.
If my amendments commend themselves to the Committee, I hope that your Lordships will say so however briefly. If they commend themselves to the Minister, I shall be absolutely delighted. I shall, of course, speak again briefly, but I must say now that the little subsection which inserts the words "and for others" is directly relevant to bullying and it answers the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, much more neatly. Whatever the Minister's view of the rest of my amendments, those words should be inserted into the Bill. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment and particularly the spirit of Amendment No. 6 very strongly. In the past few weeks we have all suffered from seeing the very frightening events that have involved violence among young people and children in this country. The lesson for us is that academic and practical considerations in our schools are not enough; we must address also the moral, ethical and spiritual aspects. It is right that my noble friend should aim to spell out the fact that the Secretary of State's duties should include that aspect as well as the others which are already in the Bill.
My experience of many hundreds of schools in my day as an HMI has shown me clearly that it can be done, as my noble friend said, even in the most unlikely and most depressing of circumstances. Schools manage to achieve a remarkable degree of personal dignity, commitment and caring among children. It is something which in old-fashioned days we called ethos. I believe that it is still the most important thing that a school provides.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look upon the amendment favourably. I do not recall—she will no doubt know—whether previous legislation has dealt specifically with behaviour, but whether it has or has not, it seems to be an increasingly important element in our schools and it would be helpful if the Bill could deal with it. I am thinking in particular of two aspects: rowdiness, including rowdiness which sometimes intimidates teachers. One matter on which I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the teachers' unions is the way that their members are sometimes treated in schools—the violence used against them; the other is the bullying of other pupils.
There is no doubt that there is a great deal of unpleasant bullying in our schools. Here again, although I do not suggest for a moment that the Bill would eliminate it, an indication that this House and another place were interested in that matter, and an indication to the Secretary of State that he should have in mind the problems to which this gives rise and should do what he can to help, might assist. Therefore
1406
I hope that my noble friend the Minister, who has been so helpful throughout the afternoon, will be helpful over this.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I do not regard all the suggestions contained in the report to which we have referred as airy fairy. I wish that I had been to a school where such codes of practice had been adopted. We on this side of the Committee agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the whole school policy is essential to underpin teacher/pupil relationships. We pay tribute to the noble Lord's report on discipline in schools which recognises how important such a contract is between staff and pupils. We believe that if schools have agreed well-known policies on exclusions and discipline which are applied consistently and fairly, pupils are much less likely to be excluded and the school's atmosphere is much more likely to improve.
It is especially important to have a whole school policy at a time when many feel that some children are suffering from deteriorating home circumstances. There is a benefit to the schools if their rights are properly respected. I do not wish to detain the Committee on this matter for too long as I have tabled my own amendments which will be dealt with later.
Lord Addington: If we are to start publishing information about schools, it is appropriate that we publish information about behavioural standards. As has been pointed out by everyone who has spoken in the debate, the quality of teaching in the classroom probably depends upon whether the children are listening and not throwing things at one another and at the teacher, to put it bluntly. An amendment along these lines is appropriate, and one hopes that the Government will see fit to include it so that we receive a little more information and are not buried under so many bare tables.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important point. I too echo the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that my noble friend's report does not gather dust or find itself under tables not being taken notice of.
Pupil behaviour has long been one of the key measures by which the success of a school is determined. The report of the committee of inquiry which my noble friend chaired considered the issue in depth, has given valuable advice on the subject and continues to be a central work for all concerned. My noble friend is right: where schools have adopted the recommendations contained in that report they appear to have fewer problems than schools which do not adopt those recommendations.
It is because behaviour is so closely associated with the concept of standards that I agree with many of the points that have been made. Clause 1 is meant to be a general clause. Therefore it is not appropriate to pick out one particular aspect of standards to the exclusion of all others, with the consequent implication that that aspect over all others carries more weight. Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 lays on head teachers the responsibility for maintaining high standards of discipline and behaviour in schools and for regulating the conduct of their pupils. In so doing head teachers must follow any written statement of

1407
general principles provided for them by the governing body or any guidance offered on particular matters and must be regularly inspected on, among other things, that aspect of a child's education.
Having given that responsibility to head teachers, we look to them to exercise it sensibly, taking into account the welfare of pupils, both as a community and as individuals, and the individual and particular circumstances of the school. It may however be appropriate to offer further guidance for head teachers on matters of discipline and behaviour. The need for such guidance is one of the questions raised in the discussion paper on exclusions issued by the Department for Education in November to which more than 200 positive and constructive responses have been received.
There seems to be a consensus that such guidance would be helpful. That is one of the issues that we shall be taking forward, alongside action on education otherwise, upon which we shall be tabling amendments and upon which I have no doubt we shall have a good deal more debate.
As I said, but it is worth re-emphasising, as part of its new duties the school inspectorate will be looking at the quality of the school as a community in a variety of contexts, including behaviour and discipline. An important part of that exercise will entail talking to pupils as well as staff and seeking their views on matters such as, for example, the incidence of bullying and the school's response to it.
A number of Members of the Committee have mentioned bullying, not just in the Chamber but informally before we discussed the Bill. Schools can be under no illusion as to the importance Ministers attached to that issue. Last July we issued practical guidance to all schools in the form of the "Action against Bullying" pack, developed by the Scottish Council for Research in Education. In addition, to impress upon schools the importance we attach to the eradication of bullying, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary wrote to chairmen of governors to emphasise the need for firm action.
Further guidance will be issued to schools when the Department for Education-funded research project currently under way at Sheffield university completes its work. Again, the new inspection teams appointed under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will also be paying attention to school discipline, including measures taken to combat bullying.
As a matter of detail, Amendment No. 92 refers to Section 20 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, as my noble friend pointed out. That Act has already been repealed by the Education Reform Act, and it would not be appropriate to provide for consultations with parent governors separately from the governing body as a whole, which is, after all, a body with collective responsibility. They have no separate legal status and any such consultation could be divisive. I hope that I have conveyed to the Committee that this debate is important. We are talking about means to ends. We shall attend to all the concerns of my noble friends and of others who have spoken, but we shall do so by means of guidance.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for the concern that she has shown for the issues we have addressed and her recognition of our depth of feeling about what is an important matter.
I apologise to the Committee for amending a non-existent statute. That happens to us all. I suppose that it arises from the speed of legislation through this place. One cannot be watching all the time. That said, I am a little worried—I shall read what my noble friend has said with great care—because it is not clear to me from where the guidelines about which she is speaking come—perhaps she will tell me before I conclude—or what authority they will have. It would be nice to know that. Indeed, my noble friend has promised the department's response to the consultation on exclusions for which I have been asking for some time and which is relevant at this point because she says that the guidance on whole school behaviour policies will be linked to guidance on exclusions. That is of more basis to Amendment No. 73 and the amendments grouped with it.
Before I decide to take the matter away and consider it, perhaps my noble friend would help the Committee by saying what the guidelines will be, who they will be from and what authority they will have.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The guidance will be drawn up by my department but will be on the back of serious research which is now being carried out. I cannot be precise about timing. As my noble friend knows, I have informally said that the information on exclusions will be made available. As regards sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Section 22 of the 1986 Act and the insertion after "authority" of "and for others", the point is to have respect for others as well as authority—
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend kindly repeat the reference because I am a little slow?
Baroness Blatch: Of course. It was sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of Section 22 of the 1986 Act after "authority" insert "and for others". The point is to have respect for others as well as authority. I have some sympathy with the point which my noble friend makes. I ask him to allow me to take the matter away for consideration.
As regards guidance and its status, I have said a number of times in this Chamber that there is a difference between guidelines and guidance. Guidance is the stronger of the two. Local authorities, or those charged with having to have regard to guidance, must also have regard to guidelines in formulating their policies.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend. I have only one further question. Since the information about the Government's response to the consultation on exclusions will be given in good time for the discussion, and since that discussion arises at the latest in respect of Clause 73, will we be able to discuss the matter in the dinner hour?
Baroness Blatch: I will discuss anything in the dinner hour. I am not sure that I can be absolutely specific this evening but I shall be as specific as I am able in the light of the knowledge that I have.
Lord Elton: I gather that we shall not have the published response but I am grateful that my noble friend has gone as far as she has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("() He shall promote the efficiency of education of the people of England and Wales by making appropriate arrangements for the extension of the functions of the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service to cover the audit and overall management functions of all bodies responsible for such education.").
The noble Lord said: The two amendments in the group are tabled in my name. The first, Amendment No. 9, is extremely unfashionable in that it is short, it says what it means and it means what it says. The second, Amendment No. 292, is much more fashionable and therefore might commend itself to the Government. It is far more opaque and refers to at least three Acts of Parliament, which puts it well into the modern style. Whether the Government like the drafting of either amendment is unimportant. I hope, however, that they will accept the spirit of them, in which case I shall gladly withdraw both versions.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to help the Government and to encourage them along the path of self-preservation. In other words, it seeks to make use of the Audit Commission, which has had and continues to have an important and useful role in the affairs of local authorities and in the National Health Service. It is most important that there should be an independent organisation which is capable of monitoring the progress of an important new initiative. It is a controversial and imaginative initiative and one which I welcome. The Government would be extremely well advised to have available to themselves an overall view from an independent source not only of the way in which the money is spent but also of the quality of the produce which comes out at the other end.
The advantages which the Audit Commission could convey would be twofold. It would be able to look at both the cost and the quality and, most importantly, it would be able to take an overall look at the whole scene. It could sum up the experience which resulted from the introduction of grant-aided schools. It could see where performance had come up to expectations and where it had failed. It would be able to make the useful comparisons which, so far as I can see, no other body would be able to make.
I was disappointed that neither the FEFC nor the HEFC have seen fit to consult the Audit Commission, apparently preferring to let schools appoint their own local auditors. That makes me fearful that, in the event, schools could well appoint local auditors who not only would have no knowledge of what was happening elsewhere but in certain circumstances might not measure up to the required standards. We
1410
must all fear that where there is perhaps the most need for probing the inquiry will be less stringent than it should be.
We must recall that a huge sum of money is involved; I am advised that it is some £50 billion of government money. If that is so, surely it is right that there should be available the type of overall comprehensive monitoring system which the Audit Commission could provide. I should expect the Government to welcome the amendment without question. I still have hopes that they will do so. I am no great admirer of the Treasury but that is an eccentricity of my own—
Baroness Faithfull: And of others!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am glad that my noble friend shares my view. I should have thought that the amendment would have caused the Treasury to leap for joy. I welcome the opportunity of affording it that pleasure.
I am also concerned with the most generous intentions to do well by the accounting officer. I cannot but believe that the accounting officer at the department will sleep much better at night if he were conscious of the fact that, without needing special intervention from him, there is available an overall look at the situation, which the amendments can provide.
The Government's regard for the Audit Commission has been well demonstrated. They have welcomed its intervention in the affairs of local authorities and its work in the National Health Service. In this very Bill the commission's advice as to special need schools has been taken and incorporated in the Bill. For the life of me I cannot see why in those circumstances the Government should not jump at the opportunity of having available just the type of organisation which they need to carry out an effective survey of this very important and expensive new initiative.
I hope that it will be engraved on the minds of my noble friend and her advisers that the aim of the amendment is to secure an overall view of both the spending of money and the quality of the product and to make available the sum of the experience over the country as a whole from which useful comparisons can be made.
It should not be necessary to expand on the need for the amendment. I hope that I have not done so unduly. However, in the light of common sense, I cannot begin to persuade myself that the Government will do other than accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support the amendment. It would be extremely useful to have an independent view of what is going on in what will be a quite new situation. The Audit Commission has won the respect of many people. Its reports have been extremely valuable. Of course, if there is a link between the Audit Commission, the local authorities and the National Health Service, that will be particularly valuable in relation to any special needs provision. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that my noble friend Lord Peyton has been converted into being a Treasury enthusiast. As an old Treasury hand, I welcome his conversion, however late in the day it appears to have come.
As regards the amendment, he seems to have put forward a very important idea. Given the enormous expenditure on the education service, efficient auditing is obviously of substantial importance. The development of the grant-aided system, which I welcome, makes it increasingly important that schools' accounts should be audited not by local amateurs but by professionals of high standing.
As I understand the present position, there is no restriction on how the audit is to be carried out. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee either that she accepts the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Peyton or that she has good alternatives to offer.
Lord Dainton: I support the amendment. My mind goes back some 27 years to the time when I was set up—in the best sense of that term —by the CVCP to oppose the intrusion of the then Comptroller and Auditor General into the books of the universities. I did that. I did my job, as it was then; namely, to do what the committee told me to do. However, the Government decided to the contrary.
I am bound to say that my experience as a vice-chancellor reversed my original view. I found the Comptroller and Auditor General's people extremely helpful in the management of the affairs of the particular university for which I was responsible. Its expertise was invaluable to me and to the bursar of that university. I can see every advantage in the involvement of the Audit Commission. Before any report is made, it will always invite the institution to take note of what it can do for itself. I have no fear of what is involved in the amendment. I support it and I hope that it will be considered favourably. If it is thought to be too large a task, because I can see that a large number of institutions would need to be covered, perhaps an alternative but equally effective arrangement could be adopted.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the Committee that I was not in my place when this very important amendment was moved by my noble friend. It is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. Apart from that, we have been discussing Clause 1(1). This amendment is in implementation of that. As it stands at present, it is skeletal. There was previous discussion as to how the general duty should be clarified. Here is an important means of clarification.
I ask the Minister to consider whether the general duty under Clause 1(1) should not be the subject matter of a new and separate clause and that Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(3) which we have discussed—that is, regulation of the provision made in schools and educational institutions—should not be the subject matter of a new Clause 2. That would avoid the dilemma of the exclusion clause which we had to
1412
consider previously. That is only an idea that I have had. Apart from that, the essence of the amendment is well founded and I hope that it commends itself to the Committee.
Baroness Brigstocke: What appeals to me is that the amendment offers an opportunity for disinterested, fair and apolitical assessment because the Audit Commission is not political and it has the experience of management which, alas, is not always available to all of our local education authorities and schools. Also, the Audit Commission has established and proven organisational ability to help those LEAs and schools which so badly need it.
Lord Peston: I support the amendment. I hope that we all agree that, in the best sense of the term, there is nothing at all party political in this matter. It is a question of good and efficient government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, made clear.
Indeed, in many ways the puzzle is that this provision is not already contained in the Bill. What would be more usual would be for the provision to be in the Bill and questions then asked as to why it is in the Bill. I find it extremely strange that it is not in the Bill as it stands.
Perhaps I may emphasise the non-political nature of my contribution. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I am not very keen on grant-maintained schools. I obviously want them to be a success because I want schools to be successful but it is not an initiative that I have supported or will support. However, in so far as the schools exist and that we may have more of them—and certainly in so far as taxpayers' money is involved—I want them to proceed efficiently and in particular I want them to give value for money. I believe that that is what underlies the amendment.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. When the Audit Commission was founded I had grave doubts about it. Since then I have become an avid reader of its reports which, on the whole, are quite brilliant and which themselves give enormous value for money to the Government and to the institutions at which they look.
Therefore, on this amendment we are discussing the correct use of public sector money and the correct use of resources with the possibility that the outcome will be a rather improved system of education, which is what we all wish to achieve.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seems to remember the initials of the various bodies rather better than I do. However, what I particularly like about the amendment is what he thought others might dislike; namely, that the amendment—and it is almost the first that I have come across today—is extremely straightforward and I can understand every word in it.
I should like to persuade the noble Baroness first to accept the amendment; and, secondly, not to say that she will go away and redraft it. I would much rather have the amendment as it is and allow the Audit Commission to do what is proposed. I conclude simply by saying that the proposal has already

1413
received support from all sides of the Committee and I hope that it is something that the noble Baroness can accept.
Lord Adrian: I am not quite certain how the amendment would be applied and, more particularly, the limits of its application. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it relates to Clause 1(1) which states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
In its final line, the amendment refers to the,
"management functions of all bodies responsible for such education".
I can perfectly well see that the Audit Commission may have a very useful and proper purpose in dealing with institutions which receive taxpayers' money, but I am not quite certain whether it could be interpreted as extending to other institutions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: As the mover the amendment, I should point out that its purpose is to look after the innovations—the new initiatives—of grant-aided schools. It is not aimed at anyone else. If my noble friend on the Front Bench has that fear in her mind, then I would be more than happy for her to take the matter away and to put forward something else which would narrow the impact of the Audit Commission to what was intended by me when I moved the amendment.
Lord Adrian: If I may say so, that illustrates the difficulty with the wording of Clause 1(1) which we have already discussed at some length. It seems to me to cast a very wide net and the use of those phrases in the amendment seem to cast the net much wider than appears to be the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Baroness Blatch: I have absolutely no difficulty either with the spirit of the amendment or the principles that underlie it. I share my noble friend's determination—and indeed that of other Members of the Committee—to make our education system as efficient and effective as possible. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I, I think almost alone in local government, welcomed the Audit Commission when it was first established. I saw that it would become the friend of local government and not the enemy. For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, I must say that I too have great admiration for the Commission; and indeed, its reports have borne out the worth of its work.
As its Explanatory and Financial Memorandum points out, the Bill contains a series of measures designed to improve efficiency and effectiveness, not the least important of which are the new arrangements to tackle the difficult issue of surplus places. Our policy of delegating an increasing proportion of resources down to school level, whether under Local Management of Schools or grant-maintained status, will act as a spur to improving efficiency.
Where bodies are in receipt of Exchequer grants—that includes the funding authorities to be established under the Bill—they will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the
1414
Comptroller and Auditor General, who is of course accountable to Parliament. Grant-maintained schools are required, under the financial memoranda, to open their books to the National Audit Office for inspection or value-for-money studies, and the governing body must secure that the National Audit Office's officials are given reasonable assistance. I therefore cannot see the need to double bank.
However, the governing body can commission a value-for-money study from the Audit Commission if it so wishes, as indeed it can from other suitable professional advisers. It may be of interest to my noble friend to know that the National Audit Office in fact published on 2nd April of this year its first value-for-money report on grant-maintained schools. That is at present before the Public Accounts Committee and I cannot at this stage comment further upon it. As Members of the Committee will know, the procedure is that it has to complete its passage through the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and all evidence has to be taken before I can say any more. The very point that my noble friend is making is being carried out, but by a different body.
In addition to that, under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Audit Commission is empowered to undertake scrutinies for the Further Education Funding Council. Under the terms of Clause 8 of the Bill, it will be able to undertake studies for the funding authorities. Accountability for economy, efficiency and effectiveness are very important and we are confident that the National Audit Office will fulfil that role.
I should perhaps also make clear one other point regarding the incorporation, under Clause 225 of the Bill, of local authority maintained school governing bodies, which is referred to in my noble friend's new clause. Incorporation of governing bodies of local authority maintained schools does not alter the relationship between the local education authority and the school. In particular, expenditure under the local management schemes will continue to be expenditure of the authority and so fall within the ambit of the Audit Commission.
As regards the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I believe that he has a point. If any of the proposed amendments were in fact to bite on Clause 1(1), which as we now know is under discussion—but Members of the Committee will know that I am trying to hang on to Clause 1(1) in the Bill—I must point out that Clause 1(1) does in fact subsume higher education and therefore it must be properly clarified. However, I think that I have said enough to all Members of the Committee to assure them that the particular worry that they have is fully covered by the system as it operates at present.
Earl Russell: I am not certain that the noble Baroness has entirely answered the force of the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He argued that the Audit Commission is capable of judging both the cost and, as he put it, the quality of what comes out the other end. We need opinions on both those issues. The noble Baroness said that it was the purpose of the Bill to increase "efficiency and effectiveness". It is of course possible that some of us

1415
may think that those ambitions might on occasion be in conflict. It is also possible that we may be wrong in saying so, in which case I think that the Audit Commission is the only body which could authoritatively tell us so. That could be useful to the Government.
Baroness Blatch: I do not think that I entirely missed my noble friend's point. Two issues arise out of the noble Earl's intervention. First, the books of every grant-maintained school are audited by a properly approved auditor every year. That is a requirement under the law. Secondly, I said that value-for-money studies—that is, comparing how grant-maintained schools operate, how they fund their provision and indeed whether that is producing value for money and comparability across the grant-maintained sector —is carried out by the National Audit Office. It seems to me that the debate is whether the Committee believes that the National Audit Office or the Audit Commission is the right body and not whether the concerns expressed by noble Lords are covered in principle.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like very much to thank my noble friend for her response but I do not think that I can do so wholeheartedly; indeed, it would be a very lame form of thanks that came out if one did so at all. I must dispose of the question of drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, quite fairly raised the point that, because of the drafting of the rest of Clause 1, this particular amendment—or the amendment and the proposed new clause—might have an impact which I did not intend. In that case there would surely be no difficulty because I would be very happy to withdraw the amendment and either produce another one at a later stage or allow the Government to do so. I am sure that they could. It would probably be longer than any of mine and much more difficult to understand, but that would be quite acceptable so long as it achieved the desired end. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I am certainly not sticking to that point.
I turn now to my noble friend. She appeared to welcome what she called "the spirit of the amendment". I do not know whether amendments ordinarily have spirits, but nevertheless she welcomed its spirit. She also detected some underlying thought, which was extremely gratifying to me, and that too she found acceptable. After having heard that the spirit of the amendment and the underlying thought were welcomed, agreed to and accepted, had I been at all new to politics, I should have thought that the door was open. However, I waited, as one always has to, for the word "but" to be spoken, and of course it was.
I welcome my noble friend's agreement that the Audit Commission has performed extremely well and that it has been a friend and not an enemy of local government. I welcome her agreement that the Audit Commission has performed well with regard to the health service. However, she then dragged in by the heels the body called the National Audit Office. I am sure that that body is full of worthy people, but is my noble friend absolutely satisfied that it could perform every bit as well as the Audit Commission in surveying
1416
the performance and the expenditure of this new initiative of grant-aided schools? My noble friend must first satisfy herself and then the Committee on that point. I very much doubt whether she can do so.
Is the National Audit Office able to appoint, brief and instruct local auditors? I rather wonder whether it could. As I understand it, the Audit Commission can do so and does do so. I have a little question I wish to ask my noble friend. As she is confident about the performance of the National Audit Office—I am sure she favours competition, as I do—why can the National Audit Office not examine part of the health service, for example, to see whether it performs as well as the Audit Commission? I may be quite wrong and I am accustomed to being wrong from time to time, but I believe that if the idea of placing the responsibility for examining all or any part of the National Health Service on the National Audit Office was once adumbrated, the personnel of the National Audit Office would, if they were well advised, take to their heels and run. They would not wish to compete in any way with the Audit Commission.
I feel very unhappy about what my noble friend has said. She has said that the matters I think should be dealt with by the Audit Commission could be carried out equally well by a different body. That is what I very much doubt. I am not prepared simply to withdraw the amendment until she has satisfied me that she has already considered this matter and has satisfied herself that the National Audit Office could in every respect perform as well and as thoroughly as the Audit Commission. If she has not already been able to satisfy herself beyond doubt on that matter—I mean that —I hope she will undertake to return at a later stage of the Bill and either introduce another amendment of her own or allow me to do the same. If she will not undertake to do that at this stage, I am afraid I shall have no alternative but to take the opinion of the Committee.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I can give all the assurances that my noble friend asked for. We must deal with what is before us today; that is the matter of superimposing something on a system that is already in place. The National Audit Office already covers the areas of concern that my noble friend has; that is, probity and the value for money delivery of services. There are Members of the Committee who know a great deal more about this matter than I do. However, I believe there are departments in Whitehall and other bodies that experience some fear at the thought of being visited by the National Audit Office. That office can invite itself into a department. The value-for-money audit on the grant-maintained sector was not invited by that sector. The National Audit Office decided to examine that sector to establish whether it was producing an efficient and effective service. That report is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. What we have to decide here is whether those arrangements are adequate or whether the Committee takes the view that they should be replaced by the provisions in the

1417
proposed amendments. I believe that that would constitute double banking which would produce extremely bad value for money.
Lord Peston: I do not wish to prolong this debate. However, if the Minister takes this matter away and seeks advice on it, I believe she will probably convince herself that this is not work for the National Audit Office. We are discussing the auditing of individual schools. Unless I misunderstand what the National Audit Office does, I do not think this is appropriate work for it. We do not need to discuss this matter across the Dispatch Box at this moment, but I believe the Minister should obtain further advice on this matter before rejecting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to prolong this discussion. My noble friend is in grave danger of addressing the Committee rather as if we were at school. It is as if she was saying, "You have no alternative but to eat the dinner that is in front of you. You cannot have another one". I am saying that this particular meal is not appropriate.
I do not believe that my noble friend answered my question. I am asking her to say that she will take this matter away and satisfy herself that the National Audit Office is really able to carry out this work as well as or better than the Audit Commission. If she can satisfy herself on that point and then satisfy this Chamber, that is my last word on the matter. However, I do not believe that she will do that. I am strengthened in that view by what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just said. I hope my noble friend will answer precisely the question that I asked her. Will she please take this matter away and have another look at it? She will not do herself or the Government any harm by doing so. Will she take another look at the matter in case we are right and the Audit Commission is the right body to carry out this work?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give my noble friend that assurance. The National Audit Office has produced its very first report on value for money in grant-maintained schools. That report is presently before the Public Accounts Committee and is subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. Until that exercise is fully completed I am not in a position to make any judgment about the effectiveness of that system. Therefore it is not for me at this moment to make a judgment about the effectiveness of the National Audit Office which is a reputable body and to my knowledge works well across Whitehall. It is not for me to compare bodies and make a judgment. I must ask the Committee to remember that if these amendments are accepted, they will constitute a double banking system on the grant-maintained sector. I believe that that would not be the most efficient use of resources.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have heard what my noble friend said. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings. After a great many years in politics the thing that annoys me the most is the refusal of any government to entertain the possibility that someone else knows
1418
better than they do. On that basis and for that reason among others I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brigstocke, B.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brookes, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Eatwell, L.

Northfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ennals, L.

Palmer, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Faithfull, B.

Parry, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gregson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Healey, L.

Serota, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hertford, M.

Shannon, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strafford, E.

Huntly, M.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Kennet, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Bolton, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Barber, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beloff, L.

Bridgeman, V.

1419

Butterfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cox, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Craigavon, V.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Prentice, L.

Derwent, L.

Quinton, L.

Donegall, M.

Radnor, E.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Flather, B.

Rennell, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hardwicke, E.

Savile, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harrowby, E.

Selborne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Stewartby, L.

Holderness, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Leigh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Butterfield Lord Butterfield moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("() In fulfilling his duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may by order establish a General Teaching Council for the registration and regulation of the teaching profession.").
The noble Lord said: I am about to ask the Committee to launch itself in a different direction from those we have pursued so far this afternoon. I am aware that it is not the done thing to put down an amendment if one has not attended the Second Reading. I was not present at the Second Reading of
1420
the Bill because I was abroad helping to select young people to come to work in our universities. However, I have read the Second Reading proceedings with great care, and I note that the purpose of the Bill is to build on the Education Act 1944 and that it aims to achieve a broader vision and a better future.
My starting point is that the Bill does not make any reference to the troops. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a point about behaviour and we heard about people throwing things at each other in the classroom. It is important to me that the teachers recognise that we acknowledge that we place an immense burden on them to make our Education Acts work.
I considered the speeches made at Second Reading. I found that a clutch of speakers from various parts of the Chamber had referred to the lack of reference in the Bill to the establishment of a general teaching council. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ritchie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, all made passing reference to that point. I move the amendment in the hope that it will strengthen the Bill and widen its vision and its ability to encourage the teachers in our schools.
One might ask why we do not already have a council for teachers. Doctors, dentists and various other professions have such councils. I have looked briefly into the matter. I shall not produce a learned history, but it seems that teachers were registered from 1899 and that in 1912 there was a Teachers' Registration Council which in 1929 became the Royal Society of Teachers. For reasons which I have not been able to discover but which are no doubt perfectly valid, that voluntary society was not included in the Education Act 1944. It seems that the idea of a council covering the profession of teaching through which teachers could govern themselves lay fallow until 1968 when the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara—whom I am pleased to see in his place—did his best to relaunch the idea. Sir Toby Weaver presently came up with the idea of two councils. But I am not enough of a social or educational historian to know why those councils faltered, but they did.
I understand that about 10 years ago in 1983 the larger teaching associations approached the University Council for the Education of Teachers. They were anxious that the teaching profession was not in a position to control itself as a profession should. By 1988 no less than 17 associations concerned with teaching had subscribed to the idea of the establishment of a general teaching council. By 1991 the number had risen to 30; it is now 35. I shall not weary the Committee by reading out the list of associations and bodies that have joined the membership of what is a limited company, the General Teaching Council. However, I shall place a copy of the list in the Library for anyone who may wish to read it.
I pay an important tribute to Professor Alec Ross of the University of Lancashire. He was much concerned with the University Council for the Education of Teachers. He played an important role in bringing the whole idea together. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is not in his place because I

1421
wished to say to him how much I appreciated his introducing a debate on education on 1st May 1991. In that debate I stated that I believed that most noble Lords would feel that they owed something to their teachers in schools and/or universities, but that surely the time must be approaching when teaching deserves the status of a profession. As a result of my remarks, Professor Tomlinson of the University of Warwick Institute of Education, who is the chairman of the General Teaching Council Limited, and John Sayer, the secretary, contacted me. They have been in touch with me since 1991.
I have made the point—I hope that it will not fall on deaf ears—that I shall be surprised if many noble Lords in this Chamber are not immensely grateful to the people who taught them. I reiterate what I said in 1991: that the least that we can do for those people is to show our appreciation by putting them on a par with the fast growing numbers of professionals in our society.
I made an investigation by telephone last Friday. I hope that the result will please noble Lords. My secretary said, "You will be lucky to find anyone in an office in London on Friday"; but, on the contrary, the councils seemed to be manning their telephones and offices despite the rail strike. I cite the figures. Over 1 million people consider themselves as professionals. That figure represents about 2 per cent. of the professions that I shall name. I was astonished by the number with regard to the General Medical Council. It has over 189,000 members. The General Dental Council has just over 27,000 members. The Law Society has 60,000 members. In addition there are 7,000 barristers. The accountants have no less than 90,000 members associated with their institution. If one totals those figures, the number is 450,000. In addition, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visitors has 640,000 paid up members, if I may so call those important people. If one adds that number to the 450,000 the Committee will understand how I reach the figure of over 1 million.
I have been in close association with the nursing profession during my medical professional life. Perhaps I may follow through the way in which the nurses developed the United Kingdom central council. An Act legitimised the concept in 1979. The council was established and began work in 1982. It was reviewed by new legislation in 1992. There are certain points to be made here. First, it set standards for the training of doctors. It established ethical standards. I was reassured by the registrar over the telephone on Friday that if nurses are struck off the list, in the same way that doctors may be struck off their list, they cannot work inside the framework of the health service or for the private health service. By 1992 the United Kingdom central council was financially self-sufficient. The subscriptions from the members more than met the cost of running the council. Mr. Warwick, the administrator of the United Kingdom central council, emphasised that it was important to make one point clear to the Committee. There was anxiety about what would happen when the 60 people
1422
on the main council were brought together in 1982. Forty members are now elected from the nursing profession and 20 are appointed through the Privy Council but when those members have the full responsibility of sitting on the council they put the public interest ahead of petty, personal or political interests. That is an important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has been leading his inquiry about medical ethics. He cannot be with us at present. However, he has empowered me to say that that is the position with regard to the General Medical Council. People may be extraordinarily rabid radicals of all kinds and shades but when considering the agenda for the General Medical Council they put the public interest above their personal interest. I shall return to that issue in a moment; it is important. The General Teaching Council has set out its objectives in a document which it published some years ago. I have considered it as, I am sure, have other noble Lords. I am happy to subscribe to those objectives.
Members of the Committee will note that the amendment in my name states:
"In fulfilling his duty under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may by order establish a General Teaching Council".
When I returned from my overseas duties in selecting the people to come to our universities, I discovered that there had been a move towards the provision that the Secretary of State "will" establish. I wish to explain why I propose that the Secretary of State "may" establish. The word "may" implies that there will be an interregnum. During that interregnum much good may be achieved in establishing the reputation of teachers as a learned profession.
On 1st May 1991 I stated that my sister-in-law—she is the prime teacher in my family unit—subscribed to the idea of the GTC. I proudly sent her a copy of Hansard. She telephoned and invited me to lunch. She said, "Yes, I support the GTC idea generally but not as strongly as might be concluded from your words". My sister-in-law expressed the general anxiety that the teaching unions and the more revolutionary, rabid, radical members of the profession may get onto the General Teaching Council and make it a difficult body to deal with.
I went to see the Secretary of State for Education, John Patten, to take up the matter with him. He said, "I think you should know that my officials and I were a little worried. We see many new organisations coming forward in teaching and it may be more difficult for me to deal with a general teaching council than with more academic bodies". I can see that, and that the Secretary of State for Health would probably find it fairly easy to deal with the Royal College of Physicians and all the other bodies rather than perhaps a belligerent General Medical Council.
It has been my experience with belligerent students at the University of Nottingham—and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is here and I hope he will agree—that when students went on to the senate, which was about 100 strong at the University of Nottingham, they quickly dropped their radical approaches. At first they suggested, "the University must pay our rents", and this, that and the other. They used to come to my

1423
office to see me and say, "We can't find where the power lies in this university". I used to say, "It lies everywhere. You have to convey your ideas and win your points in the senate by the power of your arguments". I told my sister-in-law that I believed that if there were worries about the National Union of Teachers or other bodies taking control, the same thing would happen because they will face a council of 70 people.
To wind up, I personally believe and hope to woo the Committee over to the idea that our teachers deserve early professional status. The absence of that from the Bill is a deficiency. I moved the idea that the Secretary of State "may" propose one so that it is not born of confrontation. It seems to me that I should do so in deference to people like Tomlinson and Sayer who have spent so much time on the council, nurturing it over the years and to the approximately 30 organisations which have subscribed to supporting it and to the teachers in the 23,000 schools. I understand that there are about 360,000 teachers. Bearing in mind the success of the developments with the nursing profession, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can agree to take the amendment away and think about it.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know the extent to which the changing situation in schools in England and Wales will affect the issue. I am not close enough to it to be able to picture whether the desirability of a general teaching council is growing. I suspect it may because of the changing situation. I do not know what the attitude is to it of my noble friend on the Front Benches.
As the Committee may know, there has been a General Teaching Council for Scotland since 1965. All school teachers have to belong by definition, they have to be members of the council. Further education teachers in Scotland may belong, but do not have to, it is optional. The General Teaching Council for Scotland approves the teaching qualifications of school teachers. It can withdraw the teaching certificate of teachers in Scotland. I understand that it also approves any of the top-up requirements that there now have to be when teachers from other parts of the European Community move to Scotland to teach. I am not sure whether that also applies to teachers from England. I know that the Scottish attitude to English teachers has had to change because of the European Community. That is one of the useful things that have happened as a result of the Community.
In Scotland, the General Teaching Council means that teachers have a sense of controlling their own profession. To control one's profession is a definition of the profession. It is the sense of control that, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, makes doctors, accountants, and lawyers have a strong sense of belonging to a profession. The council does that.
I do not know the extent to which teachers in Scotland feel more professional than those in England. I am not in a position to make that comparison. But it is an idea which is worthy of
1424
consideration, particularly because of the changing situation in schools with which the whole Bill is concerned. I hope that the Committee and the Minister will not totally disregard the idea.
Lord Dainton: In her summing up of the Second Reading debate the Minister said that we must return to the subject of a general teaching council. Amendment No. 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, has just spoken, does just that. The purpose of the amendment standing in his name, mine and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, takes the form of an additional sentence at the end of Clause 1(3). It is to enable, not to instruct, the Secretary of State for Education to establish, at his discretion and when he sees fit,
"a General Teaching Council for the registration and regulation of the teaching profession".
The case for a general teaching council has already been made eloquently by my noble friend Lord Butterfield but I wish to go back to two simple truths. First, it is clearly the duty of the Secretary of State for Education of the elected Government to,
"promote the education of the people".
As we have heard many times today, those are the very words in the opening sentence of the Bill. The Government can do much towards setting the scene for a good school education; as for example, in laying down the elements of a national curriculum in schools, in monitoring the way in which that curriculum is delivered and is matched to the needs of individual pupils, and also, of course, in monitoring the outcome through pupil assessment. There are many other kindred matters.
However—and this is important—governments and Secretaries of State do not teach and never will. They are not in the classroom, the playing field, the dramatic society or whatever. Teaching can only be done by teachers. Collectively, they are the only instrument for the implementation of policy. Therefore, their full and enthusiastic commitment to this highly professional task is absolutely necessary if the highest possible quality of school education is to be achieved. Whatever the government of the day, their policies can be implemented.
In the Second Reading debate I was much heartened by the endorsement given by many Peers —from all parties and none —of the views I expressed about the vocational nature of teaching and the enormous influence for good which well trained teachers of high morale can have if they are allowed some measure of autonomy and discretion in their teaching and are encouraged to act as active rather than passive partners with the Government in this singularly important task of achieving and maintaining high quality education for the children of the country. As many Members of the Committee will remember, it is a partnership of which the Prime Minister has spoken and which he stressed with approval.
I firmly believe that the best way to provide high professional standards and thereby achieve a high quality of school education is to establish a body which will guard jealously the standards of entry to the profession, and to register—as we have heard

1425
many other professional bodies do—those judged fit to teach; to refuse to accept unsuitable applicants and if necessary de-register those considered unfit; and advise government and employers about professional developments, retraining, supply of teachers, and so on. Membership of such a teaching council would comprise all those with legitimate interests in education in schools who had contributions to make and who would further the objectives for which the council was set up—by which I do not mean exclusively teachers but those drawn from government, school governors, parents, employers and so on, so that it would be a broad-based body. It would be absolutely essential—I cannot stress this point too much —that the council should be prohibited from any involvement in matters such as pay and conditions of service, curriculum content (except in an oblique way), assessment or funding of institutions, which are properly the province of other bodies set up for the purpose and with which we are all familiar. The concept of a general teaching council which I have outlined has been given flesh in the 44-page report to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred. The noble Lord said that it is not a new notion; indeed, he pointed out that it goes back to the 19th century. Nor is it an untried idea. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, told us that it works well in Scotland and has done so for a quarter of a century. Only a fortnight ago I happened to be in Hong Kong and discovered that it was two years ago that that country established such a council. I did not raise the subject; it was drawn to my attention how well the council was working.
There are many, including teachers, who are concerned with the state of schools in England and Wales and who are firmly convinced of the value of such a general teaching council for England and the principality and of the possibility that such a council would offer to build a new partnership between government and those who teach. Therefore, although it would seem that in the mind of the Government the idea has not yet arrived in its timeliness, I feel confident that the value of such a council and its manifold benefits are such that the date of its coming into being cannot be long delayed. I believe therefore that it would be prudent to provide for that possibility in this wide-ranging and important Bill, which we are told is a landmark Bill for the schools. I am also certain that to do so would send a clear and very encouraging signal to the profession. It would have a revivifying effect on the morale of teachers, would enhance their commitment to their professional duties, so elevating their performance in their daily task, and would contribute to healing the relationship between the teaching profession and government, without which I believe further progress will be difficult.
In recent years the Government have been active in the updating and creation of other professional bodies, as we have heard. Reference has been made to the central council on nursing. No precedent will be created by doing the same for teaching in England and Wales. Indeed, I cannot think of any single decision
1426
which would cost so little and achieve so much in this area of school teaching. I commend this enabling amendment—it is nothing more than that—to the Committee without reservation. I hope especially that those sitting on the Government Benches will treat the matter with the great seriousness which I believe it deserves and give it some consideration. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has made a powerful case—
Noble Lords: The Bishop!
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My name is attached to the amendment, and in speaking to it I should like briefly to endorse what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton. I approach it from a slightly different angle. I sense that many parents, and the public generally, long for some breakthrough which will bring together the teaching profession and those responsible for the management and administration of the education system.
From time to time there has been posturing, politicising, suspicion and antagonism. To build a reliable education system, we need a teaching profession of self-respect and goodwill. As the new pattern of education gives more autonomy to schools —and rightly so—so, I suggest, it should give more autonomy to teachers. Many people ask for a new spirit of working together for the common good of our young people. A general teaching council could be just the start that we need. It could be the new forum for self-respect, responsibility and co-operation.
The education of our young people needs the goodwill, professionalism and dedication of teachers. They are crucial to the realisation of our hopes for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, we all remember our teachers, either because they were imaginative, or because they were inspirational; but more often because they were eccentric. Usually we remember them because we detected their sense of dedication or vocation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, so properly referred. Teachers remain in our adult mind long after we have forgotten what they taught us. If we are to secure the goodwill of teachers we have to give them the opportunity for a degree of self-governance and self-responsibility. I believe that setting up a general teaching council could transform the present atmosphere.
For some time I was hesitant about a general teaching council. I thought there was a risk that it would be too political or that it might be simply a trade union in capital letters. But the proposals from the "shadow" general teaching council now in front of us are carefully honed and have consensus behind them. I even suggest that what has been put before us by that group of people is a modest olive branch, a carefully pruned olive branch rather than one plucked at random from a wild trade union tree. It has to be said that a general teaching council will not of itself solve all the problems that relate to the teaching profession. We must not have unrealistic expectations

1427
as to what it can achieve. Nonetheless, I am bound to say that I think it could be the basis for a breakthrough. I believe that all we need now is the goodwill of the Government. I hope very much that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Glenamara: I warmly support this idea, not only on my own behalf but, I believe, on behalf of a great many of my colleagues. It has long been a goal of the teaching profession that it should have a fair amount of autonomy in professional matters; for example, on ingress to the profession and egress from it. When I was Secretary of State 25 years ago, I found myself taking decisions as to whether or not teachers who had misbehaved should be turned out of the profession. I always felt very much that that should have been a matter for the teachers themselves, not for the Secretary of State. It is a very old idea. The College of Preceptors started it at the beginning of the last century and, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, between the wars there was a body called the Royal Society of Teachers that was entirely voluntary. When the Second World War came, that body ceased recruiting. It had a fair amount of funds, and when I was at the DES I tried hard to track down those funds. I never succeeded; they are there somewhere, washing about Whitehall. So if the Treasury objects to this proposal, as it most certainly will, the noble Baroness could do a bit of detective work, find the funds of the old Royal Society of Teachers and use them for a pump-priming process.
Twenty-five years ago I set up a committee to plan the General Teaching Council—the Weaver Committee. All the teachers' bodies were represented and it produced a report. It was not a good report because it met considerable opposition from DES officials and they saw to it that it would not be an effective body. When the teachers' representatives reported back to their unions, one of the major unions rejected it. So that was the end of that.
My Scottish colleague, Willie Ross, Lord Ross as he became, was much wiser than I. He simply obtained the permission of the Cabinet to establish a General Teaching Council for Scotland. He went ahead and did it and it has operated satisfactorily ever since. Since then there has been a tremendous coming together of teachers' organisations and they have produced a plan for a General Teaching Council which I believe I am right in saying is now embodied in a non-profit-making company. That plan is therefore ready-made.
The proposal would give an enormous boost to a profession whose morale is at an all-time low—I doubt that anybody can deny that. The mass of legislation over the past few years has taken away from our teachers an enormous degree of professional freedom. They cannot decide what to teach; they can hardly decide how to teach. They are constantly being told how to teach. The Government's reforms have imposed that situation upon them and made their work extremely difficult. Can we not now be generous and restore something of their pride in their profession by giving them a fair amount of autonomy in
1428
professional matters? I implore the Minister to look seriously at the proposal to see whether she can accept it.
Lord Renton: The right reverend Prelate and all the Members of the Committee who have spoken have made out a strong case in favour of doing something along the lines of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, following my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, was right to remind us that there has been a General Teaching Council for Scotland for over 45 years. I see no reason why there should not be one for England. I find it rather paradoxical that the teaching profession is the only learned profession in England and Wales which does not have to be registered and regulated.
As has been pointed out by no less a personage than the Regius Professor of Medicine, we have the General Medical Council in England and it works extremely efficiently. It is not a trade union. We have the British Medical Association, which is quite a different matter. If we had something along the lines of the General Medical Council for teachers in England and Wales, I am sure that it would not become a trade union. After all, teachers have the National Union of Teachers and various other bodies to act as pressure groups. Therefore my noble friend Lady Blatch need not fear that.
One could say a good deal more in support of what has already been said, but I wish to he brief. Although I agree with the purpose of the amendment, I cannot agree with the method proposed. First, it is a purely technical point. I do not believe that it is right to make this important separate matter a mere subsection of Clause 1. That is something which can easily he attended to. But we need to consider more than that. Parliament needs to lay down the qualifications that should be required for registration. For example, I should have thought that there should be required a university degree or whatever qualification is produced from the teacher training courses. There may be one or two other achievements which could be considered as qualifications. That should be mentioned in the Bill.
Another point arises. If we are to have regulation, which implies the body becoming a disciplinary body like the General Medical Council, Parliament should lay down the sanctions required for making it so. Merely to give the Secretary of State power to do that by making an order for registration and regulation of the teaching profession is not enough. I agree that it should be an enabling power. But it would need a lot of thought and a lot of working out. As for it becoming a Clause in the Bill, we need more than the amendment contains.
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will not simply turn down the concept. I expect her to say that the amendment cannot be accepted for the reasons I have given. But I hope that she will keep an open mind as to the merits of its purpose.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If my noble friend the Minister finds the amendment acceptable, I ask—taking on board, curiously enough, the point to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred—that

1429
consideration be given to its incorporation in a new Clause 1, to include only Clause 1(1) as it stands, the marginal note for reference being,
"The general duty of the Secretary of State to promote education".
That and any other duties could be included in the new Clause 1. The new Clause 2 should merely include Clause 1(2) and (3) as amended under the marginal note,
"Regulation of schools and institutions of further education".
The separation of the two concepts appears to be growing more and more apparent as we debate certain aspects of the Bill.
Baroness Young: I was interested to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford had to say. When I was Minister for Education I was interested in the whole question of a general teaching council. Most people who have taken an interest in educational matters have taken that view. I can therefore understand why they have decided to table the amendment. However, I should have thought that, generally speaking, it was outside the actual purposes of the Bill which are somewhat narrower.
I recognise all the other points raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. However, we must live in the real world and I detect a somewhat over-optimistic feeling that somehow all the difficulties could be resolved if we had one general teaching council in which all the matters currently affecting the teaching profession could be thrashed out. I should like to believe that. But I believe that the great issues of testing, which are fundamental to the Government's reforms and which I believe above all must be made to work, are hardly likely to be advanced in the present climate.
I accept entirely what was said by the right reverend Prelate regarding teachers, how much they influence people and their dedicated lives. One matter we need to address is the question of accountability. That is something that has been missing from the argument all the way through. I am not absolutely clear how that would work out in a general teaching council.
As for determining the standards and qualifications of teachers, one of the great worries—I regret that it is a worry—is the qualifications for teaching. I do not know whether it was the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, but certainly my husband, when he taught, found that quite a number of his pupils who read chemistry refused to take up teaching because they would be obliged to do a PGCE course which they regarded as a complete waste of a year. One can laugh but it is not very funny. It is very serious. I suspect that that still goes on.
There are a lot of serious issues to be addressed. I would not feel able to support this general amendment today as it stands, although, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, generally speaking I have some sympathy with it. It would need a great deal more explanation and detail given to it if it was to be acceptable to the Committee. I do not know what my
1430
noble friend will say in reply but I believe that it is an enormously large subject in itself and is not suitable to be put in the Bill as it stands.
7 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. It is an enabling amendment. It may well be thought that it is an unfortunate time to bring it forward when there is a fundamental conflict between the teachers and the Government which I certainly do not want to suggest is a minor matter than can be overcome easily. I can see that the present situation may be such that the Government are particularly unwilling to take on trust the professionalism, the good will and the knowledge of the teachers.
When I delivered the Dimbleby Lecture in 1985 I linked the idea of the introduction of a general teaching council to the idea of a great deal more in-school teacher training. That is something to which the Government are committed at the moment, and in my view absolutely rightly. The two concepts hang together. If teachers become more responsible for training the new members of the profession it seems only right that they should also have responsibility for the ethical standards and the commitment of members of the profession. If in the future the new system of training teachers is thoroughly accepted and is shown, as I am sure it will be, to have very important effects, that may well be the time when the Government may think it right to consider again the introduction of a general teaching council. Although the thought of a council may be somewhat peripheral to the Bill, nevertheless it is a chance to put in this enabling amendment so that in the future things may develop from there.
We should not think of the general teaching council as an expression of gratitude, forgiveness or anything else. We should regard it as the way to make teachers take responsibility and be accountable in the way that doctors take responsibility and are accountable because they have within their profession the standards that society expects. I believe that that is the way that we should go forward with the teachers, although I think that it would be very unlikely in the present circumstances for it to happen tomorrow.
Lord Elton: I do not apologise for detaining the Committee a moment longer because this is the principal point at which it is possible in the Committee stage to talk about teachers. It befits us to remember that we are legislating about the people who do the work. We are concerned about our children but we entrust them to the teachers. They are responsible for the future well-being of the entire nation and merely to brush them aside with a quick reference to the possibility of a general teaching council is perhaps discourteous.
I recall that when I told my father that I was going to start teaching he said that he could tell me just two things; the first was that it is the most exhausting profession in the world and the second was that you cannot teach people you do not like. It was a great spiritual exercise to try to increase the number of people I could teach. It is perfectly true that you can

1431
instruct people you do not like; you can drill people you do not like; you can inform people you do not like; but you can only teach people you like. We are talking about a profession which has to care in the real sense of the word. It is a demanding, whole time, exacting, draining job.
As to how its status should be enhanced, that is a difficult and important question. The profession has gone through a very difficult time in the past dozen or so years. At one stage it began to behave less like a profession and more like a trade. I am not apportioning blame in that because it was a complicated issue. The fact is that that experience tarnished the reputation of teachers, particularly with the parents of children who suffered the reduction of their life chances as a result. That ground has to be recovered.
People entrusted by Parliament with such a vital function deserve to be treated like a profession and must be encouraged to behave like one, which is why the idea of a General Teaching Council is an attractive one. I am not at all sure that this is the way to set about it. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that we are here approaching a very large, sensitive and intricate subject. It is important that we should get it right. It should be approached on its own rather than be embedded in the Bill, attractive though the proposal of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is. That would give it distinction but it might not give it the correct form.
I should like to put it on record from someone who was in the ranks of teaching for just 10 years and then left, admiring those I left behind, that they are doing a heroic job. There is a lot that has gone wrong. There is a great deal that will be put right by the legislation now going through the House. But the fact is that we owe them a great debt and they deserve the courtesy of careful consideration of the proposal, although, as I say, I think it should be approached in a different way.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish to mention one brief point. We are talking here about the proposed organisation of what ought to be a profession. The point I want to take up is the one which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He suggested that the registration, qualifications and so on of the teaching profession should be governed by statute. As it happens, I have some sympathy with that view but it is not a necessary condition for the organisation of a profession. The noble Lord must know, as we all know, that the great majority of professions are not regulated by statute. Some are, but most are not.
I recall that in 1980 the committee of inquiry of Sir Monty Finniston into engineering suggested that the engineering profession should be governed by statute. The government were adamant that it should not and that the profession should be self-regulating. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will agree, it is only a week or two ago that the Government announced that they intended to abandon the statutory registration of architects. Whether or not statutory registration is desirable—I happen to lean
1432
towards that view—it is not a necessary condition. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, should think again—if I have understood properly what he said.
Earl Russell: We on these Benches wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I have listened to the very persuasive arguments. I agree that there are many good, dedicated teachers but I also recognise that we live in the real world and not in an ideal world. I have two concerns about the amendment. First, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, drew a parallel with the UKCC for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. I am of that profession. I am proud to be of a profession which puts patients and clients first. The largest professional body, the Royal College of Nursing, adopted a no-strike policy because it would never undertake any political action which would hurt those whom it was professionally destined to serve. Very sadly, over recent years the teaching profession has not adopted that approach. I suffered with my children and friends with children suffered when teachers went on strike over two years. We are dealing in a slightly different politicised context.
In the terms of concept of accountability, my noble friend Lady Young made reference to the fact that at present teachers are in the process of adopting policies of boycotting tests which may severely damage children's educational progress. Therefore I am afraid that we are dealing in a world of realpolitik. One question which must be asked is whether the establishment of another body which would have authority and would speak for the profession might not be of the same kind of leadership. I agree that the principles of professionalism, accountability, self-regulation and peer review are all absolutely crucial aspects of professionalism. Should the teaching profession establish its own general teaching council and were that to prove itself—as I would hope passionately that it would, because there are so many good teachers—to be a truly professional body, then that could achieve recognition. There would be an onus on the profession to show that it can behave professionally along the lines of, say, the nursing profession, treating the interests of children as the primary criterion. Then it might seek statutory recognition, rather than at this stage asking the Government to accept the amendment although it would obviously put great pressure on the Government to move forward in a direction which might be harmful to the interests of children.
Lord Judd: The Committee has to decide whether this is a strategic Bill taking us into the 21st century, or whether it is not. If it is a strategic Bill, it seems inconceivable that we can seriously endorse legislation which totally ignores the valiant contribution being made by the teachers themselves. Everybody who has read this Bill is amazed at the paucity of reference to the teaching profession, what it is contributing and how it can contribute. For that reason, and because we are totally convinced that a strong future must be

1433
built on a responsible partnership with the profession, we on these Benches strongly applaud this amendment and support it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether I may cast a further word of doubt on the wisdom of this amendment. I must confess that I have not had the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, with students who join the senate and immediately become more politically balanced, less aggressive and more helpful to the institution concerned. I have however spent some 10 years on the Council for National Academic Awards, where I have seen academics—I admit, higher education academics, not teachers—very much fighting their own corners in that forum and not at all really supporting the general aim of the council.
I appreciate that this is an enabling amendment. Before giving the amendment a fairer wind, one would have to press the question as to what qualifications really would be required for licensing by the new council. There, I am very sorry to say, I have to have the temerity to take issue with my noble friend Lord Renton—something I thought I would never be able, or indeed ever have, to do—who suggested that the present qualification of a teacher education degree would be a step in the right direction towards such registration.
I have been fairly close to the world of teacher education for 10 years. I am absolutely sure that it is one of the areas which is least helpful to our system of education as it exists today. So, finally, before deciding on the merits of this proposal—
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend allow me? I ask him to bear in mind that, although I mentioned a university degree and a qualification from the teaching training college, I did add that there might be other qualifications. For example, I have in mind the teachers who are specialising in teaching those who are mentally handicapped. They have a special training course of their own. I was not trying to close other people's minds.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am justly rebuked by my noble friend and I appreciate what he says. But the area which I should particularly like to exclude is the modern teacher education degree from our modern teacher education departments in the universities and in what used to be called the polytechnics, and in the colleges where they exist.
As far as I am concerned, before finally deciding on the merit of this proposal, I would have to put a question to the proposers. They have obviously looked into the matter in much greater depth than many of us have been able to do. What percentage of existing teachers would the proposers expect the new teaching council to license ab initio? That would give one some idea of whether this is going to be a rigorous system for giving due credit to the best teachers in our land, whom we all respect, and doing its bit to weed out the worst, who do cause some problems.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I certainly do recognise and share the underlying anxiety to concern ourselves with the professionalism of teachers. Indeed, the Government recognised the professionalism of teachers when they set up the School Teacher Review Body. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I can tell him now, right at the outset of this Bill, that, in discussing the 200 or so clauses of this Bill, we are not ignoring the commitment, professionalism and dedication of teachers. I have said many times, and I will say it once more, that as politicians we can pass legislation until we are blue in the face, but we are entirely dependent on the commitment, professionalism, dedication and hard work of the teachers. I would want to go on recognising that as often as I can.
The Government have no wish to deny teachers the right to regard themselves and to be regarded as professionals, or to organise themselves into a professional body. Indeed, the Secretary of State has recently commented that he is attracted to the notion of a Royal College of Teachers, or even several royal colleges as found in the health service, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. We did in fact have, as has been said, a Royal Society of Teachers for a period of about 20 years until just after the Second World War. We should be quite content to see established a professional body of such a kind which would promote the status and professionalism of teachers and which we could talk to about matters of professional concern—a body whose primary focus would be issues other than pay and conditions. Such a relationship could function very well without being encumbered by a formal statutory role as proposed for a teaching council. But, I must stress that this is something for teachers to take forward themselves. It would not be appropriate for the Government to set up such a professional body.
I refer again to the mention made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, of the royal colleges. It is worth noting that there are a number of royal colleges in the health service; from large bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox, which has nearly 300,000 members, to the Royal College of Pathologists, which has 5,000 members. None of these has a statutory function but each acts as a professional body to promote members' interests. Several see themselves as trade unions as well. Mostly, they represent a single occupational grouping. Some —for example, the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh —only represent that group locally. Royal colleges are still being set up. The Royal College of Anaesthetists was created in 1992.
The colleges represent considerable expertise in the fields in which they operate and are closely involved in education and training. Many have links with similar bodies in other countries. Being able to use the title "Member" or "Fellow" of a royal college is generally held in high esteem. Indeed, I noted the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that I have followed in his tracks and done a bit of detective work to find out where the funds are. I too have drawn a blank. They are not sloshing around in Whitehall. The

1435
Royal Society of Teachers, not being a government sponsored nor a statutory body, was therefore a private body set up between and among professionals. It would be very helpful to find out what happened, because, so far as we know, we believe that it probably exists legally in a trust form.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton said that he was less concerned about trade union involvement in such a body. However, I must say to him that as regards the Professor Tomlinson organisation which has been set up, all the trade unions are subscribing as unions, not as individual professional teachers. As I have said, we believe that it must be for teachers themselves to address the benefit of a non-statutory professional body concerned with the status of the profession and matters of professional conduct. That would be somewhat different from what the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Dainton, propose in their amendment to empower the Government to establish a general teaching council at some future date should they so wish.
The difference between us, therefore, is the distinction between a non-statutory professional body as opposed to a statutory professional body. That a body should be established to enhance the status and professionalism of teachers is not in question and is not a point of difference between us.
Given what I have said already and the fact that we have said that we stick by the advice and evidence that we gave to the Select Committee—it was Ministers who gave that advice, as well as officials—it would be dishonest of me to take a statutory power in this Bill which we have no intention of using. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Butterfield: I thank the Minister for her remarks. I am absolutely convinced in my own mind (and I believe that many Members of the Committee are in agreement with the idea) that somewhere along the line we must somehow find a body or bodies—statutory or non-statutory—to which the teaching profession, or fragments of it, can turn and of which they can be proud to be members or fellows.
I was impressed by the fact that the Secretary of State looked in on us to see whether we were behaving ourselves and not spending any money. When I saw him previously, it was made quite clear to me that action by the profession itself was his preferred solution. I should like to pay a tribute to him and to the noble Baroness for saying that they would like to have a debate about that on the Floor of this House without further ado. That is really the opportunity of which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and I took advantage. I hope that somewhere along the lines, when the dust has settled, we shall be able to return to this point. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, may bring back this issue towards the end of Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rise to speak briefly on a matter which is different from those raised earlier in relation to the amendments. Clause 1 sets out clearly important responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Education in England and Wales. In 11 lines, Clause 1 mentions England and Wales four times. I am glad that that is stated because the Bill applies only to England and Wales. However, I have to tell the Committee that that is not widely enough known outside Parliament. Since the Bill was introduced I have been inundated with papers containing views and representations from organisations and members of the public who are under the impression that the Bill also applies to Scotland. At times my desk at home in Scotland has been covered with correspondence, much of it originating from within Scotland. In reply, I have been indicating, to the best of my ability, that their schools and their children in Scotland are not involved with this Bill.
I hope that my intervention now will help to clarify the situation. As the media have not tumbled to the separation of systems and functions, organisations and the public can be excused their misunderstandings. A principal cause of the confusion is the term "national curriculum" which has no application in Scotland. Perhaps it would have been clearer if that had been called the "curriculum for England and Wales" instead of using the word "national". In Scotland there is a Scottish curriculum. I feel obliged to point that out because, in all modesty, 20 years ago I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, made the first moves which led to the present Scottish curriculum.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way to me. I am trying to be helpful to him and not to confuse him by reminding him that there is a separate national curriculum in Wales, which only confuses the matter even further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. The Bill covers Wales and some clauses deal specifically with Wales. I am dealing only with the misunderstandings that exist outside the House and I think that this is the moment for me to point them out to the Government.
Another source of confusion is that there are different teachers' unions in Scotland. That point arose in relation to the amendment that we have just discussed. The main such union is the Educational Institute of Scotland, the EIS. There is no argument going on in Scotland at present between the Government and teachers about testing pupils. None at all. However, the public in Scotland seeing the television news in the evenings can be forgiven for not knowing that. My home is in Scotland and people there are continually asking me about the Bill although it does not apply to them. May I ask the Government to do what they can to enlighten and elucidate especially the media? The Secretary of State for Education has no responsibilities for schools in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland and a whole department at the Scottish Office, the Scottish Office Education Department, have had the relevant functions for many years.

1437
A few weeks ago the Government issued a White Paper on Scotland and the Union, much of which was occupied with setting out the departments of the Scottish Office and their functions. The aims of that White Paper will not be fully achieved unless opportunities are taken to draw attention to the separate systems and functions where they exist. I fully approve of Clause 1 in that respect and urge the Government to do more outside Parliament to help the media and the public to register and remember the fact that nothing in this Bill applies to Scotland and that neither the national curriculum nor the present disputes about the testing of pupils apply to Scotland.
Baroness Blatch: This intervention has taken me somewhat by surprise. There has been absolutely no pressure from the Scottish Office, my Scottish ministerial colleagues, Scottish Members of this House or members of the public about Scottish matters, but I am more than pleased to take any opportunity that is afforded to me to make the distinction between what is contained in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales and the provisions relating to Scotland. I should like to make the point that neither the Bill nor the present discussions and negotiations between the Government and English and Welsh teachers have any impact on the Scottish system. I do not think, however, that this is a matter for a clause stand part debate and I ask the House to accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. My argument is helped by the fact that all parliamentarians understand this point, but the media do not because not enough trouble is taken to explain it. I produced examples relating to the national curriculum for the national press last week and for a Sunday national newspaper which showed that the media thought that the Bill applied to the whole country, but I shall not do so again now. As I have said, I think that more should be done and I hope that the Government will take my points on board when dealing with the media and disseminating information.
Baroness Blatch: All that I can say as an immediate retort to that is, "Oh, that I or my department had that kind of influence over the press".
Clause 1 agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill comes to your Lordships' House from another place where it was
1438
successfully sponsored by my own Member of Parliament, the honourable Member for Tayside, North, Mr. Bill Walker. In the House of Commons, my honourable friend had all-party support for the Bill, as well as the support of the Government.
The Bill is a simple two-clause measure. By means of amending the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, it increases the maximum fine which Scottish courts can impose on people convicted of cruelty to domestic or captive animals in Scotland. If the Bill becomes law, the maximum penalty for such cruelty—and I stress that it will be the maximum penalty—would be a fine at level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000 or six months' imprisonment, or both. The present maximum is set at level 4, currently £2,500 or six months' imprisonment, or both.
The Bill would bring the maximum fine up to the level applying to equivalent offences south of the Border, a move advocated strongly by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
I should make it clear that the Bill applies to domestic and captive animals only. Domestic animals are defined for this purpose in Section 13 of the 1912 Act. They include farm animals, horses, fowls, dogs and cats or any species which is tame or has been sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for man.
Captive animals are defined to include any species of animal, bird, fish or reptile which is in captivity or confinement. The Bill does not apply to wild animals. As your Lordships will be aware, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects certain species of wildlife including endangered species of mammals. Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
The offences of cruelty to domestic and captive animals to which the Bill applies are divided into five groups under Section 1 of the 1912 Act. They cover ill treatment such as beating or kicking; torturing or causing unnecessary suffering; unnecessary suffering during transportation; fighting and baiting; the administration of poison and drugs; and subjecting an animal to an operation without due care or humanity.
A further offence of abandoning an animal in certain circumstances was created more recently under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960. Since the penalty for that offence is expressed in that Bill as the same as the penalties in the 1912 Act, the Bill we are now discussing increases in Scotland the maximum penalty for abandoning an animal, along with the other offences.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the Bill deals only with the maximum penalty that can be imposed for such cruelty. It is of course for the courts to determine the appropriate fine or length of prison sentence, or both, for a particular offender in the light of his or her circumstances and of the particular offence.
The new maximum created by the Bill is a heavy penalty indeed, but the wide variety of circumstances and the types of cruelty that are possible mean that there must be a wide variety of possible penalties from a small fine upwards. A maximum fine of £5,000 or a prison sentence of up to six months, or both, should

1439
surely be available to the courts where the person is found guilty of, for example, the organisation of dog fighting or dog baiting; the deliberate cruelty to a large number of dogs kept in commercial kennels; cruelty by starvation of, say, 200 cattle on a farm; or a crime such as the mutilation of horses which has caused such dreadful suffering recently in the South of England. Such a maximum penalty might apply also to cruelty within a zoo, although I understand that the regular inspection of zoos in Scotland under the zoo licensing system successfully ensures high standards of protection for animals there.
It is interesting to note that, although the availability of maximum penalties is clearly important, in recent years most offences have attracted comparatively small fines. According to Scottish Office figures, in 1991 a total of 43 people were fined, of whom 18 had to pay £100 or less, and the average fine overall was £227. In 1990, 69 people were fined, the average amount being £250, and 32 people paid £100 and less. So the majority of fines are at the lower end of the scale. In 1990, one person only was fined anything approaching the maximum; in 1991, no one was fined the maximum. As for imprisonment, six people in Scotland were sent to prison in 1991 for offences mainly under the 1912 Act and of those, three sentences were of three months, two of four months and one of six months. In 1990 there were four prison sentences, two of four months and one of six months—the maximum.
I turn to the Bill. Clause 1 amends the 1912 Act in the way that I have described. Clause 2 limits the Bill to Scotland and provides that the Bill will come into force two months after receiving Royal Assent. I shall be glad to attempt to reply to any questions noble Lords may ask. I hope, nevertheless, that your Lordships will feel that this is a wise and necessary measure for Scotland and will give it a smooth passage towards the statute book. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
7.36 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank my noble neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for giving a full explanation of the possible results of the Bill and the type of cruelty that it is designed to combat. In the agricultural community there is a feeling that cruelty to animals is not understood by a number of people. For example, I saw an article the other day in which the author said he saw an animal being chivvied with a stick around the ring at a market and he considered that to be cruel. No attendant in a market will ever hit an animal with a stick because that damages the animal. He merely taps it with a stick to make it move around.
Will the Minister confirm that the proposed large fines will be confined to, or are intended for, the gross neglect of animals on the part perhaps of farmers and transporters and deliberate acts of cruelty such as dog baiting and dog fighting? No one can object to the upgrading of the penalties for any form of cruelty to animals, which is something we all deplore.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. There is no question but that we on this side of the House support the Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness read the proceedings in another place and saw that a point was raised by the honourable Member for Perth and Kinross. There is always a feeling with Scottish Bills that it is not good enough just to copy English Bills; they should be considered on their merits.
The honourable Member for Perth and Kinross views himself as a guardian of Scottish law. He does not like the homogenisation of the penalties or the law. That is fair because we have our own way of life in Scotland. It has been shown throughout history, and it is becoming more obvious in many areas, especially that of criminal law, that south of the Border tends to copy many aspects of our law. With this Bill, I do not feel that we are seriously compromising Scottish law, and even the honourable Member for Perth and Kinross did not attempt to oppose it.
There is only one point on which I seek assistance from the noble Baroness or perhaps from the honourable and learned Member on the Front Bench—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, he is not honourable; he is noble.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I mean the noble and learned Lord, but I think that he is honourable too most of the time. An issue which hit the public's attention was that of residential kennels for dogs. Someone sending their pet to kennels for a fortnight may feel uneasy and I seek clarification. We support the noble Baroness in her efforts to pass the Bill through this House and we shall support her as much as possible.
7.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for sponsoring in this House an important measure which, as she indicated, enjoys the support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. My single purpose is to confirm that my noble friend's Bill also enjoys the full support of the Government.
As my noble friend fully and lucidly explained the Bill's content and the context within which the Bill is set, nothing would be added to your Lordships' understanding if I were to repeat what she said. I confirm that it brings Scotland into line with the maximum fine which applies in England and Wales. That was set at level 5 by the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1987. That Act was also the result of a Private Member's measure. The Government considered in 1987 whether the measure could be extended to Scotland but it was concluded that such an extension would have required change to the Long Title of that Bill, which would have seriously delayed its passage.

1441
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that nothing in the substantive nature of the offences to be found in the 1912 Act is altered by the Bill. The maximum penalty is extended. There is accordingly no particular reason why those who look after animals sensibly and properly within the agricultural community have anything to fear from the Bill. However, if any individual grossly mistreats or acts cruelly towards farm animals and is convicted, the court might in what I would consider to be exceptional circumstances go to the top limit. However, the maximum fine might be expected in the circumstances which my noble friend outlined.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that there have been cases of dogs being badly treated in kennels. In certain cases prosecutions have been brought over the way in which animals have been looked after or neglected. Whether such a case attracts anything like the maximum penalty depends on the facts and circumstances. As the noble Lord with his long experience will appreciate, it is for the court to determine whether the maximum fine or anything approaching it should be imposed.
The Government abhor cruelty to animals for whatever reason. In recent years we have thus promoted or supported measures which permit the courts to disqualify a person from keeping animals on first being convicted of an offence involving cruelty and which make it an offence to attend or to advertise an animal fight. We are now glad to support this measure. That level of maximum fine is a most worthwhile addition to the existing powers of the Scottish courts, which may already impose a custodial sentence of up to six months imprisonment and disqualify the convicted person from future ownership of an animal.
I wish to commend the work of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is vital for the protection of animals. That is particularly so in the present context where often the evidence of the society's inspectors is crucial in securing the conviction of those involved in offences of cruelty. I am glad to confirm that the Bill is wholly supported by the Government.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I am glad that they believe that it is right to raise the issue in this way. My noble and learned friend has replied to the questions which were asked. However, perhaps I may say to my noble neighbour Lord Mackie of Benshie that in such matters one must trust the courts to understand what happens in a cattle mart and that one cannot control many cattle without a few gentle taps with a stick. There is a high penalty because sometimes offences of great cruelty are committed. However, the existence of the penalty does not mean that it is considered by a court when a minor crime is committed. I believe that most courts understand how a mart works; we all understand the anxieties of farmers in that respect.
I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord
1442
Carmichael. I believe that my honourable and learned friend Sir Nicholas Fairbairn is right to ensure that we do not simply harmonise Scots law with English law. Our needs are different. Often we need to alter the penalties or put the issues slightly differently. For one reason or another we have in respect of this matter lagged behind, but it now seems to me time for the maximum penalty to be the same.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and also my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for his support and for the help I have received from his department in seeking examples of offences which might attract the maximum fine. I am grateful to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It knows how the penalties are working across the country and it has a great deal of information which is helpful to us. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Funding Agency for Schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("and
(c) persons who hold and appear to him to have shown capacity in any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education in voluntary schools or endowed grant-maintained schools.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In speaking to Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 24 —that amendment should stand in my name on the Marshalled List—and 26. Although I shall not speak to them directly, Amendments Nos. 14 and 25 are also grouped with Amendment No. 13.
My amendments seek to secure that people with experience of the voluntary sector should be members of the Funding Agency for Schools. They seek also to secure formal consultation with the Churches before such an appointment is made. The Churches provide some 30 per cent. of the schools in the voluntary sector, although there are other voluntary schools which are not Church schools.
With regard to the funding agency, the White Paper stated that:
"it will be important that some members should have experience of maintained, including voluntary, schools".
We agree with that and my amendment goes some way towards ensuring it.
The Church of England's view is that Churches should have direct representation on the funding agency. The present position is that the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have a

1443
statutory place on all local education committees. As and when those committees disappear, the Churches will lose their place in the strategic planning structures. The Government have recognised the value and contribution of the voluntary sector and in particular of Church schools. Therefore, in line with the White Paper, the least that we expected was that we should retain an acknowledged place in the formal structures.
However, my amendments are more modest than our original hopes. The amendments lay on the Secretary of State an obligation to consult the Churches before making an appointment of anybody representing the voluntary sector.
I must say in connection with that that there is a slightly technical point. Amendment No. 15 makes explicit reference to the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England but does not make explicit reference to any corresponding body of the Roman Catholic Church. I had expected to see a further amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, to effect a reference to the Catholic Education Service. I am aware that in the past there has been sensitivity about explicit reference in primary legislation to Roman Catholic bishops and Roman Catholic authorities. For our part we are entirely happy with any such reference. I say that having consulted the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of York and Canterbury.
This matter will arise again on Amendment No. 72 but I believe it should be mentioned at this stage. I am anxious that the position of the Church of England should not fall because of a technical or constitutional anxiety about any public formal reference in primary legislation to the Roman Catholic Church. I do not know what is the Government's view on that but I understand that there have been discussions and it may be that we are now able to move forward in that connection.
One of the amendments in this group is in effect a definition of endowed grant-maintained schools. I recognise that the amendment should probably be placed elsewhere in the Bill but I thought that if I did not include it here it would make it cumbersome and difficult to speak to such an amendment. We need a means of referring to those schools which were voluntary schools before they became grant maintained. Always to have to refer to them in such a clumsy way seems to be awkward. Therefore, it is better to have a definition which enables us to refer to them with a clear phrase. That is the purpose of one of the amendments in this group.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 seek to achieve for Wales the equivalent consultation with the Churches which we are proposing in the context of England. There are others better qualified than I to speak on behalf of the Principality but we move the amendment after consultation with our Anglican colleagues of the Church in Wales because we feel that what is done in this regard for the Churches in England should be effected equally for Churches in Wales. Therefore, I hope that my brief explanation indicates the reasons
1444
for the amendments, which I hope that the Government will be able to accept, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 14 and 25, which stand in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and which form part of the group. We seek to ensure that those with experience of special educational needs are represented on the Funding Agency for Schools and the Schools Funding Council for Wales, although I hesitate to speak for Wales in the present company.
The funding authorities will have responsibilities for planning provision, funding schools and liaising with relevant LEAs. Those are all very important in relation to children with special educational needs in grant-maintained schools. Let us take the distribution of grants. I give just two examples. The funding authority will need to take account of the way in which formulae for the distribution of maintenance grant recognise the additional work that schools undertake for children who present challenges, including children with special educational needs and the need for capital expenditure—for example, to make buildings accessible for those with physical disabilities and to install a loop for hearing impaired children.
It is estimated that 20 per cent. or more of children in our schools have special educational needs. Surely there should be at least one member of each funding authority with special needs experience and expertise. The Special Educational Consortium believes that the amendment is necessary because within the sector, which has been established specifically to help greater autonomy, it will be particularly important to have an understanding of the multi-agency and co-operative approaches which may be needed to meet effectively the special educational needs of children. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say something encouraging about special needs expertise being represented on each funding authority.
Baroness David: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. The funding authority will have to deal with many local problems in planning school places. It is necessary to make sure that there will be people with the requisite expertise. The authority will have to be responsible for providing enough school places and the place and the way in which those are provided will have a significant impact on children with special educational needs.
It is recognised that many of those children will be in grant-maintained schools. They may not be among the 2 per cent. but they may be among the 20 per cent. The authorities will need to liaise with the LEAs in respect of work with children in grant-maintained schools who are at the pre-statutory school-based stage of assessment, who are undergoing full assessment or for whom additional provision is to be made as specified in a statement. While it is clearly anticipated that the day-to-day liaison on those issues will be dealt with among the school, the LEA and other voluntary and statutory agencies, there will need to be an understanding of the level of the agency and

1445
how additional provision and inter-agency cooperation can best be established for the benefit of children with special educational needs.
I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned the figure of 20 per cent. in respect of special needs. That is quite a large percentage of the population which will be affected. If they are to be more grant-maintained schools, the funding agency will have a real responsibility. In this case, I think that it is especially important that there should be someone on the funding agency who has special knowledge and experience of what is needed and that there should also be a connection with the many agencies which have to provide that expertise.
The Duke of Norfolk: I shall speak only to Amendment No. 15. I should like first to thank the right reverend Prelate for the way he said that sometimes in these happy ecumenical days we can say the word "Catholic" meaning Roman Catholics without having always to specify the word "Roman". It is a very happy occasion for us not to have to hide our light under a bushel and to know that we can be recognised as the Catholic Church with the word "Roman" being understood, though not actually mentioned. The right reverend Prelate was most generous in his remarks.
The right reverend Prelate also spoke to Amendment No. 15. We very much feel that the Churches should be consulted on the Funding Agency for Schools. On Report, I shall move an amendment which will insert after the words in the amendment,
"the Board of Education of the General Synod of the Church of England",
the words "the Catholic Education Service" which is our equivalent. That will probably appear at line 13 on page 2 of the Bill. I am sure we all agree that the Churches should obviously be consulted on this particular matter.
Lord Parry: I must apologise first for the quality of my voice. Knowing my interest, Members of the Committee would expect me enthusiastically to support the amendments standing in the names of my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). There is a particular and most precise reason for that: it is because integration is now taking place. This Chamber generally favours integration of the special needs group with the general school population. Indeed, it is most important that the people who represent them on the body should understand the special needs of those with special social, physical and mental handicaps.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: This Chamber has, I believe, a deservedly high reputation for considering the interests of those with special educational needs. I am very much aware that that reputation is much to be laid to the credit of many noble Lords who have consistently, and rightly, emphasised the importance of that concern. However, I have to say that there is a general principle which worries me. I refer to the constitution of administrative or funding bodies
1446
whose numbers are inevitably limited. In this case we are talking about the Funding Agency for Schools with a membership of 10 to 15. As the Bill stands, it draws attention to two broad categories: the first is the category of educational experience and the second is the category of administrative and business experience.
The issue is very much open to doubt. Indeed, we have faced it in other recent discussions; for example, we faced it in respect of the higher education funding councils and in relation to a whole series of issues in recent Bills. It is very much open to doubt as to whether it is a good idea to have individual persons representing a whole range of interests filling up those 10 or 15 places. In no time at all we could find ourselves with representatives or delegates whose job it is to speak out for one particular interest group. I believe that the amendments are not well conceived, in that they add to persons who fall into one category persons who fall into another.
I believe that it would be much more appropriate to produce an amendment that would require the Secretary of state when appointing those 10 to 15 persons to have regard to the need for certain forms of experience and certain qualities to be represented. That would certainly be logical. If the Secretary of State was required to have regard to the interests of individuals with special educational needs and to have regard to the interests of those from the Church of England or the Catholic Church—or, indeed, other denominations such as are indicated here—that would make very good sense. But, if we are to load the funding councils and such bodies with this, that and the other named interest, we shall have a kind of sectarian division such as we have seen in certain comparable groups in the past.
For that reason I am very uneasy about the form of the amendments. They seem to suggest that we should simply add on a person for a particular cause of importance which interests us. I should be much happier if the amendment was phrased in a form that would cover the fact that there are issues and aspects here to which attention should be given by the Secretary of State in building up his composition of 10 or 15 persons, rather than singling out one person who will have regard to this issue while another person will have regard to another. For that reason, I have grave reservations about this group of amendments.
Lord Northbourne: I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and make the point that the proposal of the amendments in relation to the Churches relates to the very special relationship which has, I think, existed since 1944. Under it, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have worked in partnership with the Government and the local authorities to provide education for about 30 per cent. of the pupils in this country. The Government have said that they wish that partnership to continue. It seems to me to be logical that, if the Churches are to work together with the Government to provide a coherent service, there must be representation on the funding council or, failing that—and it is the lesser suggestion which is being made here—at least

1447
consultation as to membership of the council. For that reason, I should like to express my support for the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak now. I should like to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. He made the speech I expected to hear either from him or from the Minister, so it did not surprise me. However, I should like to draw his attention to the wording of Amendment No. 14. It speaks of,
"persons who appear to him"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"to have experience of".
I do not think that that is so very different from the words "have regard to"; indeed, I do not think that the issue is much wider than that. I ask him to consider that point. I also ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the fact that people who have experience of special educational needs probably also have a good deal of experience of other forms of education.
Lord Elton: The composition of committees is familiar ground in this Chamber; indeed, scarcely an Act or a Bill passes through our hands without there being a committee involved. It seems extraordinary to me that this group of amendments is so small. Normally, five people table amendments a fortnight before the Committee stage, three other people think, "What a frightfully good idea, we ought to have gardening and aeroplaning in there" and, by the time the Committee stage is reached, there are 23 suggestions. But, on this occasion, the process has been exactly the reverse and we have actually lost local education authorities and equal opportunities for reasons of which I am unaware and which may not be entirely connected with the merits of the case. Consequently, we are perhaps freer than under other circumstances to look at this matter favourably.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we have to remind ourselves that the state has been an enormous benefactor in its inheritance from the Churches. What is going into the GMS system now is what came into the maintained system after the war with the 1944 Act, which was an enormous endowment from the Churches. For the Churches suddenly to lose their voice in the affairs of this sector simply because of the change of administration would be a great pity. I hope my noble friend will not irreversibly close the door on this amendment at this stage.
Lord Addington: I wish briefly to support the amendment in the name of the two noble Baronesses. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that when we talk about people with special educational needs we are talking about dozens of different types of special educational needs. There is a vast difference between someone who has dyslexia and someone who is in a wheelchair. Totally different problems are presented by those different disabilities. I suggest we need to appoint someone who has experience of at least one set of problems and possibly two or three.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I rise to support the amendments broadly along the lines that have already
1448
been argued. In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I should say that we are talking, in the case of the Church of England, of the provision of education for about 30 per cent. of pupils in schools in England. That is a huge sum and I believe it presents a strong argument for special representation on the FAS. In my view that leads on naturally to include the duty to consult properly with the Church of England on these matters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, pupils with special educational needs comprise pupils with dozens of different types of problems. It seems extremely appropriate to appoint people who are aware of some of those problems and who will no doubt be aware of other educational matters. Two specific cases are being suggested here; it is not a question of blanket sectional interests. There is not going to be a divided delegate system as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, seemed to imply. The provisions seek to ensure that two particular interest groups are represented on the funding agency.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I, too, wish to support strongly the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate. The historic partnership between the Church and the state in education seems to me to have been something of immense value to the children within those schools and to all of us within society at large. Since 1944 the Church has had an historic right to be represented on local education authorities, as the right reverend Prelate said.
To deny the Churches that right to continue to have representation within the funding agency would seem to me to be a great deterrent to those many Church schools that may be considering choosing grant-maintained status. Many Church schools, particularly in north London and now in south London, have already opted out and become grant-maintained. Many more are considering doing so. I believe there is an enormous opportunity for the Church to recreate its influence in education with its schools in the grant-maintained sector. I hope the Minister will seriously consider conceding at least the principle of Amendment No. 15 and also perhaps of Amendment No. 13.
Lady Kinloss: I support my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) in her amendment. I hope that when the Minister replies she will give us some hope that there will be an understanding of the requirements of children with special educational needs. As the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ponsonby, have already said, there are many different forms of disability which need understanding. I also support Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I hesitate to jump into the welcome that has been extended to the principle of Amendment No. 15. Nevertheless, I feel I must do so because it is a bad thing to create agencies when we do not even know who will form the membership of those agencies. I should point out that we have a situation that may result in an atheist becoming the Secretary of State responsible for this matter. I do not welcome

1449
that position but that is the way things are run. The Church seems to be quite willing to accept that the person responsible for major affairs of state, including in some cases the destiny of the Church, may be an atheist who has been chosen by popular vote through our electoral system.
We are about to be subjected to a debate on the ordination of women. I shall be able to vote and speak on that subject although I am an atheist. Some Members of the Committee know I am an atheist. I shall not detain the Committee long as everyone knows the viewpoint of an atheist on this matter. I do not believe the education of our children should be in the hands of any religious body. I do not believe any religious body should have anything to do with the education of our children. Nothing in history suggests that it is advantageous for the education system—I am not talking about 1600 but about 1993—to be in the hands of religious bodies.
The Seventh Day Adventists have been mentioned recently in the newspapers. It appears that members of that sect would be perfectly entitled to claim that they should be represented on the agency we are discussing. I do not know whether anyone subscribes to the point of view that the man who has just been responsible for burning alive a large number of people in America is divorced from the Seventh Day Adventists. I could refer to many examples that I believe show that religion is responsible for many of the ills that affect the population today. I mention this matter to inform the Committee that there is by no means a unanimous welcome to the introduction of religion into our education system or into its maintenance. I believe our education system should be a secular system. If someone wishes to teach children stupid myths, they should pay the costs of maintaining a school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): Perhaps this is the moment for me to respond to some of the points that have been made. These amendments tackle the issue of representation on the funding agency for schools and on the schools' funding council for Wales. I begin by setting out our thoughts on this issue. Echoing my noble friend Lord Elton, I should also like to say how grateful I am that a large number of associated amendments seems to have miraculously fallen off in a manner that is slightly unusual to what normally happens in this Chamber.
Clauses 2 and 3 together with Schedule 1 set out the detail of the funding agency for schools and the schools funding council for Wales. The members of both will each be appointed by the Secretary of State for their individual skills, talents and expertise. We shall not be reserving places for particular interest groups. Individuals from all aspects of education will bring with them expertise on the system as a whole as well as knowledge and experience of the reality in our schools. This definition is all-embracing. It precludes no one, even, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, atheists.
Individuals from commerce and industry will bring with them management skills and financial acumen and they will ensure that the funding authorities
1450
operate as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. I repeat that what we are doing with this clause is not ruling anybody out. Individual appointments made by the Secretary of State will ensure that the best possible combination of people with the most appropriate experience and knowledge are appointed. The provisions as presently drafted give the Secretary of State the necessary scope to appoint members in all the pertinent areas and to appoint a group of individuals who will be able to take on this important task with vigour, enthusiasm and the relevant experience and knowledge.
Perhaps I may deal with the two basic subjects, the Church and SEN, in reverse order. I turn first to the specific amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and the noble Baroness, Lady David—Amendments Nos. 14 and 25. Those amendments address the issue of special educational needs representation on the funding authorities. Again I must stress that we are not interested in any form of what might be called tokenism. We want the best individuals for the job.
I should also say that, by making explicit in subsection (3) (a) of both Clauses 2 and 3 that regard will be given to the desirability of including people with capacity in or experience of the provision of primary or secondary education, we already include special needs education. Children with special needs are encompassed by either primary or secondary education. Those two amendments are therefore not necessary and I hope that the noble Baronesses will not wish to pursue them. However, I note the concerns expressed by both noble Baronesses when speaking to the amendments and also those expressed by all others who spoke during the debate. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will at least bear in mind their anxieties when he makes his appointments.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. As I believe the right reverend Prelate will know, my noble friend Lady Blatch and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have considered carefully his amendments relating to the Funding Agency for Schools. They have had numerous useful discussions with representatives of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church about consulting on representation on the funding authority and on the representation itself.
We made it very clear in the White Paper that we saw the role of the voluntary sector as very important and that ex-voluntary grant-maintained schools would have a vital role to play in the grant-maintained sector. Approximately 26 per cent. of operating and approved grant-maintained schools are ex-voluntary schools. They continue to enjoy useful relationships with the Churches. The Churches have a special place in the provision of education in England and I am keen to illustrate in no uncertain terms that this Government are serious about a long and fruitful relationship between Church and state. I should like to accept in principle Amendment No. 13 in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which would require the

1451
Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including on the funding authority a person or persons with experience of the voluntary sector.
I should make it clear that by accepting in principle the spirit of the amendment we are not accepting the notion that the funding authority is in any way a representative body, as my noble friend Lord Renfrew stated. This does not amount to a right on the part of the voluntary sector in general to nominate to a place on the funding authority.
Turning to consultation, in February this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State agreed that he would make it a statutory duty for the holder of his office to consult both the Church of England and, I am happy to say —and I do not share the fears of the right reverend Prelate—the Roman Catholic Church on the membership of the funding authority. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will not therefore feel it necessary to move the amendment which he spoke of moving at Report stage. I am happy to confirm that point and have it in the official record.
That is in part the spirit behind the right reverend Prelate's amendment, Amendment No. 15. However, we want to make the provision on the face of the Bill in a slightly different way from that suggested by the right reverend Prelate. We intend to bring forward at Report stage a government amendment which makes clear that in appointing members of the Funding Agency for Schools the Secretary of State will consult such bodies as appear to him to represent those appointing the foundation governors of voluntary schools and foundation governors of grant-maintained schools. That will, of course, include both the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Roman Catholic Education Service. However, by using that form of drafting we have maximum flexibility, leaving us room to consult and take into account the views of other denominational interests.
I should like to turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which relate to the position in Wales, where the situation is slightly different. As most Members of the Committee will know, the voluntary sector is less prominent in Wales than it is in England. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the desirability of appointing someone to the Schools Funding Council for Wales with experience of the voluntary sector. Voluntary-aided schools comprise only 8 per cent. of the total in both the primary and secondary sector in Wales, whereas in England the figures are approximately 34 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively. Neither, therefore, do we consider it appropriate to put a right to consultation on the face of the Bill. That said, I am happy to give a commitment that such interests as appropriate will be consulted at the appropriate time.
Finally, perhaps I may say a little about the right reverend Prelate's Amendment No. 16 concerning the notion of endowed grant-maintained schools. We are very sympathetic to the concerns of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church that
1452
Church schools which become grant-maintained should continue to have a separate identity. Church schools have made a distinct and vital contribution to education. They have led by example. Their distinctiveness is reflected in the legislative provisions of the Education Reform Act, carried forward in this Bill, whereby the majority of their governors are foundation governors nominated by the foundation of the school. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent those schools concerned even now from describing themselves as Catholic grant-maintained schools or Church of England grant-maintained schools.
In addition, the Government propose in future in circulars and other letters of guidance to refer generally to such schools as foundation self-governing schools. That will distinguish them from those grant-maintained schools or self-governing schools which have first rather than foundation governors and will maintain the distinction which existed in the 1944 Act between county and voluntary schools, carrying it forward into the new world of self-governing schools. I therefore feel that the right reverend Prelate's amendment, Amendment No. 16, is unnecessary.
I conclude by repeating that in principle we are prepared to accept the ideas behind Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. As I stated earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, we do not believe that her amendments—Amendments Nos. 14 and 25—are appropriate, but we shall certainly bear in mind her particular concerns and the anxieties expressed so ably by many other Members of the Committee. With those remarks I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. It is very encouraging and I am extremely grateful for the consideration that has been given to our anxieties.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment in my name. However, before doing so, perhaps I may clarify that the position is slightly different in relation to some amendments. I shall happily beg leave to withdraw Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 because the Minister has indicated that the Government will be bringing forward their own amendments to effect the same aim that was in my mind in drafting the amendments.
Similarly I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16 although I wish to see in more detail the distinction that I understand is to be secured for voluntary schools which become grant maintained as opposed to other grant-maintained schools. If that distinction can conveniently be achieved by other wording, then I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I should like to understand that distinction before stating that I shall not bring another amendment forward at a later stage.
As to the Church in Wales, I shall consider the position and the possibility of returning with a different amendment in the light of what has been said. It is difficult to say that I shall withdraw the amendment because I have not had the opportunity of consulting with my opposite numbers in Wales. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
("(c) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, provision to meet special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: Does the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), wish to speak first?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): No.
Baroness David: The right reverend Prelate had a good response. If I had had such a good response, I should have been pleased. However, I did not. I have considered again the wording of Clause 2(3). No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has studied and marked it. It states:
"In appointing the members of the agency the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including".
The noble Lord's phrase "the desirability of including", has already been taken up. It is on the face of the Bill.
Clause 2(3) (b) states,
"persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession".
The provision does not include what I particularly wish—special educational needs. To refer in particular to industrial, commercial or financial matters but not to more educational matters is a great pity.
I do not feel inclined to withdraw the amendment; I wish to press it to a Division. I do not believe that we received nearly as good a response as the right reverend Prelate was lucky enough to achieve.
Lord Henley: I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not believe that she received as good a response as the right reverend Prelate. I suspect that whatever I say she will not feel that she has had as good a response. I suspect that the noble Baroness has sniffed blood and wishes to press the amendment to a Division.
I was seeking to say, first, that Amendments Nos. 14 and 25 are not necessary and therefore there is no need to put the provisions on the face of the Bill. Secondly, I noted the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and others expressed about the particular case of those with special educational needs. I stated categorically that I was sure that my right honourable friend would bear those concerns in mind when he made his appointments. But I did not believe that the amendments were necessary on the face of the Bill. I hoped that the noble Baroness might feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: Certain matters are on the face of the Bill. Educational matters are not among them.
Lord Judd: Will the Government give an assurance that they will change the Bill? Or will they not give such an assurance?
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord had listened to what I said, I stated that I was not accepting those amendments, that I had no intention of accepting
1454
them but that my right honourable friend would bear in mind those concerns. We have given assurances in relation to earlier amendments.
Lord Judd: Why do the Government specify some people whom, I think it would not be too cynical to say, many people believe to be friends and do not specify others who have a deep commitment to children in need?
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord will listen to me—I say it for the third time because the noble Lord obviously does not listen —these amendments are unnecessary in that it is quite explicit in Clause 2(3) (a) and Clause 3(3) (a) that regard will be given to the,
"desirability of including persons who appear … to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of primary or secondary education".
That obviously includes provision of education for those with special educational needs.
Baroness David: I said that I wished to divide the Committee and I have not changed my mind.
9.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Addington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Adrian, L.

Hampton, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Healey, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hooson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hughes, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Judd, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kagan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Desai, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lawrence, L.

Donoughue, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dundonald, E.

Longford, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Faithfull, B.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Galpern, L.

Milverton, L.

Geraint, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Molloy, L.

Glenamara, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Mulley, L.

Gregson, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Grey, E.

Northbourne, L.

1455

Northfield, L.

Serota, B.

Ogmore, L.

Shackleton, L.

Parry, L.

Shepherd, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Stallard, L.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Varley, L.

Rea, L.

Warnock, B.

Redesdale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Rochester, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Long, V.

Lucas, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Barber, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Belstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Blyth, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Norfolk, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Butterworth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cadman, L.

Prentice, L.

Caithness, E.

Quinton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Carnock, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Cox, B.

Rennell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cranborne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Crathorne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Sharples, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sherfleld, L.

Downshire, M.

Skidelsky, L.

Elles, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Flather, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Hacking, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hooper, B.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Young, B.

Jellicoe, E.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 88 names. The Clerks recorded 87 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.23 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Schools Funding Council for Wales]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("(c) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, provision to meet special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elis-Thomas: This Question gives us a brief opportunity to talk about the funding council for Wales and its structure and date of operation. The issue here is when and whether the Welsh Office will establish a schools funding council in view of the fact that so few schools in Wales have indicated an interest in becoming part of the grant-maintained sector. I am particularly anxious for the Minister to tell us whether it is the intention of the Welsh Office to pursue the strategy of establishing a funding council in the teeth of the clearly expressed view of Welsh parents and teachers that they prefer to operate within the local education authority structure. It is for those reasons that I propose that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: The noble Lord has raised a number of points in speaking against the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill to which I should like to respond. Clause 3 provides for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to be able to establish a schools funding council for Wales. The council would have the same functions in respect of Wales as the funding agency for schools will have in England.
It is important that I draw to the Committee's attention a difference in the drafting of the respective clauses in the Bill. Clause 2 provides that:
"There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Funding Agency for Schools".
Here there is no doubt about the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, who had made it clear that there are sufficient grant-maintained schools in England already to warrant the creation of a separate funding agency. Clause 3, however, provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the establishment of a body corporate to be known as The Schools Funding Council for Wales".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has equally made it clear that he will not establish the schools funding council for Wales unless the grant-maintained sector in Wales has developed sufficiently to justify the establishment of a separate body.
My right honourable friend takes nothing for granted. He is content to let parents in Wales decide on the size of the grant-maintained sector in Wales. Members on the Benches opposite will say that there

1457
is little interest in grant-maintained status among schools in Wales. We on this side say that there is already interest and that it will grow. There are currently seven grant-maintained schools in operation in Wales (six secondary and one primary). My right honourable friend accepts that at this stage the establishment of a separate schools funding council would not be justified. But he currently has four applications for grant-maintained status before him and is aware of proposals to seek a ballot of parents in some six others. Furthermore, the Welsh Office has received inquiries from some 100 schools about various aspects of grant-maintained status. Of course, it is not possible to say how many of those expressions of interest will convert into actual applications, but my right honourable friend is confident that many will do so. There is unlikely to be agreement on that issue, but the Government are happy to leave the question of the size of the grant-maintained status in Wales to the wishes of parents.
Let us look briefly at the functions of a schools funding council for Wales were it to be established. Its initial purpose would be to take over from the Welsh Office the fairly straightforward function of paying grants to grant-maintained schools. In areas where a significant proportion of pupils attend grant-maintained schools, it would share with LEAs the responsibility to secure sufficient school places.
Let us now look at the alternative scenarios. If noble Lords opposite are right and the grant-maintained sector in Wales does not grow, then we shall have lost nothing by the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. But if the grant-maintained sector in Wales grows significantly, surely the Committee will agree that it is necessary to have in place arrangements for the effective administration of the grant-maintained sector to ensure that the grant-maintained sector plays its full part in the provision of sufficient and appropriate school places.
Without the ability to establish a separate schools funding council for Wales there would be no option but for the Secretary of State for Wales, through the Welsh Office, to continue to undertake the executive task of paying over grant to grant-maintained schools. Such an increasing executive task is not appropriate for a government department.
But what is more worrying is the situation that would develop in respect of securing sufficient school places. It would certainly not be appropriate for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take on board the duty to secure sufficient school places in respect of the grant-maintained sector, not least because of his statutory position in respect of deciding local proposals. We would therefore be faced with a situation whereby LEAs which had lost control over a large number of their schools would be trying to cope with the duty to secure sufficient school places without involving the grant-maintained sector.
Is it better for LEAs to have to try to cope on their own in such a situation and to have to deal with a number of, in effect, free floating grant-maintained schools over which they have no control than to have
1458
in place a mechanism for the coherent administration of the grant-maintained sector in the form of the schools funding council?
Whether or not schools become grant-maintained, and therefore the size of the grant-maintained sector in Wales, will be decided by parents in Wales. What Clause 3 seeks to do in the event that parents do decide that there should be a significant grant-maintained sector in Wales is to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to put in place arrangements for the effective and efficient administration of that grant-maintained sector to ensure that it complements the LEA maintained sector in the provision of quality education throughout Wales in the interests of pupils.
I have spoken at some length about Clause 3. It may also be appropriate for me briefly at this point to say that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has tabled a group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 45, 46 and 327—which are consequential to his opposition to Clause 3. I trust that, if the Committee agrees to the inclusion of Clause 3, as I am sure it will, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendments. I commend the clause to the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Viscount sits down, for the record can he say how many schools in Wales are eligible for grant-maintained status? He said in the course of his speech that the fact that seven have opted out is an indication of the interest. To get a really true perspective, will he say how many are eligible?
Viscount St. Davids: I say to the noble Lord that all schools are eligible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I presume that the Committee does not know the number of schools in Wales that are eligible. We simply do not know. If we are to have the correct perspective, we should know. It looks as though we may be getting the information now. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us.
Viscount St. Davids: The number is some 2,000.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am glad that the Minister has now given the Committee the complete picture. Half a dozen schools have shown an interest in opting out, but there are 2,000 schools in Wales. Perhaps the Committee will permit me to say, without making a Second Reading speech, that the Bill is very much against the grain of the tradition of Welsh education and, I believe, of Welsh public opinion. I know of no pressure from Wales for the Bill.
I accept that as we approach a new century there may well have been a case for a review of the legislative framework of the Welsh education system which emerged from the great Act of 1889. The opinion which will be heard in Wales is that that review should have been conducted or undertaken by a commission of the standing of the Aberdare Commission in the last century. So we deeply regret that the Government and the Welsh Office decided to go ahead with this reform without the benefit of such a commission.

1459
However, given the realities of the position, we have to concentrate on this Bill and seek certain assurances from the Minister, particularly as local government in Wales will be restructured by April 1995. I should like the Minister to go further than he has and give me assurances that the schools funding council for Wales will not be set up until the 21 new authorities will have been established on 1st April 1995. In addition, I hope that he can give me an assurance that it will not be set up until the new authorities have consulted and drawn up their Section 38 schemes for delegation and control over the spending of the school budget. It is extremely important that the terms of the schemes should be known to the head teachers and the governors of the schools because it is basic, vital information in determining whether or not they will apply to be a grant-maintained school. Can the Minister go further and give me those two assurances?
Viscount St. Davids: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has brought up these questions when he did not care earlier to move the amendment to which they would have pertained. I shall do my best to give him what he requires. To begin with, he comments that there is no call for the provisions of this Bill within the Principality. I know that there is a very different relationship between LEAs, parents and schools within Wales and that the educational culture within the Principality is different from that in England. But I believe that the manner in which I have described the schools funding council for Wales as coming into operation as and when and if it is necessary recognises this difference in the educational culture of Wales.
The noble Lord must understand that there is no pressure being placed on the educational system in Wales to become grant maintained. There seems to be a total misunderstanding among the Welsh that this Bill is some extraordinary draconian method whereby schools are being moved from the public to the private sector. I do not understand where this total lack of understanding comes from. All this Bill does is to give parents, if they so wish, the ability to seek that their schools become grant maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has apprehensions that the schools funding council for Wales could be set up at a period when there is a certain to-ing and fro-ing due to the introduction of the unitary authorities. But the noble Lord can rest assured in this matter because the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility at present for the grant maintained sector and will continue to do so until such time as the funding council comes into operation, which may or may not be during this period when, as I say, we move towards the unitary authorities.
We do not feel that there is any cause for concern that the change to the unitary authorities will bring about anything detrimental to the educational system in Wales. The various LEA and LMS schemes which are being prepared will continue to operate in exactly the same way as they have done hitherto. I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the Minister's response, I shall not be pressing my Motion. However, I am sure that we shall return to this subject at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the opportunity to indicate the relative autonomy of the Welsh educational system.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The funding authorities]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 166, line 39, leave out ("second") and insert ("next following")
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 166, line 40, leave out ("following that date")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Meaning of the "funding authority" in the Education Acts]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants to funding authorities]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 42, after ("State") insert ("and any local education authority")
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the one that follows it look forward to a time when there are many grant-maintained schools and they are a generally accepted part of the educational scene. The history of this Government's educational changes has been that they are opposed when they first come in and a few years later everyone agrees what a wonderful thing they are. So I do not think that it is that inappropriate now to look a few years forward.
They propose a continuing role for local authorities in funding education in their areas; and the reasons why I feel that this is appropriate are threefold: first, for reasons of history. Many local authorities are proud to provide additional sums for education in their areas. Many local authorities have a strong tradition of supporting the education of their children and regard it as an extremely important part of their duties.
The second is for reasons of local interest. Education is an extremely personal and local matter. Anyone who has served on an education authority will know how deeply individuals feel about even small changes proposed to the way in which a school is run and how deeply parents feel about the education of their children. It is necessary to have a local focus in the control and influence on education, and whatever happens to the structure of education, it will always remain a key local issue.
The third is for reasons of local strategy. The quality of education in an area is a key part of attracting employers to the area. If someone is looking to locate a factory in a part of the country which they do not know well, among the first questions they ask are: "How well trained are my potential employees? What educational traditions do they have in the area? How well looked after will the children of the

1461
employees that I wish to move up there be? Will it be somewhere that they are keen to go or will they be clamouring to keep their children in the schools that they are now in because they can find nothing satisfactory in the new location?"
Education has a key role to play in dealing with local social problems. Many of the problems which local authorities face and which they have statutory duties to deal with have their roots in the school days of the people concerned. It is necessary for local authorities to be able to influence the way in which local children are educated as this may be part of the problem they have to deal with as those children grow to maturity.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for local authorities to fund individual grant-maintained schools. That would be interfering too directly with what is intended to be an independent institution. It would produce obvious and continual conflicts between the local authority and the funding authority. I believe that funding could be directed from a local authority to the funding authority for the use by the funding authority for the schools of the local authority concerned. Funding should thus be subject to the particular local authority's wishes and to the approval and control of the funding authority concerned. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend was kind enough to give me some notice of his concerns in the amendments. From speaking to the amendments and talking to me before the debate I know that he has concerns in a number of areas. My noble friend has explained to me his intentions, and I believe them to be entirely honourable. He is concerned about the relationship between key partners and how the reforms will work out in practice. I too envisage a situation in which GM schools and LEAs co-operate in the best interests of the community at large. Many LEAs already co-operate fully with GM schools in their area, recognising that their primary raison d'être is to provide the best possible education for the pupils in the area; and while some LEAs appear to believe that the existence of GM schools is a threat to the LEA, those are few, and I am happy to say growing fewer, as experience with GM schools demonstrates that both schools and LEA share a common aim.
It would be inappropriate to legislate to provide for the laudable aim behind the amendment, which is to allow LEAs to give a financial boost to local GM schools should they choose to do so. As I have made clear previously, the funding authorities will have funding responsibility for grant-maintained schools only. They will calculate and distribute grant to those GM schools in accordance with a formula provided by the Secretary of State.
In order to avoid any possibility of wasteful duplication of tasks, we have ensured that the funding authorities will not in any circumstances be in a position to make grants to LEA-maintained schools, which will continue to be funded by their LEA, and so it is very difficult to conceive of a situation in which an
1462
LEA should make grants to a funding authority as such moneys would not be used to make grants to LEA-maintained schools and those schools should not be deprived of funds to which they are entitled.
LEAs can make available to their own LEA-maintained schools "extra" injections of cash by means of an in-year budget change. To maintain a level playing field, GM schools in the LEA area would receive an extra sum calculated by replication.
I hope that my noble friend will consider that argument and accept that, while there are many ways in which LEAs and the GM sector will be able to co-operate for the good of all, the amendment would be inappropriate.
There are many other aspects of that relationship; for example, each year the funding authorities will estimate the amount of money they need for that year. If Parliament approves more money than, for whatever reason, turns out to be needed, then in accordance with normal practice the Government will take a view on where across the range of their programmes the money might best be used.
The financial memorandum for the funding authorities will set out a framework within which the funding agency will have to work. That will make provision for dealing with surpluses. In practice, of course, much will depend upon how large any surplus is. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would, in practice, have to look also at what additional needs had occurred in other respective programmes of work of the funding agency and DFE. But of course there are a number of reasons why surpluses should not be a major issue. For the running costs of the funding agency itself we shall agree annual estimates. For the grant provision to be made to schools by the funding agency the position will need to be looked at according to each type of grant; for example, by far the biggest grant, the annual maintenance grant, should not be an issue as the costs of that are recovered from LEAs. If AMG is different from the initial estimates that will be covered by a balancing adjustment by the Department for Education with the relevant LEAs.
The sums paid to grant-maintained schools in other types of grants are not recovered from LEAs. But those grants should not present major issues either. Transitional and most special purpose grants are paid on pupil number related formulae. If pupil number estimates are out of line with real growth, that will be seen fairly early and action can be taken to divert funds to other programmes. As to capital grants, the majority of funds are allocated to schools which are grant maintained at the beginning of the financial year. Some funds are allocated on a pupil number related formula to schools as they join the sector but, as with special grants, any change in estimates compared with real growth will be monitored carefully and appropriate action taken. In the course of such a review of needs, the Secretary of State will obviously look closely at whether he has unmet needs in any of his programmes.
Grants to the funding authorities will be subject to terms and conditions. Those are terms and conditions which the funding agency must meet, not terms and

1463
conditions about the levels of grant to grant-maintained schools. Matters to do with grants to schools are best dealt with in debate on Chapter VI of Part II.
The funding agency will be a corporate body which will carry out the functions given to it by the Bill. It will be a NDPB which will operate in accordance with guidance and directions issued by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of those functions. The terms and conditions to be attached to payment of grant by the DFE to the funding agency will be set out in the financial memorandum.
The functions to be conferred on the funding agency are principally executive and operational. They will be concerned initially with the calculation and payment of grants and, increasingly over time, with the provision of school places. As a corporate body the funding agency can only exercise functions for which it has statutory cover. The funding agency's actions will thus be closely prescribed and monitored. We shall ensure that the funding agency has sound financial management arrangements and that it achieves its objectives efficiently and effectively within available resources.
Initially, the agency's main function will be the calculation and payment of grant to grant-maintained schools in accordance with regulations and guidance from the Secretary of State. We shall later have the opportunity to debate the provisions of the Bill relating to the regulations.
The funding agency will be accountable to the Secretary of State. Like any other member of the Government he is accountable to Parliament. The Secretary of State will be accountable for his actions in this area as in all others. It will be open to all Members of the Committee to table questions and to use all Parliament's procedures and opportunities, as I am sure they will, to hold the Secretary of State accountable through myself and others.
Perhaps we may begin with the relative funding of grant-maintained and LEA schools. There has been some confusion here. It has been suggested that it would be fair for a grant-maintained school to have extra responsibilities compared to LEA schools yet have no share of the money LEAs spend on meeting those responsibilities for their own schools. I think that the schools in question would soon get out of breath running up the side of that particular level playing field.
Grant-maintained schools receive their main running costs in the form of annual maintenance grant, which is a definite level playing field. That is calculated primarily on the basis of LEA budget information and local management schemes. The total is then recovered from the relevant LEA, a point to which I shall return. The precise arrangements for calculating AMG are reviewed each year.
Those arrangements each year have retained a clear link with local authority funding decisions. Some have criticised the fact that one element of that link is the percentage addition that grant-maintained schools receive over and above LMS. That point is frequently made to us in the department. Perhaps I may put all minds at rest on that.
1464
Those additional moneys are based on the levels of central spending by LEAs themselves. All we are doing for grant-maintained schools through the percentage addition is giving them a cash sum in place of what LEAs spend centrally on their own schools. The moneys pay for a wide variety of items ranging from structural repairs to payroll services.
The calculations are fair and objective. They are made under regulations laid before the House each year by the Secretary of State. This will continue to be the case under Clause 76 in future. Parliament will be able to scrutinise what the Secretary of State has put in the regulations. The funding agency will administer the legal provisions; it will not decide them. By the time this Bill has Royal Assent we will have a working model of the common funding formula. Our intention is that it will be introduced in the first areas as needed in April 1994.
Another recurring theme has been the effects of the grant-maintained funding arrangements on certain LEA services. One example was home-to-school transport. Section 55 of the Education Act 1944, as amended by Section 100 of the Education Reform Act 1988, makes it quite clear that LEAs have the same responsibility towards funding provision for pupils at grant-maintained schools as though those schools were still LEA maintained. The calculation of AMG for grant-maintained schools is therefore made net of the money that LEAs spend on home-to-school transport.
Exactly the same point applies to a range of other services provided by LEAs. The educational psychology service is one example. Provision for statemented pupils is another. The money and the duty both reside with the LEA now and this will continue to be the case.
I recognise, of course, that not all pupils with, for example, emotional and behavioural difficulties, will be statemented; but many will be. Our own funding arrangements for those who are not will retain a basis in how LEAs make provision for such children. The great majority of funding for such pupils is delegated on a per pupil basis. Under current arrangements we replicate that pound for pound. Many LEAs also use proxy measures of educational need to channel additional funds to schools. We shall consider what it would be right to include in the CFF at the appropriate time.
I turn now to the anxiety that some Members of another place and Members of this Committee seem to have about the fact that the costs of AMG are recovered from local funds. Again, let me reassure them. The current SSA arrangements are such that LEAs continue to receive grant in respect of pupils in grant-maintained schools. There are some good technical reasons for that, though naturally it is something to be kept under review where the growth in numbers of grant-maintained schools is most pronounced.
In terms of fairness, this system is certainly fair to LEAs. They are in effect paying back money that they do not need, as they no longer have the responsibility for schools in their area which have become grant-maintained. If we were to spend new Exchequer

1465
funds on AMG then LEAs would receive a windfall; their grant income would remain as before but their spending on schools would be enabled to fall.
I shall now leave aside AMG, at least until we reach Clause 76, and turn to other grants received by grant-maintained schools. There is a variety of those to reflect their particular circumstances; for example, special grants which mirror the grants for education support and training paid to LEAs, and special grants which reimburse grant-maintained schools for their new additional VAT liability. There is also transition grant which assists LEA schools that are going grant-maintained to prepare themselves for grant-maintained status.
The Government are determined to ensure that grant-maintained schools are established on a sound basis and the Prime Minister made it clear in a letter released to the press last summer that we do look favourably at grant-maintained schools in allocating grants to capital expenditure. But this is by no means at the expense of schools remaining in the LEA sector. Ministers take decisions about the allocation of public spending, looking at competing priorities across all public services. They allocate separately to LEA and GM schools, and therefore less for GM schools would not necessarily mean more for LEA schools.
I have dealt with the matter at length because it is complicated. It is important to get it on the record because there is a great deal of interest both outside and inside this Committee. I thank my noble friend for being so helpful in warning me of the particular points which he wished to make in the debate. If he is happy with my reassurances, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall be brief because the Minister gave an extremely full reply to the amendments. I believe that on this side of the Committee we share a sense of bewilderment that there will be no lead planning role for either the FAS or the local education authorities.
Our problem with the proposals as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is that, under his amendments, possibly even greater powers could be given to the Secretary of State. We would really prefer amendments along the lines of Amendment No. 49, and the corresponding raft of amendments. That would be our preferred approach to the problem.
10 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I believe that the noble Lord is speaking to a later amendment which is also tabled in my name. The amendment under discussion does not concern the relationship between LEAs and funding authorities in terms of allocation of responsibilities; it merely empowers local authorities to provide funding authorities with money. I gain the impression from the noble Lord's remarks that he is concerned with Amendment No. 57.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am sorry if I have confused the noble Lord. I thought that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
Lord Lucas: I hoped that the noble Lord was in fact speaking to those amendments, but I gained the impression that his remarks were not directed to them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I understand.
Lord Lucas: I thank my noble friend the Minister for the very full reply that she gave to my questions. I gained the sense earlier that she did not agree with my amendments and, indeed, she confirmed that fact at the end of her remarks. However, she said a great deal which I should like to take away and consider. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Supervision of funding authorities by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("() Subsection (1) does not apply to the exercise by a funding authority of their powers to make proposals for the establishment, alteration or discontinuance of schools, but in exercising those powers they shall instead have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the considerations to which funding authorities should have regard in the exercise of those powers.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall deal briefly with the amendment. But, before I begin, I wonder whether I may first check the position as regards the wording in line 1 of Clause 7. I believe that the first word "Incising" is incorrect and that is should in fact be two words; namely, "In exercising". I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is a typographical error.
The amendment relates to Clause 7, which provides the Secretary of State with an unfettered power of direction which includes the power to overrule any decisions of the funding authority. Despite what may have been said earlier today, let us hope that some of those decisions will have been taken co-operatively with the LEAs. The effect of the amendment is intended to increase the Secretary of State's accountability by requiring him to publish guidance rather than unpublished directions, and by permitting the authority to have regard to his guidance and then form its own view rather than simply following the guidance blindly. I do not suggest that members of an authority would follow the guidance blindly but they should not be required to follow it without the opportunity to form an independent view.
Given that the matters which the authority will have to consider are major matters such as closure and reorganisation, they deserve public debate. We have talked about the centralisation of power and decision-making in the hands of the Secretary of State. We are keen that, whatever is written on the face of the Bill, there should be efficient and productive

1467
relationships with LEAs. All of us who have been involved in any form of government know that the more open and pluralistic the machinery, the better the decision that is taken. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: At an earlier stage my noble friend the Minister gave an interesting disquisition on the relative force of guidance and guidelines. It seems to me that it would be helpful if she could refresh my memory at least on that disquisition because what is proposed in this amendment is that the provisions of Clause 7(1) shall be disapplied to authorities at a particular and sensitive stage. What is disapplied is the power of making a direction. The authorities are no longer to be subject to direction. They are to be subject instead to,
"any guidance published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection".
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, could tell us by what procedure those orders would be published. Is this to be a parliamentary procedure such as would fall within the purview of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, or will it be an informal matter, in which case will it have the force of law? If the authority disregards the guidance, will it be possible to take it to court, or will it face no penalty if it disobeys the guidance? I know that later on my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will discuss appellate procedures of this nature. It would be helpful if we could know what it is that is going to be appealed against, and if my noble friend the Minister could tell us what force that would have.
Lord Skidelsky: I have considerable sympathy with the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as her amendment tries to loosen the bonds of the Secretary of State on the funding authority. I believe that on the whole that is a good thing. I believe that the Bill tends towards over-centralisation. I would like to see that loosened and more discretion given to the funding authority, particularly in the management of supply. I have only one question to ask at this point. Is it not the case that what the noble Baroness is proposing is in contradiction to Clause 48, which seems to give the Secretary of State the power to insert himself at will into the process of approving the implementation of decisions to open and close schools? That also would need to be addressed.
Lord Judd: This might be an appropriate moment to remember the old adage that rules are there for the guidance of wise men and observance by fools. Obviously if there is to be real responsibility in the development of education on the part of governing bodies, parents and others, there must be room for flexibility. There are real fears at present about an over rigid dirigiste approach. In this context, therefore, we should welcome the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for saying what he did. The point of a council is that one ought to take advice from it. Advice ought to partake of the nature of a dialogue. We are not at all points convinced that that is how the measure will work. The amendment could help it to
1468
work in that way and bring it into line with centuries of tradition concerning how one ought to take counsel.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, Amendment No. 40 would disapply Clause 7(1) relating to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions as to the exercise by the funding authorities of their functions so that the Secretary of State could not direct the funding authority in matters connected with its functions of reorganisation, such as the establishment, alteration and discontinuance of schools.
The amendment of the noble Baroness would weaken the powers of the Secretary of State to supervise the actions of the funding authority. It would take away from the Secretary of State the ability to direct the authority to bring forward proposals where he deems them necessary to resolve a difficulty over the supply of places. Of course, we shall be giving the funding authorities some guidance on how they should approach their responsibilities, as my noble friend Lord Elton said. But we need to be able to back that up with a direction where necessary.
This is a complicated subject. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that it was just a matter of rules and questioned whether they were that important. I believe that this is such a complex and important part of the Bill that I should like to give the Committee some background information.
Members of the Committee have properly raised questions about our proposals for the future organisation and planning of school provision. I know that many Members of the Committee in particular are keen to explore how matters will work in practice between the 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. points when both the LEAs and the funding authority will have separate duties to act to ensure that there are sufficient school places in the area of a particular LEA. It is in that context that the noble Baroness raised her point.
I appreciate that the questions and, in some cases, even doubts are generated by genuine concern that we can always guarantee a proper and suitable education for each and every child in our nation. I can assure the Committee that much more thought has been given to ensuring that the system we envisage will work effectively and to the benefit of schools and pupils. I have confidence in the proposals and the way in which they will work.
We shall, of course, have the opportunity to discuss the details of what is proposed when we come to later clauses. However, in advance of those important discussions the Committee may find it helpful if I set out the principles which will govern the way the shared duty will work.
First, we propose that the LEA should remain responsible for its own maintained schools and that the funding authority should assume certain responsibilities in respect of grant-maintained schools. The powers of both bodies to bring forward statutory proposals affecting schools will be limited to those schools for which they are both responsible. The funding authority and the LEA should not simply ignore what is happening in the other sector.

1469
Therefore, we propose that when considering the needs of their particular sector both bodies should have to take account of the provision that already exists in the other sector.
Members of the Committee have asked how the new system will respond to increased demand for school places in an area, perhaps as a result of growth in the local school age population. Where there is a need for more places we would expect much of the response to come from the grant-maintained schools themselves. We believe that they will be eager to meet increased demand for places from parents. There will also be the opportunity for those in the voluntary sector to put forward proposals for new self-governing schools. The Churches will, of course, have a key role to play here, but we should also be very happy to see proposals from other faith communities and from business and industry.
All proposals for a new grant-maintained school or for the significant enlargement of an existing self-governing school will be decided by the Secretary of State. In other words, they will be treated similarly to proposals from the governing body of a voluntary school. That process will be familiar to a number of Members of the Committee.
The type of proposals I have described so far essentially respond to parental choice. I believe that giving schools the freedom to respond to demand will go a very long way to ensuring that that demand is met.
However, there will clearly be the need for a more strategic planning responsibility to be placed on local authorities in partnership with the funding authority if we are to guarantee sufficient school places. Both the local authorities and the funding authority will therefore need to have information about the needs of the area and the provision already made in the other sector. That is why Clause 5 of the Bill places a duty on LEAs to provide the funding authority with such information as it requires in order to fulfil its functions. Similarly the funding authority will be required to give information to the LEA to enable it to fulfil its functions. The type of information that will be required by the funding authority will include projected numbers of pupils in each age group requiring places in maintained and grant-maintained schools; and the amount of provision that already exists in county and voluntary schools.
Gathering and supplying such information should not place significant new burdens on local authorities. As indeed the noble Baroness knows, local authorities already need for their own purposes most of the information likely to be required. Members of the Committee may find it helpful to have some concrete examples. Local authorities should already know, for example, actual and projected birth figures obtained from the county's planning department; the relationship between birth and actual attendances; the number of pupils going to independent or special schools; the level of migration in and out of the area; the number of pupils receiving education other than at school; and the number of dwellings built in each area in the past year and projected future building derived
1470
from figures supplied by the planning department or the district council. Members of the Committee may consider that to be a long and complicated list, but it is all information that efficient authorities already collate. Certainly when I was a member of it, my local authority did that as a second nature activity. The only difference will be that the local authority may increasingly need to obtain information about grant-maintained schools in its area. But even that is not completely new. Local authorities which have grant-maintained schools in their area are already engaged in taking on board such information. The establishment of the funding authority should help and not hinder them in this task. I am confident that in practice the exchange of information between the LEA and the funding authority will be conducted on an informal and workmanlike basis.
That said, we have thought it right to set out on the face of the Bill the framework for the provision and exchange of information between those bodies. That way we can guarantee that each body will have access to the information that it needs. The results of the exchange of information between the LEA and funding authority should mean that both are clear what demands there will be for additional places in the area of the LEA. Our hope is that there will also be an exchange of views about the best way of meeting those demands. Until now there has been no real provision for co-ordinated action across the LEA, and grant-maintained sectors and the provisions of the Bill should make that possible.
Members of the Committee come from many walks of life, as we all know, but the Committee will also recognise how often a clear and thorough analysis of an issue reveals an obvious solution to a question or problem. So I hope it will often be in the planning of school places. But I am confident also that in most instances a common view will emerge about the types of additional provision that will best meet the needs of the particular locality. That is not dissimilar from the judgment that LEAs currently have to make when deciding whether to encourage the expansion of a voluntary school or propose the extension of a county school.
I know that these are all complicated and vexed issues and I realise that agreement may not always be reached. Even with genuine good will on all sides, consensus is not always possible. Where it is not, both the local authority and the funding authority would be free to bring forward statutory proposals—in relation, of course, to their own sectors only. It would then fall to the Secretary of State to decide what would be the most appropriate. I can say that there are some parents around the country who would heave a great sigh of relief if at least there were a choice between some forms of amalgamation and closure.
For his part the Secretary of State would make his decision having taken account of the views of parents and other interested parties. It will be vital that any proposals are well informed and reflect accurately likely demand for school places in an area. When considering bringing forward its own proposals, the funding authority will have the information from the LEA about the need for places. In some instances it

1471
may also wish to purchase other professional advice from consultants or from the Office for Standards in Education; and it would be free to do so.
I know that questions have been asked about the scope for the funding authority to establish a new school or to make significant changes to the character of existing schools. Changes to existing schools have rightly been identified as a matter which needs to be handled sensitively. Where the funding authority decides that it should itself propose changes to schools, or the establishment of a new school, it will be required to consult those who have an interest. The way it does so will no doubt vary according to the type of proposal. It is not for me to tie the hands of the chief executive, but there are a number of ways in which that consultation can properly be carried out. The funding authority might, for example, use consultants or its own staff to hold public meetings in order to gauge local opinion.
Once the consultation process has been carried out, the funding authority will need to publish proposals in the local paper and display notices in the relevant area. This requirement mirrors the format in which local authorities currently publish such proposals.
No doubt the funding authority will ask the relevant schools to display the notices at their school gates, just as local authorities do now. Proposals made by the funding authority will require the approval of the Secretary of State, if he gives notice to that effect, or if objections have been made. If the proposals do not attract any objections and the Secretary of State decides not to exercise his powers to call in the proposals so that he makes the decision about whether they should be approved, then they will be decided by the funding authority. The responsibility for the implementation of the proposals will rest with the governing body either of the existing grant-maintained school (Clause 91 of the Bill) or the funding authority in relation to a prospective grant-maintained school (Clause 9 of the Bill). The funding authority will be responsible for making the necessary grants to enable the premises called for by the proposals to be provided.
It will not have escaped the Committee's notice that from the 10 per cent. limit voluntary bodies will also be able to propose the establishment of new grant-maintained schools. From this point promoters, either voluntary bodies or perhaps business and industry groups, will be able to put forward proposals for new self-governing grant-maintained schools. The procedures for making such proposals would be similar to those that exist now whereby voluntary bodies may put forward proposals for new voluntary schools.
The funding authority would have to be consulted before such proposals were published and the funding authority, along with other interested parties specified in Schedule 3 Part II would also have the right to submit objections to the proposal.
I know that there is concern that giving the funding authority a part to play in the planning of school places will lead to duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy. I know that again that view has been expressed by members of the noble Baroness's party.
1472
I have already explained how we see the shared planning function working in practice and I hope that that explanation has offered some reassurance. But I need to explain why the funding authority needs to have some responsibilities for planning school places. Without the involvement of the funding authority, there can be no sensible planning framework for the grant-maintained sector. The local authority has no power to plan the grant-maintained sector, nor would it be right for local authorities to have such powers. Grant-maintained schools have voted to leave local authority control. Clause 10 and Schedule 2 of the Bill clearly leave the overall Section 8 responsibility for securing sufficient places with the local authority between the 10 and 75 per cent. points. Only when there are not sufficient places does the funding authority have a duty to bring forward proposals to increase the supply of places. Of course, this does not rule out the funding authority bringing forward proposals at any other time, if it judges that to do so would be in the interests of pupils or the efficient use of resources.
I am not against a little healthy competition and I see no evil in the existence of competing proposals: one set from the local authority and one from the funding authority for a new school or an enlargement to an existing school. In such circumstances, of course, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have the responsibility for deciding which should go ahead. He, of course, will consult all those with an interest before he takes his decision.
The fact that the funding authority is based centrally will not stop it being able to obtain information about local concerns. It will be able to gather much of what it needs from discussions with existing grant-maintained schools and consultation with the local authority. But where the funding authority needed information that schools and local authorities cannot yield, it would be free to use its powers under Clause 18 to commission research for that purpose.
The funding authority will have a considerable amount of information available to it. Each proposal by a school for grant-maintained status is supported by detailed information. Of course, this information will need to be updated, but here again, there are existing mechanisms to provide for that. First, the regular four-yearly reports by OFSTED will give accurate and up-to-date pictures of each school. Secondly, the annual census data and information provided on examination results will yield information about the school's performance, year on year. In addition, the funding authority has the power under the Bill to request information from the appropriate local authority where that is necessary in order to enable the funding authority to fulfil its functions. If all that is not enough, Clause 18 gives the funding authority the power to carry out research in order to obtain any necessary information.
The practicality of the funding authority making all arrangements involved in establishing new schools is one that is now well-established in the minds of Members of the Committee. Pertinent and probing questions have been asked about how the funding

1473
authority can undertake such a long-term planning role. There is a long lead-in time from the point when it is decided that a new school will be needed until the school can open its doors. There is a need to identify several years in advance population increases or changes that will lead to the need for a new school. That will not be new to the noble Baroness, and it is certainly not new to me as a former member of a local authority. But that long lead-in time will give the funding authority the opportunity to investigate what the local needs are and to plan provision of a new school where that is considered necessary. The process that we envisage the funding authority following would be similar to that employed by local authorities. That would involve being aware of the likely demand for places in the area. As I have already explained, local authorities already have to collect detailed information about potential growth in the population of an area and about plans for housing development. Local authorities will continue to need to collect such information and will be required to share it with the funding authority.
Having recognised that there is a potential need for additional places in an area, the funding authority will need to consider whether that can best be met in the grant-maintained sector and, if so, by what means. The Committee will realise that we have specifically provided in Schedule 2 of the Bill for the funding authority to be under no duty to bring forward proposals at stage two where to do so would not be a cost-effective option. If the funding authority considers that the need for school places should be met in the grant-maintained sector, it can propose a significant enlargement of one or more existing grant-maintained school or the establishment of a brand new GM school.
Let us suppose that the funding authority has reached the conclusion that a new GM school is the best way to provide additional school places that will be needed for a few years hence. The funding authority will then need to purchase a site for its school. We shall bring forward amendments to enable the funding authority compulsorily to purchase a site either for a school it proposes or on behalf of promoters. The funding authority will then need to consult the local population and publish statutory proposals.
At the time the proposals are published the funding authority should also be able to give an indication of the temporary governing body and the proposals will fall to be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is in that context that Amendment No. 40 exists. Because we are at the very start of the Bill it is important to be clear about the context because I believe that this will form the backdrop not just for Amendment No. 40 but for many of the other amendments that will come in the course of the Bill.
We need to be clear that the funding authority will only ever make proposals about the organisation of grant-maintained schools: schools that have already chosen to leave the control of the local education authority. The funding authority will not make
1474
decisions about LEA-maintained schools. Even then, controversial proposals that attract statutory objections will only be able to be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That means that where proposals arouse strong feelings in the community, local people will have the opportunity to make sure that the proposals are decided by the Secretary of State. That is the role he already has in relation to county and voluntary schools and there is no reason to suggest that it should not equally satisfactorily extend to grant-maintained schools.
The decisions about the organisation of grant-maintained schools are, however, not solely in the hands of the funding authority. It is open to the governors of existing grant-maintained schools or promoters to bring forward their own proposals. I have every expectation that that will often be the way that fresh demand is met. One has to recognise, however, that there will be occasions, as there are with county and voluntary schools, where it is easier for someone who is removed from the day-to-day running of the school to see that need for change. That is particularly the case where there is a need to rationalise provision. In such cases there is no reason why the funding authority, after appropriate local consultation, should not bring forward statutory proposals. The local authority does not lose responsibility under Section 8 of the 1944 Act for ensuring that there are sufficient cases until at least 75 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools. That will not happen unless parents in the area are firmly behind the grant-maintained option.
I know that this has been a long answer but it does set in context the specific amendment and other amendments.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps she will make her full answer complete by answering my question. What would be the force in law of the guidance proposed in the amendment? How would that differ from the force in law of the direction in the Bill as drafted?
Baroness Blatch: The particular status of guidance is precisely the answer I gave earlier; that is, that local authorities and key agents would absolutely, positively, have to have regard to it. Therefore, in coming to any decision and taking any action the local authorities would have to prove and be open to challenge that they did have regard to the guidance in coming to a view about policy.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may further delay the noble Baroness in sitting down and ask her a question arising from the first part of her speech about the Secretary of State's power to give directives. Can she tell me any occasion when the Secretary of State has changed his policy because of advice originating from a funding council?
Baroness Blatch: That is an impossible question to answer because we do not have a funding council at the moment. Does the noble Earl mean a funding council as it relates to higher or further education?
Earl Russell: Any funding council.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know. It is not a laughing matter for the noble Earl. I deal with much of the day-to-day matters and my colleague in another place, Mr. Tim Boswell, deals with further and higher education. I know that any information that comes to us from such agencies is taken extremely seriously and we are entirely scrupulous about taking that advice into account. After all, they are key agents in the process.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister yields to no one in her ability to speed read aloud. I thank her for an extremely full answer which covered a great deal more than the amendment and which will, I know, bear considerable reading and re-reading for further material.
I will not yield to the temptation of responding in detail to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, put his finger on it. The amendment is not about getting the correct procedures drafted at Committee stage. It raises the issue of the relationship between the authority and the Secretary of State; in other words, whether or not the authority, in "having regard to", is taking into account and considering but then perhaps forming its own view, having taken account of the Secretary of State's guidance or guidelines. Like the noble Lord, I recall the debate we had on those terms but not in sufficient detail, I regret, to remember the outcome. The distinction is between taking a matter into account and actually complying with a direction.
The noble Baroness spoke at some length about the strategic role of the local authority; she spoke too about weakening the powers of the Secretary of State to supervise the authority. The members of the authority and its chief executive are appointed by the Secretary of State. In other words—and without intending to be insulting—they would be his "creature".
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She is quite wrong when she says that they will be his "creature". If the local authorities wish to exercise that responsibility, that is entirely a matter for them. It is only when they fail to exercise that responsibility, and the funding agency also, that there is a role for the Secretary of State. So local authorities have it in their own hands to make sure that they do not place the Secretary of State in that position.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 40 is directed to the exercise of specific powers by the funding authority. I take the point that there might not be the scenario in which one reaches that stage; nevertheless the amendment is directed to the narrower point of the funding authority taking its own view rather than complying precisely with the direction by the Secretary of State. I appreciate that, whether or not the term "the Secretary of State's creature" was insulting, it was not perhaps the most tactful approach. But having appointed the members of the authority and the chief executive, it is surely appropriate for the Secretary of State then to allow the authority to exercise its discretion. After all, he must
1476
have had confidence in them in the first place. The amendment is directed to allowing the authority a degree of freedom from the Secretary of State's directions if those directions are very rigid.
Having had such a lengthy answer from the Minister, the appropriate and courteous course would be to read it carefully, which I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendments Nos. 44 and 254 concern small schools, particularly but not exclusively village schools. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there should be a consultation process when the closure of a school, particularly a village school, is under consideration or, alternatively, if it is considered that in any area there are more schools than can meet the number of pupils and that therefore one school has to close. It is suggested that there should be consultation with parents, teachers and the community and that this should take place in the formative stage. The purpose of suggested closure should be known to those considering it. The representation should be conscientiously taken into account when a final decision is made.
The amendment applies to the funding authority after 10 per cent. of local authority schools become the responsibility of funding agencies. Amendment No. 44 applies also to local authority schools and grant-maintained schools. Under Amendment No. 254, if there is disagreement between those who have been consulted and the funding authority or the local authority the case should go to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): This is intended to be a paving amendment for Amendment No. 44.
Baroness Blatch: I was given notice that the amendment was grouped with Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44. Unless it is spoken to I am in some difficulty because I have treated them as a whole group.
Baroness Faithfull: I apologise to my noble friend because Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 are exactly the same as Amendments Nos. 42 and 44. Unfortunately, a duplication was made in the printing of the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: But they are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Is the noble Lord withdrawing them?
Lord Judd: Not moved.
Baroness Blatch: What is the noble Lord not moving?
Lord Judd: Those in my name.
Baroness Blatch: Would the noble Lord like to name the amendments that he is not moving?
Lord Judd: I am not moving those amendments in my name—Amendments Nos. 41 to 44.
Noble Lords: Amendments Nos. 41 to 43!
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord clearly does not know the amendments he has down on the Marshalled List. They are Amendment No. 41, I think, and Amendment No. 43. As I was given warning and had it confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, this morning, I shall speak to the group of amendments because they are all on the same theme.
I understand that the thought behind the amendments and the intention is to prevent the Secretary of State directing the funding agency to bring forward proposals in respect of a particular named school.
I am able to assure the Committee that the clause, as presently drafted, prevents the Secretary of State from doing just that. We have cast this particular net so widely that the Secretary of State can only direct the funding agency in respect of a group or class of grant-maintained schools or all grant-maintained schools. Therefore, it is not possible for him to single out a particular school. There is no question of him directing the funding agency to bring forward proposals for reorganisation in respect of a named school.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the provisions of Clause 7 are such that there can be no question of favouritism for or prejudice against a particular school. I should also like to use this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Committee
1478
Clause 219 of the Bill, which concerns the Secretary of State's powers to direct either the local authority maintained sector or the grant-maintained sector, to bring forward proposals to remedy surplus places. Subsection (4) of that clause makes clear that a direction cannot relate to a named school. My noble friend's Amendment No. 40 would weaken the powers of the Secretary of State to supervise the actions of the funding authority. It would take away from him the ability to direct the authority to bring forward proposals, where he deems them necessary, to resolve a difficulty over the supply of places. I am sure that that is not what is intended by my noble friend.
We shall be giving the funding authorities some guidance on how they should approach their responsibilities in these areas, but we need to be able to back that up with a direction where necessary. I believe that much of my response to Amendment No. 40 is pertinent in these cases. I do not know which amendments are now under consideration, but I hope that they will all be withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 42.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Extension of functions of Audit Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 48:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Nursery education
(".—(1) Section 24 of the Education Act 1980 (Nursery Education: England and Wales) shall be repealed.
(2) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that that there shall be available for their area sufficient nursery schools or places, and to maintain such schools or places established by them or a former authority, to provide full-time or part-time nursery education suitable to the requirements of any junior pupils who have attained the age of three years but have not attained the age of 5 years, and whose parents or guardians indicate that they desire such education to be provided.
(3) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in respect of each financial year in which this section has effect that the resources available to local education authorities are adequate to enable them to fulfil the requirements of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall be comparatively brief because it is a very simple amendment. Its aim is to return to the vision of the Education Act 1944 which laid down in Section 8(2) (b) that it should be the duty of the local education authority to provide nursery education for those children whose parents or guardians want it for them. The first subsection of this amendment requires that Section 24 of the Education Act 1980, which overturned that part of the 1944 Act, be repealed. That is contained also in Amendment No. 338.
Subsection (2) of the amendment places the responsibility for the provision of nursery places on the LEAs. Subsection (3) seeks to ensure that there is sufficient funding for the LEAs to enable that duty to be carried out. I want to return to finance in a moment.
I suppose that we would all agree that the overriding aim of the Bill now before us is to improve educational standards. I do not suppose that anyone would deny the need to do that and to do it for all children and not just for a few. Yet it is increasingly evident that the surest way to achieve this end is to provide children with an early start to all aspects of their education.
In 1978, in the report on children with special educational needs, the committee advocated strongly the general provision of nursery education for all children as a statutory duty of local education authorities—that is, for all children whose parents wanted it. We did this because, concentrating as we were on special needs, we held —rightly, I think—that, when children are between the ages of three and five, it is easy to pick up those of them who have special educational needs or who will have them in the future, needs which often manifest themselves when the children begin school.
It is still true that identification of future needs is very easy at nursery school. But in the argument for the statutory provision of nursery education I would now rely on a different and, I think, far more compelling argument. I would argue that there are numbers of children whose needs can be met and whose future development can be assured at nursery school and not thereafter - or only with great difficulty and enormous expense. We are, after all, increasingly
1480
aware now of the deprivation, the lack of care, the lack of suitable stimulus, and the lack of conversation as well as the positive neglect or abuse which form the background of an increasing number of children. There are large numbers of children—many of them, I suppose, the children of single parents—who simply do not have what the idealised picture of the family would give them. Times have changed radically since 1978, and we must recognise that.
Children learn amazingly fast between the ages of three and five, and everybody who has had anything to do with children recognises that fact. But, if those years are wasted, when a child enters school at five he will already be backward both in his linguistic and motor skills and in his behavioural achievements. He may never catch up. If we want to ensure that, nationally, our children are not disgracefully less competent at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 than we should like them to be and if we want them to be as advanced as many of their European or Far Eastern contemporaries, we simply must decide not to waste the crucial years between three and five.
Of course, it is obvious what the Minister's answer will be. I have already had it from various members of the Government and from civil servants. That answer is that the universal provision of nursery education is far too expensive to be contemplated. I am tired of that response. It will be relatively expensive, especially during the period in which it is being introduced. I would not be so insane as to suggest that it could be introduced by a fiat on one particular day. It will take time to introduce universal nursery education, but I believe that when something is as crucial as this measure the expense must be faced. Taxpayers' money —that commodity which is always said to be so rare and which we hear about so often - must be spent where it is fruitful and productive, as it will be in this case.
In 1992, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities produced some figures which were supposed to cost the provision of nursery education for all children between the ages of three and five. It suggested that the somewhat staggering figure of £456 million would be needed every year to provide nursery education for all those children. Of course, it based those figures on a guess of what the take-up by parents and guardians would be. On that point it is difficult to do more than guess: we cannot know. Nevertheless, the figure of £456 million that it produced is, I believe, considerably too high. It includes not just the introduction of the new provision for all those children but the improvement of all existing provision. It is based also, I believe, on the premise that nursery education should be full time.
I believe that half a day's school is enough for children between the ages of three and five, and that they can obtain enormous benefits from a half day's schooling. That entails the schools being full-time although the children are not. One group of children may be educated in the morning and another in the afternoon. That is what regularly happens now in local authority nursery schools. That means that the cost would be far less than the AMA thought it would be.
One has to remember also that many LEAs already support children in playgroups and that some local authorities admit children into reception classes at regular primary schools after their fourth birthday and before their fifth birthday. That is to say, if a child's birthday falls in August he will attend primary school from the following September when he is barely four. So all those children will already be in receipt of funding. Therefore not all the money that will undoubtedly be needed to establish universal nursery education will be new money. In any case, I believe most strongly that the financial argument is fatally flawed.
The argument would be seen to be flawed if Ministers were prepared to take their courage in their hands and look clearly at the future. I do not ask that Ministers should look at tomorrow. Still less do I ask that they should look at whatever day it may be that they have to try to screw money out of the Treasury. I want them to look a generation or more ahead, because we now know—we are not guessing—that the provision of nursery education, the learning, when learning is easy, of language and of physical skills such as the use of pencils and paint brushes, the disciplines of self-motivated learning, the social ability to become a member of a group and the understanding of the use of language by other people (the understanding that an instruction is something that is to be obeyed) are life saving for some children and for all children they are the firm foundation upon which they will build when they reach primary school.
It is impossible to exaggerate the difference that it makes to a child of five, who these days will be starting out, after all, on the national curriculum, whether he has attended a nursery school. That is the only sure way of raising education standards. I beg the Committee not to be put off by the argument that such provision costs too much. We must grasp the fact that we shall save far more money in the future if we spend it within the next year or two, or three or four.
Money now is wasted on a vast scale in trying to pick up the pieces of those children who fail at school. We should at once adopt the universal provision of nursery education as a principle to which we are committed firmly and from which we shall not again allow ourselves to be deflected and defeated by money problems. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: It is a great privilege to be associated with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in moving the amendment. I can think of no one with a more distinguished and admired record in this and many other related spheres.
In the Prime Minister's introduction to the White Paper, Choice and Diversity, he claims that,
"the Government are determined that every child in this country should have the very best start in life".
Yet the Bill makes no proposals to extend nursery education, let alone to make it universally available. Given the extensive research evidence showing the value of nursery education, that omission is quite extraordinary and must call into question the extent to which the Government are genuinely committed to raising standards.
1482
As far as I am aware the only independent evaluation of the 1992 key stage 1 SATs has been carried out by the National Union of Teachers in conjunction with Leeds University School of Education. The report was published on 15th March last. That evaluation identified highly significant variations in the performance of different groups of year two children. Significantly, children with nursery experience out-performed those who had not had nursery education.
Section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944 contained a far-sighted provision which required local education authorities to ensure that education was made available for children under five. That was disastrously repealed by Section 24 of the Education Act 1980, which provided for local education authorities to have only a power to provide for educational facilities for children under five. The new clause which we are proposing, and the associated amendments, attempt to return the position broadly to that of the Education Act 1944, making provision for all those parents who want it.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause requires local education authorities to make available sufficient nursery schools and places, including both full-time and part-time provision, for children who have reached the age of three, as distinct from the 1944 Act which stipulated a minimum age of two. The subsection also requires that the provision should be "suitable". That is important because anxiety has often been expressed about four-year-olds being put into reception classes with children who are almost six. By insisting on the education being suitable it is hoped that nursery education will be provided for the younger children who can then progress to reception classes.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself each year that sufficient resources are available to meet the requirements of providing for nursery education. The amendments to Clause 10 on page 4, lines 12 and 14, exempt nursery education from the ambit of Clause 10. The Schedule 18 amendments remove Section 24 of the Education Act 1980.
Local authority nursery school staff are able to teach the children in appropriate ways because their work is based on firm principles of early childhood education. Teachers and nursery nurses discuss and plan their work together. For that reason there are rigorous and innovative approaches to curriculum development. The professional training of teachers and nursery nurses enables them to keep meticulous records and to provide a carefully planned and structured learning environment which encourages the all-round development of young children.
Research has constantly shown that nursery education offers children the best foundation for their future education, including the national curriculum. The Education, Science and Arts Committee in another place has been so impressed by the standard of nursery education that it has called for an expansion of nursery education to cater for all three

1483
and four year-old children whose parents desire it for them. Its report Standards of Reading in Primary Schools states:
"Our first concern is with pre-school provision. Before they learn to read, all children need a broad range of experiences, including playing, speaking, listening, using books, enjoying stories and recognising shapes. Nursery education provides an excellent opportunity for all these to be experienced. Our enquiry in 1988 into educational provision for the under-fives left us in no doubt of the value of nursery education".
Across the Atlantic, the conclusions are similar. American research into the long-term effect of a nursery curriculum based on play shows that children who experienced such a curriculum were progressing better in their schools, scored higher on tests of functional competence—practical reading, writing and calculation—and were less likely to be involved in criminal activity such as drug abuse. The research suggests also that children who are encouraged to be independent, active learners while young will be more community minded and responsible in adolescence. Indeed, American researchers have concluded that it is cost effective to provide high quality nursery education. For every 1,000 dollars invested, 4,130 dollars were returned to the taxpayer by way of savings on education and social problems later in life.
The most recent statistics from the government statistical service may give the impression that over half of three and four year-olds are receiving nursery education. The correct figure for children attending local authority nursery schools and classes in approximately 25 per cent. By contrast, it is noteworthy that reports from the Select Committee in another place, Her Majesty's Inspectorate and educational researchers have highlighted the inadequacy of many reception classes as distinct from nursery schools. Those reports express anxiety about the lack of appropriately qualified staff; inadequate staffing ratios (some four year-olds have been admitted to classes containing over 30 children with only one adult, and class sizes are generally rising); the inappropriateness of the curriculum (children attending nursery schools and classes generally receive a broader, more meaningful curriculum than children attending infant classes); the lack of suitable space, particularly outdoor play space; and the low expectations of infant staff. Research has shown that reception staff sometimes have lower expectations of the ability of four year-olds than staff working in nursery schools and classes.
It is clear from those reports that little consideration has been given to the needs of four year-olds when early admission policies have been implemented. All that and much more leads to the conclusion that state nursery education provides the most effective foundation for the educational careers of all our children. The combination of qualified staff providing a well thought-out planned curriculum that is appropriate for meeting the needs of young children and the long-term positive outcomes are power contributions to raising standards. Any further removal of funding for state education—and there are already reports of a further round of such cuts being under way—will result in neglecting the educational needs of under-fives which must be a retrograde step.
1484
We are constantly told by the Minister that this measure is designed to be a strategic Education Bill to carry us into the 21st century. Surely it is inconceivable that nursery education, arguably the single most important pillar of the Prime Minister's much trumpeted commitment to the very best start in life for all our children, should be ignored; hence the very deep and profound significance of this amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Seear: At this time of night and after the two speeches that we have already heard, I shall speak briefly in supporting this amendment. Like, I imagine, nearly everyone else in the Chamber, I have received a large number of letters from parents with children in nursery schools, particularly from parents who have children in nursery schools that face closure. The anxiety of parents who fear losing nursery education for their children is surely one of the best pieces of evidence available of the value that is placed on nursery education by parents who have children in nursery schools. In replying to those letters I have committed myself to saying what I can, however briefly, in support of this amendment.
I think we perhaps even now do not realise how seriously inadequate the education of the population as a whole in this country is. I suppose this Bill is intended to deal with that inadequacy. We can neither economically nor socially afford to allow our education to be as bad as it is at present for such a high proportion of the population. Of course it is excellent for some, but that is not the point. We have an appalling tale of under-educated people who will be quite unable to hold their own economically in the world of tomorrow. It is difficult enough for them to hold their own in the world of today and it will be infinitely more difficult in the world of tomorrow. Those people will almost inevitably become social liabilities and problems to themselves, to their neighbours and to society. There is no question about that. We have had all the evidence presented to us, and I shall not attempt to repeat it, of the educational value of nursery education. It gives children an opportunity to take advantage of the better education later on that we are hoping will be the outcome of this legislation. Nursery education is an investment. It costs a lot of money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said. Of course it does. All good education costs a lot of money. But if the money is spent in this way it will avoid a tremendous waste of money later on. The truancy we experience in schools at the present time is a waste of money and of resources. The failure to take up opportunities that are there is a waste of money and of resources. The Government are often accused of being short-term in their view of policies in general. Let not the Government be short-term in their education policies. If the Government wish to prove they are not short-term and that they understand what investment means in areas of this kind, the best way they can show that is to invest in nursery education.
I wish to make one other point which I believe has not yet been made. I speak with total ignorance of

1485
small children. I have just been away with three of them and how anyone copes with 30 in one class without going stark staring mad I cannot imagine. However, that is another matter. The small children who do not receive nursery education are not without learning experiences. What kind of learning experiences are they receiving? They are learning from videos and from what they see on some of the most undesirable, as well as some of the most desirable, television programmes that are around and which their families absorb day after day and night after night. Those are the impressions they receive at their most formative stage. We need to take that point seriously into account. If we want to counter those impressions, we must counter them with impressions, opportunities and learning of a social, intellectual and cultural kind that only nursery education can give. I beg the Government not to regard this as a frill to be afforded later on when we have a little more money but as an absolutely central part of the current education programme.
Baroness Faithfull: I have added my name to this amendment and I rise to support it. I shall not go into the details which have been so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Nursery education is expensive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has pointed out. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would consider establishing the principle that nursery education should be available in this country.
I recognise that to introduce a policy of providing nursery education for all children in this country at this time might cost more than the country could bear, although I take the point that it would be money well spent. If the Government feel that they cannot do that, could they at least establish the principle of nursery education and then introduce it stage by stage? They might take three, four or five years to implement a policy of full nursery education for all children, but starting with the children most in need such as those who come to school at the age of five unable to speak any English and are therefore backward for all time. It might also be considered for the children of disruptive and unhappy families. Would it not be possible to work with Part III of the Children Act which states that care and education should be provided for all children in need up to the age of eight?
We must also consider that parents have choice. In the first instance they must choose for themselves what they believe to be right for their children. A number of parents in this country would prefer at this stage to joint the Pre-School Playgroups Association. Many of the people running playgroups are now being trained.
Therefore I make a slightly different contention. I am sure that if we were to ask all Ministers in Her Majesty's Government I dare to suggest that we would find that most, if not all, of them sent their children under five to nursery schools.
I accept the Government's point with respect to money. Could we not establish the belief in nursery
1486
education for all children, taking five years to implement such a policy, beginning by providing nursery education for those children most in need?
Baroness Young: I do not believe that there can be anybody who takes an interest in education, as all of us taking part in this Committee stage of the Bill do, who does not accept the importance of nursery education, which has been so well advanced in the speeches which we have heard. I do not intend to go over those arguments again because I am sure that my noble friend the Minister accepts them as much as I do or anybody who takes an interest in this matter does. There are a great many statistics to support all the contentions that have been made.
I believe that as Members of the House of Lords we have to be very careful before we commit the Government to the enormous amounts of extra expenditure involved. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, say that it was no use saying that it was all too expensive and that she was tired of that argument. That may well be the case. We are often tired of hearing arguments repeatedly. However, I have heard the noble Baroness expound at equally great length on the importance of special education and how much more money we should spend on that. I have heard other noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in particular, expound at great length on how much we should do to keep children at school after the age of 16 and in higher education.
The arguments are all ones which we understand, but those of us who take a responsible line in public life know that it is a very soft option to argue a case and say that the cost does not matter. That has led the country into a great deal of trouble. It would be quite wrong at this stage of the Bill to say that the cost does not matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said that it had been estimated that to provide nursery education would cost £460 million. It is my understanding that it would cost considerably more than that and that if the Government were to provide nursery education for every three and four year-old the cost could be over £1 billion. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can confirm that when she replies. It may well be that that would apply if every child were in full-time nursery education. I would accept the argument that part-time education is quite enough for three to five year-olds.
I was very interested in the argument of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who supported the amendment but hoped that we could introduce nursery education stage by stage. If my noble friend looks at the statistics, that is exactly what is happening with regard to nursery education. Over 53 per cent. of under-fives were attending a nursery school in 1992. In the academic year 1991–92, 55 per cent. of children aged four were admitted to nursery classes. A further 19 per cent. of children aged four were admitted to primary school. Therefore, that provision is coming in stage by stage.
I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness said about play groups. Over a quarter of a million places are available in pre-school provision—day nurseries, child minders and play groups. Forty-one per cent. of

1487
under-fives attend play groups. Therefore, to suggest that almost nothing is happening for the under-fives is quite incorrect. I believe that there is great virtue in the argument that there should be different forms of provision: there should be nursery schools and play groups. Play groups which involve parents are very valuable indeed. They help to train and they help mothers in difficult situations to see what is the best way to help their children. Quite incidentally, they provide an enormous amount of employment for people as well as benefiting the children.
What my noble friend argues for is happening. The numbers of children in nursery schools have risen by 55 per cent. since 1983. That is another way of saying that such provision is being introduced stage by stage. That being the case, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. But even if it were to be necessary, the House of Lords is not involved in raising money: it does not involve itself in taxation matters. It is quite wrong for us to commit the Government to expenditure of this proportion. Once we start to do that we are in great trouble. I ask my noble friends not to support the amendment on that ground, if not on any other.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, in referring to the financial privileges of another place, she has introduced a little bit of a blue herring, if I may so put it. The situation is perfectly well understood. It has always been in order for this House to make requests to another place involving the spending of money. Another place is perfectly well able to protect itself from those requests if it so wishes. However, to put about the idea that we in this place are not even allowed to ask is a voluntary abnegation of our functions which I do not believe is necessary.
The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that trouble has occurred through spending money that we did not have. I agree that it has. I agree that that trouble must be avoided. What we are only just beginning to realise is the magnitude of the case for arguing that we have got into even worse trouble by not spending money; and indeed that not spending money may be a very expensive habit. I was most impressed by the figures supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the cost of not doing what the amendment recommends. Before invoking the argument of cost, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, might have costed it both ways. Doing nothing is not a cost-free option. One should consider the costs of that in any spending proposal that comes before one.
I shall not gild the lily of the arguments that we have heard already. I wish to add two small points. Speaking as a parent, I thoroughly agree with the arguments that have been put forward about the usefulness of nursery education. We have heard much during the Bill about the importance of parental choice. I am expressing a parental choice: I should like to be allowed to have it.
My noble friend Lady Seear alluded to some letters. I have received them too. They are impressive, well written, individual and with strong feel underlying
1488
them. I have great respect for those who regularly brief us, but I think Members of the Committee will understand what was meant by my friend the late Lord McNair. He said that he was always particularly impressed by letters from "real people". They have authority over the other place and one day they may express it.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: If I may say so, this has been by far the most impressive part of the debate this evening and one of the most impressive debates I have heard in the House for a long time. It seems to me that the quality has been like that of an Unstarred Question debate on a Wednesday evening. It has had something of that quality, though in a moment I shall say why I think it would be inappropriate for the Committee to accept the amendment this evening.
I hope nonetheless that there are benefits to be gained from the Committee stage debate which we are having. Almost everything the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said touched a chord in the Committee. I have for a long time been a firm believer in nursery education. I had the privilege of helping to organise the day nursery at the University of Southampton some 15 years ago and it was an important part of the higher education institution. However, it must be admitted that in the initial stages it was conceived as much for the benefit of the parents, as is often the case with nursery education, as it was for the children. Happily, the children benefited greatly.
Since that time it is true that the provision of nursery education in this country has increased by some 40 per cent. but it is still clearly only partial. As Members of the Committee have emphasised, it is, in the main, extended or partly extended to children who are least in need of it, although no doubt all are in need of it. I was much impressed by the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made: one thing that has happened in the past 15 years is that more and more children sit at home watching television and playing computer games. It is the experience of many children aged three to five that what passes for education is experience in playing Nintendo or the equivalent, rather than learning to talk, to paint, to take part in theatrical or musical experiences—all the things that a good playschool can offer. So there is much common ground between us.
The Bill before us focuses on particular areas: primary education, secondary education and, to some extent, further education. We are assured and I believe we are reaching agreement that it probably does not centre on higher education and certainly, as it stands, it does not centre on nursery education. I agree with Members on all sides of the Committee that nursery education has been the Cinderella, if that is the appropriate word, of the education programme in this country, despite the improvements which my noble friend Lady Young indicated. I hope that one of the fruits of this unstarred debate, as I regard it, will be to elicit a response, though not necessarily on this occasion, as to how we may see more resources devoted to this important issue.
However, there is a Motion before us and although the noble Baroness said that it was not her intention

1489
to suggest that something should be done by fiat, the Motion is exactly that. It is a fiat. Subsection (2) of the amendment states:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority",
and then in what must be subsection (3)—although in the Marshalled List it is numbered as a second subsection (2), which must be an error—it goes on:
"The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in respect of each financial year… that the resources available to local education authorities are adequate."
How is that to be done? No one on the other side of the Committee has addressed that issue. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is money well spent. It may indeed be money that will save other expenditure later. That is a fair point. But where is the money to come from now? The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested that it might be of the order of £456 million: I have seen quoted a figure more of the order of £1.5 billion.
It is not responsible to introduce in a Bill of this kind a huge order of expenditure. I am not contradicting the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am not saying that it is improper in the House of Lords to draw attention to or to propose measures which would incur expenditure. I am not making that technical point. I am making the point of irresponsibility. It is not sensible to say, "OK, now we'll spend another £450 million a year" or "Now we'll spend another £1.65 billion a year". If one looks at the costing, there are about 165 words in Amendment No. 48. That would be £10 million per word of the amendment per year if we were to accept this motion.
I believe that there is no case for writing in a fiat —for that is exactly what this motion is—at this stage. On the other hand, as I said at the outset, I think that this has been the best part of the debate so far. I agree with most of the observations made as a goal. I think that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, intended, though it is true that she has run short of patience on hearing the financial argument utilised. I think it is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, intended; namely, that we should be asking for a goal. I hope that we shall indeed have a Wednesday Unstarred Question debate on this theme very soon, and I hope that we can move towards a position where nursery education in this country has the higher priority it deserves. But the Committee, I hope, appreciates that it would be most irresponsible to carry an amendment which would have the effect of putting a burden on the Exchequer of the order of £1 billion per year.
Lord Northbourne: It is unfortunate that this most important issue has arisen at such a late hour. I do not intend to repeat arguments so ably made save to say that I understand that new American research due to be published tomorrow on a cohort of young people now aged 27 shows the financial advantages achieved as a result of nursery education by that half of the cohort which had such education.
My concern is specifically for disadvantaged children. I wonder if the noble Baroness will be able to give at least some comfort along the lines of the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
1490
Children who are abused and neglected at home from birth do not have any hope by the time they are aged five. They have low self-esteem and lack social skills. When they arrive in primary school they do not know what to do and are the butt of their fellows. So they go on from failure to failure.
I wonder if there is some compromise by which the Government can at least try to ensure that children who are entitled, for example, to free school meals have some sort of voucher assuring them of the availability of nursery education. The advantages are twofold. First, the children themselves get the support they need; and, secondly, family problems can be identified early in a child's life and the parents, one hopes, given support, so avoiding much more serious problems later.
Lord Elton: I have heard the Government criticised on a number of occasions on the basis of the performance of other countries in Europe. One wonders why there is no mention of Europe now, when, with the exception of one country, we are alone in having compulsory education at the age of five. Our children go to school on average 12 months ahead of European children. When I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, talk about what goes on at home, I wonder why British homes are so much more dangerous than French, Spanish or Italian homes for children of that age.
Lord Northbourne: Is the noble Lord aware that in France 95 per cent. of children have nursery education?
Lord Elton: I was aware that that was so in Belgium, not in France. If I have been misinformed, I apologise. I understand that in the great majority of European countries—there are now two exceptions —compulsory school education starts 12 months after it does here. I am tempting too many people—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow his colleagues to pursue the argument. It is not a matter of what is compulsory; it is a matter of what actually happens. The fact is that in comparison with most European countries we have a smaller proportion of the cohort of 3 year-olds to 5 year-olds going into nursery education whether it is compulsory or not. That is what really affects the issue.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: I will leave my noble friend to answer that question from the Dispatch Box because she can dispose of it much better than I.
First, if we are to speak of these vast sums of money to be expended I agree that television offers a danger to very young children, young children and just children. Some of the resources should be spent on cleaning up our media, and particularly our television.
Secondly, I look at the reforms, which I hope my noble friend is going to encourage, to which I referred in an earlier amendment in regard to whole school behaviour policies. I have seen the effect that that has had on the performance of the children who enter those schools, and it is dramatic. I believe that a good

1491
deal of those resources should go into the GESTs which have recently ceased for encouraging that sort of development in schools. Those are more modest sums; they are within the terms of the Bill and do not call into question the privilege of another place in the disposing of revenue.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renfrew that this has been an important debate. It is extremely difficult to argue against motherhood and apple pie, because nursery education is clearly a good thing. But it is good up to a point and only in an order of priorities. We have massive problems in our secondary schools which we need to cure. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was perfectly right that we have disadvantaged children who need help because they cannot obtain it from the home. But the home needs protection and we do not want the automatic removal of all our children, at increasingly earlier years, from an environment in which they should be nurtured and develop the most important elements of their characters.
Lord Skidelsky: I do not want to take up much time because it is late. However, I should like to reinforce one or two points made earlier.
The issue between us is not about desirability of pre-school provision. The issues relate to how best that provision can come about; what the role of private and public money is in providing pre-school education and particularly—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and also other noble Lords—to what extent, in starting a process of improvement, one should target provision on those in most need and therefore allow money of a sensible kind to be spent in the initial stages on those for whom problems have been identified.
The kind of wreckage spoken of by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, occurring in later life due to lack of pre-school education arises particularly in those families which are under-privileged and disadvantaged. Therefore, the issue of targeting is extremely important. I do not believe that a blanket duty on the local authority to provide pre-school education for all addresses the problem of targeting.
That is my first point and it reinforces what has already been said. My second point relates to the role of private money in the whole process. Germany has a high proportion of pre-school children in some kind of nursery education, of which 71 per cent. is either wholly or partially privately funded. It is a high proportion and I am not saying that it will be as high in this country. But to say at this point that it is up to the local authority exclusively to be providing pre-school education is to deter other methods of finance from coming into the business. It is also to deter variety in the provision of pre-school education.
Therefore, both issues are important: first by targeting we should try to get public money going to those families that are most in need of it; secondly, we should not agree to things that would have the effect of preventing private money coming into pre-nursery schooling.
Baroness Blatch: I too recognise that there is in this Chamber enormous support for the notion that children younger than five can derive a good deal of benefit from education. Some would also argue that, in consequence, such education should be provided by the state for all three and four year-olds. Indeed, that is what the amendments are about.
The Government would certainly agree that young children can gain a great deal from starting school before the age of five. Other forms of group provision for three and four year-olds, such as pre-school playgroups, can also do much to broaden these children's experience, to introduce them to new ideas and to new friends and to help prepare them for their compulsory schooling. Incidentally, what a disappointment that there has not been a word in favour of pre-school playgroups. That is why it is our policy to encourage the development of a diversity of provision for the under-fives which takes account of local needs and circumstances. Taking into account educational and other forms of group day care, over 90 per cent. of all three and four year-olds are now participating—over 50 per cent. in schools, the others in playgroups or day nurseries.
Despite this high level of participation, we are often compared unfavourably with our European neighbours in the provision we make for the under-fives. There is scope here for a good deal of sterile argument, which I do not propose to get into. But I should like to make two points. First, with an overall three to five year-old participation rate for education alone of around 65 per cent., we compare well with many of our European neighbours—and I may add that almost all of our under-fives' education is provided by the state, without charge. The proportions elsewhere are much lower. Secondly, those figures do not take into account one of the real strengths of this country—the contribution which the voluntary playgroups make to provision for the under-fives. The Pre-school Playgroups Association estimates that 41 per cent. of three and four year-olds now attend playgroups—19,000 playgroups serving many hundreds of thousands of children. Why on earth should we have to leave them out of the statistics?
The intention of the amendment—in fact the absolute consequence of it—is that the playgroup movement shall cease to exist. It is to provide state education for all three and four year-olds whether or not they need it: it should be made available just in case a family decides it wants to use it.
Lord Peston: Will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? I am really staggered by the tone of her response to the debate, which in my judgment simply does not meet the requirements of the amendment. My children went to playgroups. Playgroups are fine but they are not pre-school education. They are playgroups. We are discussing pre-school education. I think that the noble Baroness ought not to be making these party points but addressing the substantive issue here, which is an extremely serious one. It is one on which we may differ—I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness has to agree with us—but we do not need this kind of point.
Baroness Blatch: I also need no lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggesting that I am being frivolous or scoring party points. I believe that we have good reason in this country to be extremely proud of a very healthy part of the voluntary sector. A direct result of the amendments would be to kill off pre-school playgroups. That would be a tragic day in this country.
This is particularly true at a time when there are inevitable limits to what can be afforded from the public purse. Providing free education for all three and four year-olds would need an increase in annual spending. All kinds of figures have been bandied around, so just let us say that it would be a very large sum of money: certainly in the billions rather than in the millions. There would also be very substantial capital costs, as I know to my cost, as a former county councillor. Additional spending on this scale is not something that we can sensibly contemplate at the moment. I agree absolutely with my noble friends Lady Young and Lord Renfrew that, while we must be free to discuss these matters, we must also exercise responsibility and not be frivolous, harbouring idealistic notions that these sums of money need not be worried about in this place.
Surely it is better to find ways of making the best and most productive use of those resources which are available. The Government therefore hope that the steady growth in education for the under fives which has characterised the past decade will continue. But we also believe that at the same time we should do all we can to maximise the educational opportunities presented by other types of provision, and ensuring that what they offer young children is of the highest possible quality. That is why we are currently supporting a very substantial increase in the Pre-School Playgroups Association's training for playgroup leaders.
I also understand that many Members of the Committee are also concerned that the local education authorities' role in planning and monitoring provision for the under-fives may in future be hampered, particularly where there is a sizeable increase in numbers of self-governing state schools. I can assure this Committee that that is not our intention. Local education authorities will retain the power to establish nursery schools and to propose the addition of nursery units or classes at schools that they maintain. I have tabled an amendment to make sure that can happen even when responsibility for securing the provision of primary and secondary school places has passed wholly to the funding agency.
Local education authorities will be able, if they wish, to make arrangements with self-governing primary schools for the provision of nursery education, either as an integral part of the school or with the school acting as an agent for the LEA. They have the right to make representations—and, if they wish, statutory objections—about any proposal which a self-governing school may make for the creation or discontinuing of nursery places. We shall also bring forward an amendment to ensure that they are able to get from self-governing schools the information they need to discharge their Children Act responsibilities to
1494
review provision for young children. We have also tabled amendments to clarify the position of self-governing schools which wish to provide part-time nursery education.
We intend in due course to offer advice to LEAs and self-governing state schools which will encourage them to collaborate, particularly in relation to young children with special needs, and will stress the importance we attach to the continuing development of a diversity of provision for the under-fives to suit local needs and circumstances.
We have done much to address the issue of quality. I have here the Rumbold Report. Starting with quality, it stressed the importance of securing the highest quality for the under-fives in all the settings that they attend; nursery and reception classes and playgroups. We in the Department for Education and our colleagues in the Department for Health are asking the Pre-School Playgroups Association to secure a real improvement through greatly increased training of playgroup leaders in the quality of experience offered by playgroups.
As I said, I am sorry that we have not heard more support tonight for the playgroup movement. I spent eight of the most happy years of my life as chairman of my local playgroup and toddlers' group. We linked in with the local primary school. We served about eight rural villages and I would match what we did with our children with any nursery school in the land.
Playgroups do a great deal to involve parents in their children's development and the Rumbold Report stressed that very important point. Paragraphs 106 and 107, on page 14, state:
"The one constant element in the child's experience of these transition processes is the parent, and not surprisingly it is the quality of involvement or partnerships between parents and educators which is likely to determine the effectiveness of continuity. It is only by drawing on parents' detailed knowledge of their children that educators can begin to gain an understanding of the range of their previous experiences together with an indication of their social and intellectual skills and competencies. On this basis, educators can build continuity of experience with children, and ensure that the provision made reflects and values their cultural and language background.
"The potential of this partnership will be fully realised when educators more clearly see the home itself as normally affording a rich natural context for all aspects of young children's development. Parents can significantly influence their children's learning: but this potential contribution needs to be fully recognised and acknowledged by both parents themselves and by teachers. Partnership implies a two-way process with knowledge, information and insights flowing freely both ways".
An important point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about serious underachievement among our teenagers. I want to put a personal spin on that particular point. I spent 25 years of my life fighting those people in education who were against a structured approach to reading, writing and basic numeracy in our schools; those people who believed that it was more fashionable that children should not involve themselves in competition which flew in the face of all the natural abilities and natural inclinations of young children. I refer also to those young people who were allowed to drop key subjects and who thus missed the acquisition and consolidation of basic skills early in their lives.

1495
Worse than that, it was fashionable for years and years throughout the 1960s and 1970s to forsake the teaching of spelling, grammar and punctuation in favour of what I like to call "unstructured creativity". All that I can say about that is that even young people who are naturally creative need reading and writing to give full expression to that creativity, and those of us who are not naturally creative need those basic skills to live our lives competently and confidently. So, if anything was responsible for the under-achievement of our teenagers, it has a great deal more to do with that movement than with the lack of pre-school playgroup provision. The amendments would sound the deathknell of the pre-school playgroup movement and I have said all along that I believe that that would be sad.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a very important point about disadvantaged children. Local education authorities are highly responsible in that the provision that they make is always targeted at those children with special needs. When they come to my department with an application for nursery provision, we take that as a first category of need in determining whether the provision shall be approved.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renfrew that this has been an important debate. We must not talk ourselves down. Something like 94 per cent. of our under-fives are in some form of provision. In 1979 we inherited a pretty poor provision for under-fives. We now have a much healthier provision and it is growing all the time. Let us encourage the growth of that sector, but do not let us put an impossible imposition on this House and the country. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I, too, have received real letters from real people, but it is real people also who would have to pick up the bill and it is an impossible bill to impose on this or another place.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I listened to the enormous puff which she gave to playschool groups. My friend who is in now in charge of this business, who lives in Cambridge and who I know well, will be very pleased to read of it. However, I do not think that pre-school playgroups provide nursery education. If more of those who take charge of them become trained, I fear that the great advantage that those groups now have—that they are cheap —will be lost and there may then be fewer of them than previously. Yet without trained teachers who understand thoroughly what child development demands, we shall not get what I believe that we should have in this country.
I find it difficult—in fact, almost incredible—to be told that this amendment is irresponsible. I find it almost incredible that the argument of cost should be advanced without any notice being taken whatsoever of the savings that will result. And I find this incredible and rather insulting: I do not think that any of the noble Lords who put their names to this amendment could be accused of putting forward frivolous proposals without—as I was told in my case—thinking that the cost mattered. I never said that the cost did not matter. I said that the cost was enormous,
1496
but that it would pay in the end. To describe the principle of universal nursery education for those between three and five as an ideal is perhaps right, but nobody could put forward such a proposition without taking it seriously and believing that it is a necessity.
I agree with a good deal that has been said about targeting, but when in 1978 we were thinking about how to ensure that nursery education was provided for those children who were at risk of having special educational needs later, it seemed difficult to get the targeting right. I now think that we have become much more honest than we were in 1978. We realise that the people who will have educational and behavioural needs will, to a large extent, be children who come from deprived parents. So it is quite possible that targeting may be a way forward.
I also believe that it is important that the Minister has said that LEAs will retain the power to establish nursery schools even in an area—if such areas exist—where all the schools are grant maintained. That is an important matter to pursue, because we should have the power—even if we cannot have a mandatory provision—to provide that nursery education is left in the hands of the LEAs, which are the only people who know how a whole area looks with regard to special deprivation. I hope that the principle will be pursued in future amendments.
I hope also that the Minister can assure me that we shall hear what is intended with regard to the LEAs and nursery education provision and will say whether she is willing to contemplate the helpful and sensible suggestion that has been made about the phasing in of nursery education over a period of years. I do not say anything against pre-school playgroups, but I hope that we shall hear no more about how they will do as a substitute for nursery education.
If we can be assured that the goal of universal nursery education is a principle that the Government have in mind and that the responsibility for nursery education will remain with the local authorities, then I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It would be less than honest of me if I did not come to the Dispatch Box to say two things. One of course is, as I have spelt out already, that local authorities will retain the responsibility for providing for pre-school playgroups. Other than that, there is no assurance over the universal goal of nursery school education. We believe in a diversity of provision, as I have said. We believe that the pre-school playgroup, as a part of that choice, should remain in being. Where local authorities put a request to us to expand or provide new nursery places, we shall consider that request alongside all other bids for money.
We cannot go along with the principle behind the amendments or the idea that we should have one monolithic system for all three and four year-olds.
Baroness Warnock: I must be satisfied with that answer for the time being. I do not promise that this amendment or something similar, perhaps in a modified form, and taking into account targeting and phasing in, will not come back at a later stage. But for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 10 [Responsibility for providing sufficient school places]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4) below")
The noble Lord said: Clause 10 and Schedule 2 will undoubtedly seriously compromise the orderly planning of the school system as a whole. They will disadvantage the planning and provision of nursery, special needs, adult and other specialist forms of education. I shall argue that they will erode parental choice, notably in smaller authorities. The funding agency for schools and the local education authorities will effectively be set up in competition with each other. There is no guarantee as a result that sufficient schools in terms of the Act will be provided since there is to be no ultimate responsibility.
The Bill provides that in the event of dispute the matter should be determined by the Secretary of State, drawing central government into detailed local controversy. The Secretary of State will be directly accountable but how can he meaningfully discharge such responsibility across every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales? Does that not inevitably call into question the viability of meaningful accountability and is this not a matter of profound constitutional significance? It is wholly impractical to establish split statutory responsibilities with no proper lead role. That should rest with the local elected bodies best placed to assess and adjudicate upon local needs.
In Committee in the other place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Forth, explained the provisions by saying that at stage 2 there is a shared responsibility exercised by parallel duties. Both the FAS and the LEAs have a shared responsibility for securing sufficient places. He said that his words are the definitive answer and that the FAS and the LEAs have separate, but parallel duties for achieving sufficient places. The LEA has the Section 8 duty and the FAS has a similar but different duty under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2.
To add to the complications involved, the two bodies will be expected to take account of provision within each other's sector while being able to propose a provision only in their own. Given that plans by the voluntary sector will also need to be considered, the importance of a clear lead responsibility is evident.
As was pointed out on Second Reading in this Chamber, there are a number of areas of the education service where the splitting of the planning provision duty would be of serious concern. Perhaps I may give four examples. The first example is nursery education. If no single body is to have the sole function of providing nursery education the planning of comprehensive coverage and the most efficient dovetailing of nursery places with existing primary schools will be compromised. Future grant-maintained schools in the primary sector will have little incentive to run expensive nursery provision. And if they do, thereby
1498
pre-empting the use of available funds, that may have little to do with meeting the most acute need in a particular locality.
The second example is special needs. The proposal for the extension of grant-maintained status in the special needs sector is contentious. The Bill proposes a further laudable strengthening of the rights of parents of pupils with special needs yet threatens to weaken those same rights by producing a divided responsibility to implement them. The third example is adult education. The debate last year on the Further and Higher Education Act and further debates this year in this Chamber demonstrated deep concern over the future of adult education in the new further education regime. Much of the provision takes place in schools but Clause 10 proposals would leave LEAs with a residual function but declining control over premises and shrinking resources.
The fourth example is the youth service, music tuition, other cultural provisions, outdoor activities and extra-curricular activities in general. The provision of extras—such as facilities outside school hours for teenage pupils, music tuition and outdoor activities—will become increasingly difficult as LEAs lose the role of planning and overall service. I suggest that that is particularly deplorable when the United Kingdom has established such an outstanding international reputation as an example for young musicians, helped in their development by local authority orchestras, and when there has been by contrast so much recent acute anxiety about standards of safety in outdoor pursuits outside the control of local authorities. Indeed, the grant-maintained sector will be expected to look elsewhere for extra-curricular activities, increasing the likelihood that LEA provision will be progressively withdrawn under pressure from central government on spending.
In conclusion, we must recognise that the funding authority and the LEA are different bodies. The LEA is locally accountable through the ballot box. Inevitably, the funding agency for schools, however committed its servants, will be a distant body operating at national level. Apart from the unnecessary cost of creating a second body to carry out functions already performed by an existing body, experience shows that serious difficulties will inevitably occur where bodies are expected to deliver public services under parallel or shared duties. An example is the current upward split of responsibilities for pupils with special educational needs which are shared between the LEAs and the National Health Service.
It is abundantly clear that the sensible way to proceed is for a lead role to be preserved for local authorities. Of course LEAs will be expected to work with the FAS but the agency should not have the duty to plan and provide school places. I beg to move.
Midnight
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Of course, Amendment No. 67 is the key amendment. I support these amendments for the reasons that have already been given. There is so much in the planning of school provision that the sharing of responsibilities is bound

1499
to cause difficulties. Areas already mentioned such as special needs, nursery provision, peripatetic music tuition and adult education will be at a particular disadvantage. And who is it who is best informed about local feeling and conditions? Who knows about the future and structure of local housing, industry, police, social services, transport and so on, all of which may need to be involved in issues of school provision? Is it the locally elected members and their staff or is it a new and remote body appointed from London?
Furthermore, parents, in whose name so many of these reforms are being introduced, will have real problems as regards knowing whom to approach with a complaint or for information. The involved provisions in Clause 10 and Schedule 2 are really unnecessary. That is the main criticism of them. The lead role can and should be left with the local community until it clearly has no further part to play. I support the amendments.
Lord Renton: Clause 10 has the admirable objective of ensuring that there should be enough school places and that funds are provided for them by the funding authority. I should have thought that nobody could object to that.
The group of amendments to which the noble Lord referred—and of course he is technically speaking only to Amendment No. 49—has a rather strange combined effect on the purpose of the clause. Indeed, the crux of the group of amendments is to be found in Amendment No. 67 to which I invite the attention of the Committee. It states:
"No order may be made under subsection (1)"—
it is subsection (1) which is operative in providing the power to fulfil the purpose of having enough school places and the money for them—
"unless 100 per cent. of the pupils for whom education is provided in county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools in the area are registered pupils at grant-maintained schools".
I suggest to the Committee that that is a completely unrealistic proposition. Indeed, it is so unrealistic that I beg to suggest—and it is not a phrase which I use very often—that Amendment No. 67 is a wrecking amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I absolutely agree with that. It is a wrecking amendment. Is the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggesting that where parents have decided that the schools their children attend should opt out of local authority control—even where the relationship with the local authority is a good one; that applies in Lincolnshire, Bromley, Hillingdon, Kent and Essex—until 100 per cent. of all schools are in the grant-maintained sector the LEA should retain full control? I have spent a great deal of time this evening spelling out how this process would work. The amendment we are discussing is a wrecking amendment. Even at this late hour I ask the Committee positively to reject it.
Lord Judd: I have heard what the Minister said and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I would only say again that I find, not for the first time in this debate, that we have been presented with an extraordinary proposition. If we argue—of course, it
1500
is open to counter-argument—that it would be better to continue with the existing arrangements, with local democracy having a lead role in the planning and provision of education in an area, we are accused of proposing wrecking amendments. But that argument can be stood absolutely on its head because what we are arguing—this comes out in one clause after another—is that what the present provisions in the new Bill are doing are wrecking the whole relationship of partnership which has existed between central and local government in the past. Therefore I ask Members of the Committee, whom I greatly respect, to be careful in the deployment of the word "wrecking" or we shall find ourselves compelled on almost every clause we debate to accuse the Government of wrecking principles which have been basic to not only the educational system but indeed to the spirit of shared democracy between the centre and localities for many decades in this country.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope he will allow me to intervene. He seems not merely to have overlooked but to have denied what is said here —indeed he has not tabled an amendment to leave it out—that it is not only the funding authority and the Secretary of State whose responsibility is involved but also that of the local education authority; what he quite properly describes as the operation of democracy. It is there. It is written in the Bill as it stands. So his argument falls completely.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to speak in defence of my noble friend. He is extremely economic in his use of the word "wrecking". I do not recall a frequent use of the word. It is a proper word to use in this context because there is an arrangement to put in place a mechanism when grant-maintained schools opt out of local authority control to take care of both funding and planning. The amendments we are discussing fly wholly in the face of that and invalidate the very essence of grant-maintained status. It is for that reason that I believe the Committee should reject the amendment.
Lord Judd: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I do not find the matter quite as straightforward as she suggests because until, for example, the 10 per cent. threshold is passed, the Minister accepts that a local authority will continue to have legal responsibilities. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a matter of judgment. It is not an either/or situation. However, in deference to the Committee, the late hour and the pressure we are all working under with this far-reaching and extensive Bill, I do not intend to pursue the point tonight. I shall withdraw the amendment but I expect that in one way or another we shall return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, leave out lines 11 to 13
The noble Baroness said: Unlike the previous amendment, this amendment provides for a single transfer point at the halfway stage between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent., or at least between zero and 100 per cent, for the responsibility of securing provision of sufficient places. It is not my intention to make an issue of this in any sense of the word or to divide the Committee but I should like to hear the Minister say how she believes this extended operation of joint planning and joint responsibility for the securing of provision of sufficient places will work in practice. I and several others feel a considerable amount of anxiety about how that period will be operated, particularly for the benefit of the pupils in the schools.
It is generally accepted that in some local authority areas it may well be many years, if not many decades, before the 75 per cent. point is reached. Therefore, as soon as 10 per cent. of pupils are in opted-out schools there will be a long drawn-out shared responsibility.
I have to confess that, unlike the proposers of the previous amendment, to a large extent I wish that the Bill provided for a single and imminent point at which all schools become grant maintained. That is not because I do not see an important and continuing role for local authorities. I believe that they will continue to have such a role even when all schools are grant maintained. It is because I believe, as I said at Second Reading, that the thrust of the Bill towards independent status and autonomy for educational institutions—always, of course, accountable to their immediate community and their stake-holders—is a desirable end and the best guarantee of quality education. I also believe most strongly in the value of direct parental involvement in their children's education.
Nevertheless, I recognise that that is not what the Bill proposes and that there will be a very long path from where we are now to where I, at least, wish us to be. In many areas the going will be slow. It will be at the whim of each individual school whether it moves to grant-maintained status. My concern now is to ensure that the path is as smooth as possible and that the children who pass through the schools in that period, which may last many decades, have the best possible provision in the meantime. In that regard I have anxieties about the operation of the joint planning.
I recognise that some of the arguments have already been addressed in relation to earlier amendments, and I thank the Minister for having addressed them in response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I believe that the spirit of competition can be positive. I believe that competition between individual schools will be wholly to the benefit of the children within them if it is healthy competition and each school tries to do its best. The possibility of negative competition arises where there is hostility between the local authority and the principal of a funding agency. Let us not suppose that that will not occur, because it will. We have already seen that in some local authorities. Such hostile competition can be very destructive and can involve pupils in the
1502
schools in inter-authority warfare. That will be a cause for concern. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
Secondly, I believe that even in authorities where there has been a friendly relationship with the funding authority there will undoubtedly be tension when there is a question of either opening or closing a school. Undoubtedly either side will be reluctant to close a school or see a new school open on the other side of their binary divide. I fear that the Secretary of State may find herself or himself—because that will occur for a considerable period in the future—constantly involved in having to make a judgment between what may be perfectly reasonable proposals of the local authority and the funding agency, well supported we must hope for the children's sake by the quality of the schools which the authorities already run.
Thirdly, we must suppose that even in the worst of scenarios of the closing and opening of new schools that will not occur. In the meantime, where co-operation is not good in an area, the local authority may very well decide to undermine the funding agency, or vice versa, by increasing its own provision school by school, perhaps by small amounts of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. so that the Secretary of State would have no cause to intervene. The result would be gross over-provision and, in consequence, waste of public money, with unfilled places either in the funding agency grant-maintained schools or in the local authority schools. In addition, education for pupils is unsatisfactory because we all know that when there is a mismatch between the resources and the numbers of pupils the education suffers in many ways.
I feel a great anxiety about the matter. I hope that the Minister can reassure us. I should like to see at the very least a single transfer point when more than half the pupils have opted out. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the 10 per cent. and the 75 per cent. divide will work well. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renton: With deep respect, perhaps I may point out that to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 10 (1), leaving paragraph (b) where it stands, would not be feasible. It would not make drafting sense. Therefore, presumably the amendment which my noble friend has moved is merely a probing amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may briefly reply. All four amendments have to be read together to make sense.
Lord Renton: Even if they are, the point I have made remains valid, I am afraid.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Paragraph (a) refers to the possibility of dual responsibility; and that is precisely what my amendment seeks to eliminate.
Lord Renton: The point is this. Clause 10(1) (b) would read as follows:
"In respect of the area of any local education authority, the Secretary of State may where he wishes that responsibility"—

1503
there has been no earlier reference to "that responsibility"—
"to be held by the funding authority alone, make an order under this paragraph".
One could not possibly legislate like that.
Baroness Faithfull: I have put my name to the amendment. I too recognise that it is a probing amendment for information from the Minister. I take the point made by my noble friend. However, for clarity's sake, one wishes to have some further information from the Minister at this stage.
When I was first appointed a director of social services, I was sent by my local authority on a management course to Birmingham University. I was instructed by Professor John Stewart; he was responsible for the course. I learned from Professor Stewart—he has written extensively on the subject—that for good administration one must have clear lines of management and that it must be clear to all exactly who is responsible for what. If there are no clear lines of responsibility there is a great deal of trouble for the people using the service. In this case that is the community, the children, the schools and the teachers.
I submit that the management structure of the local education authority facilities is flawed. The funding authority is responsible for some duties; the local authority is responsible for others; and the Department for Education is responsible for others. It cannot be more strongly and clearly stated that the management structure is flawed. If the funding authority were to be limited to funding, and not to planning, then we would have a clear understanding of the structure. Does the Minister agree that the structure is flawed and will not be understood either by the public or by many of those who administer it?
Furthermore, if the local authority were to be responsible for the planning, it would be a democratic exercise, whereas if the funding agency is to be responsible for some planning, it is not a democratic exercise. There is no question of pressing the amendment, we are merely probing for information from the Minister.
Baroness Brigstocke: I too worry about the sharing between the funding agency and the local education authority of responsibility for the provision of school places. From my own experience as a school head, albeit in the independent sector, I believe that both the LEAs and the schools, not to mention the teachers and parents, will be confused by the division of responsibility and the complicated arrangements proposed for dividing that responsibility. I hope that the Government will take note of the underlying anxiety that has been expressed this evening. The funding agency needs, for the foreseeable future, to work with the LEA. One or the other needs to have overall responsibility. I just cannot see how it would work otherwise.
Perhaps I may adapt a favourite quotation of the eminent banker, Sir Sigmund Warburg. He had written in all the books in his extensive library:
"Progress in thinking is progress towards simplicity".
I would say: "Progress in management is progress towards simplicity".
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: It seems that Members of the Committee opposite are articulating many of the anxieties that we expressed in the previous discussion, where we put forward our preferred solution to the problems. I agree with many or all the anxieties, particularly those of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the possibility of hostility between the two funding sources.
There are a couple of points of detail on the amendment on which we should like clarification, if possible. First, it appears that all the powers will be taken away from the local education authorities when the figure of 50 per cent. of pupils in the grant-maintained sector is reached. I should have thought it would be more logical to have something above 50 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. It is a small point, but it seems to be more logical.
A second larger point is that there will be no planning role for the grant-maintained sector up to 50 per cent. of the pupils in the grant-maintained sector. I suggest that that is not addressed by the amendments. Finally, perhaps I may clarify whether I correctly understood the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, when she said that she personally would like to see the FAS having a funding not a planning role. That is not what is suggested by the amendments, although I heartily agree with her.
Baroness Blatch: Clearly the amendment is of a very different order from the previous amendment. I understand the tensions on both sides of the Committee about how they believe the reforms will work. It is important that I spend my time, as we proceed with the Bill, to do what I can to reassure the Committee that we believe that the arrangements we have set in train will work. As to whether the amendments are defective, I have to defer to my noble friend Lord Renton because I am simply not competent to detect any deficiencies in the amendments. On the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I note that he would clearly prefer the figure to be much higher than 50 per cent. and, if I accept that he was supporting a previous amendment, he would prefer it to be 100 per cent.
On the other point that he makes about there being no planning role for the grant-maintained sector, that is true. My understanding of the amendments—or at least my understanding of the sentiment behind them—is that the planning role should remain with the local authority, both for local authority-maintained schools and for the grant-maintained sector; otherwise, the amendments would simply not work at all. That means, as it did in the previous amendment, that grant-maintained schools which opt away from local authorities would find themselves, at least up to 50 per cent., still in the hands for planning purposes of the local authorities.
As a prerequisite of all this, it needs to be remembered that there will be shared information on an annual basis on all the basic statistics known to both the funding agency and to the local authorities. That will provide evidence of tensions—either for there being a need for more or fewer places; or indeed of none. I believe that is important. It means that both the funding agency and the local authority can look

1505
ahead. Where the relationships are good —I suggest that in most local authorities they are good—I think my noble friends are a little too pessimistic in assuming that local authorities and the funding agency for schools will refuse to co-operate and will always compete in an atmosphere of hostility. I believe that that results from nervousness. These amendments can only be addressing a situation that does not work. The arrangements will work perfectly where there is an amicable relationship. For example, in relation to provision for 16 to 19 year-olds we already have the further education funding councils and, potentially in competition, local authorities and self-governing grant-maintained schools. Experience to date suggests that the bodies concerned can and do co-operate effectively. In particular, the further education funding council does not simply represent that all provision should necessarily be in its own institutions.
Perhaps I should explain the parallel duties. Once an order has been made under Clause 10(1) (a), responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient places will rest on both the local authority and the funding authority. Separate but distinct duties will be placed on each body. That will mean that each body will be separately accountable for whether it has fulfilled its responsibility. The local authority will continue to be required to discharge the duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act, which is to secure that there are sufficient schools available for children in its area. But in addition, a separate duty will be placed on the funding authority so that wherever schools which are available for an area providing relevant education are not sufficient, the funding authority will be under a duty to publish proposals for securing the availability of sufficient school places.
Those two separate duties will ensure that where there is a shortage of places, both the local authority and the funding agency will be prepared to act to remedy the position. So it is important to remember that the Section 8 duty of the 1944 Act will remain right up to the 75 per cent. point with the local authority—in other words, in that sense it is the lead body that has the prime responsibility for making sure that there are places for children in schools; but the duty to provide those places will rest either with the grant-maintained schools sector if it is appropriate or with the local authority.
In practice, at stage 2, both the local education authority and the funding authority will have the power, as distinct from the duty, at any time to propose significant enlargement of an existing school or the establishment of a new school.
As soon as the proposal by the funding authority to provide a new school has been approved by the Secretary of State and implemented, the duty on the LEA to secure the provision of sufficient places has been met. In its planning the local authority would of course be able to take account of the fact that a proposal had been approved in relation to the grant-maintained sector. That would be its duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act.
If there was a need for a new school and there were no proposals from the funding authority, the LEA
1506
would need to act to ensure that there were sufficient places. If the local authority failed to act and a shortage of places resulted, the local authority would clearly be in default of its Section 8 duty. At the same time, the funding authority would come under a duty to bring forward proposals to make good the deficiency. That duty will not apply where for the funding authority to act would be inconsistent with the efficient use of its resources; for example, where there were no GM schools in the area and the only cost-effective solution was to make a significant enlargement of an existing LEA maintained school.
It would, of course, clearly be desirable for the local authority and the funding authority to discuss with each other which of them it would be the more appropriate to act in a specific situation. But if following any discussion both bodies still wished to bring forward proposals, then clearly the final decision about which type of school would be established would rest with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Whatever trigger point was chosen, to hand over sole responsibility from the local authority to the funding authority would create a situation where one sector or the other could not be managed effectively, which is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It is therefore essential to have a period where responsibility is placed both on the local authority and on the funding authority. Since the local authority and the funding authority can make proposals only in relation to their own sectors, it is essential for there to be a period where both bodies assume some responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient places. That enables both the grant-maintained sector and the local authority sector to be managed effectively.
Amendment No. 50 raises a number of issues which we discussed in earlier debates. The effect would be that until 50 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary or secondary schools were in grant-maintained schools, there would be no possibility of strategic planning for the grant-maintained sector. That is the inevitable consequence of the amendment, since it would clearly be difficult for schools which had chosen to leave local authority control to be returned to it by the force of law. I should not like to be the one to go to Birmingham schools, which went through great difficulties to become grant maintained, only to tell them that they were to be returned to the local authority until 50 per cent. of the schools there are in the grant-maintained sector.
However, it cannot be right that grant-maintained schools should exist outside any kind of planning framework until the point when 50 per cent. of pupils were in grant-maintained schools. That would carry the risk of undermining the coherence and effectiveness of the provision of schools in the area. The way forward, therefore, as the Bill provides, is to have a system of parallel LEA and FAS responsibility between the 10 per cent. and the LEA exit point, which, as I have earlier described, is perfectly practicable and feasible.
Therefore, while understanding the anxieties and knowing that there is a genuine nervousness about

1507
how these things will work in practice, I believe that what the Bill proposes is the best possible way forward.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down, it may be due to the late hour that I am not following her properly. This is a technical point; it is not an educational policy point. It is likely that the 50 per cent. target will not be reached in many areas for a long time and therefore the dual control will exist not only for months but perhaps for decades.
I understand from what the noble Baroness said that, if there is disagreement between the local authority and the funding authority, they have to collaborate in making planning decisions. However, who has the last word? With whom will the responsibility lie if one thinks that there should be another school and the other does not? Does it all then have to go to the Secretary of State? If they fall out it may not cause a considerable amount of delay and I am sure we all want the same thing, but I see that it could be confusing when the two are making decisions. It is not as though in many areas it will be for a short period of time. It may go on for a long time or it may not.
Baroness Blatch: It would depend on the situation, but in practice what would happen is that right up until the 75 per cent. point has been reached, when all the control moves to the funding agency for schools, and during the period up to 10 per cent. and between 10 per cent. and 75 per cent., the local authority has a duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act to be responsible for providing sufficient places for the numbers of children within its area of responsibility. That remains intact throughout the whole of this period. Therefore, if there were, for example, a need for more school places and the local authority was not addressing that, the local authority would clearly be in breach of Section 8 of the 1944 Act. It would be for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the local authority saying, "You must see to your duty under the Act to provide for places for your children".
At the same time, as long as the two bodies were in being they would have to look to their duty as to which of them should provide those extra places. It may fall naturally into an LEA-maintained schools' area; it may fall naturally into a grant-maintained schools' area. It may well be that one of them will see the duty quite clearly. It may be that the local authority will talk to the funding agency and say, "There is a tension here. We need more places. What do we think is the best way of approaching it?"
That is how we would expect it to happen on most occasions. It could be that the local authority simply drags its feet. It would then be given a direction by the Secretary of State and would have to look to its own area of responsibility to see whether it was at fault or, indeed, whether the funding agency was at fault. But at the end of the day—the noble Baroness is right—if one gets through all of that and there is still no
1508
agreement, the Secretary of State would issue a direction for one or the other to meet its responsibilities under the Act.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me to understand this? I share the concern about this extended period of dual responsibility. If there is a shortage of places and the local education authority is failing to supply the places that are needed it will be told by the Secretary of State to do so and the funding agency will bring forward proposals. All that will take a little time. What will happen to the children for whom there are no places?
Baroness Blatch: We all know that it does not quite happen like that. We know that year-on-year information is made available about where tensions are. They are usually seen well in advance. There is a great deal of information much earlier in the day, or yesterday. There is information about live births in the area, the numbers of children from the time of birth to their arrival in school, migration rates, and so on. It is known well in advance whether there will be pressure for more places in an area. Schools would therefore plan for that. Schools know their duties under Section 8 of the 1944 Act and I cannot think that local authorities would not address that. Any tension would be over who should provide—whether it should be the funding agency or the LEA. If the funding agency proffered places it would be for the LEA to accept that meeting of the need. If the local authority believed that it should provide, it would be for the local authority to do so. If they both decide that they would like to offer an answer to that need, it would be for the Secretary of State to consider both applications—for either an extension of the school or a new school. It is only where local authorities do not have a civilised relationship with the funding agency that there is a problem. I suggest that there is less of a problem about new places than there would be about surplus places.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may seek clarification on one other point because I have become as confused as anyone at this time of night. It concerns something that she said earlier. Surely she is not saying that grant-maintained schools will actually return to the LEA if there is this 50 per cent. cut-off point. That cannot be in any real sense. I think I can see what she meant, but it is not as though control over their affairs is taken away from them and given back to the LEA. That is not what she was saying, is it?
Baroness Blatch: The way schools are run now, the LEA schools are not controlled in that way. We are talking about a very real control, which is planning control. It is control over the size of the schools; control over whether they should expand or not expand; whether they should be amalgamated or be closed. One of the problems with the amendments before us is that, although the intention may be that up to 50 per cent. of the planning role remains with the local authority, the local authority cannot be assumed to have control over the grant-maintained schools. So unless, as the the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby,

1509
suggests, we give planning controls over grant-maintained schools, which means putting them back into the local authority sector, there is a vacuum. One would have to exercise all planning over one sector of schools in an authority. That would be extremely difficult. As I say, putting these schools back into local authority control for the purpose of planning would be highly unwelcome to at least some schools in the country.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I too may ask for a clarification. I am confused as I was not confused before. I understand my noble friend's answer to the last question but I believe that she said earlier that the local authority would continue to have the overall duty to secure the provision of sufficient places. As I read Clause 10, I believed that between the 10 per cent. and 75 per cent point that duty was to be shared. Is that the case or does the local authority retain the major responsibility anyway?
Baroness Blatch: We are into legal terminology. The local authority continues to have a duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act to provide sufficient places for the children in its area. My understanding of the way in which the Bill is written is that there is then a duty to meet that need if there is a funding agency and a shared duty with the local authority. The requirement that it should be met by one and/or the other remains with the local authority.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank my noble friend the Minister very much for her patience and many replies to our questions. I believe that she has gone a very long way towards reassuring me that at least there is good will there. I still worry about the areas where the good will does not exist. It is one of the major questions within the Bill where we have to hope that good will will prevail and that the arrangements will work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert (", but shall not cover education provided to children with special educational needs.")
The noble Lord said: I wish to move this amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. The amendment is basically designed to keep the planning of special needs in local education authorities. That is primarily as a result of the fact that local authorities in various parts of the country of various political hues have made tremendous strides in meeting a great many of the problems that arise with special educational needs. A great deal of progress has been very hard won since the 1981 Act. There have been problem areas throughout the country and there has not been an even level of progression by any means. As the Minister pointed out, local authorities will still be involved in certain areas of special educational needs; for instance, dealing with individuals when it comes to statementing.
It should also be noted that, as the Audit Commission said in its report, since the 1981 Act a great deal has been achieved by schools and LEAs on behalf of pupils with special educational needs. I suggest that it would make sense to at least hear from the Government how they plan to deal with special educational needs on an area basis. It is extremely difficult for individual units and schools to deal with the problems because almost invariably there will be new problems of special educational needs coming in. Peripatetic teachers and others will be needed at times and there will be a changing situation. So that we may have some idea of the whole picture for areas, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Renton: Some Members of the Committee may remember that I have a special interest in children with special educational needs and in special schools. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has moved this amendment, because I believe that this Bill needs a little clarifying and cross-referencing. There is no reference to such schools in Clause 10 or to an obligation to provide such schools.
Therefore, we have to turn to Part III, which includes a great many clauses under the heading of "Children with special educational needs". They are Clauses 148 to 180, but one is particularly relevant. I refer to Clause 173(1) (a). I should like to consider it in detail because it is relevant to the amendment which the noble Lord has moved and to the motive which all of us have in mind; namely, that enough special school places shall be provided and that funds shall be provided for them. Clause 173(1) reads:
"The funding authority may establish in the area of any local education authority a school which is specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs if—"
and it is a very big "if"—
"(a) an order under section 10(1) of this Act applies to the area".
Therefore, there is a link, but it is a question of having to run in order to read. It may be that, if only to help the users of this long, complicated and detailed Act, a reference in subsection (1) of Clause 10 to subsection (1) of Clause 173 will help its readers in the years to come.
I say no more because I am sure that we are all united in wishing in one way or another that the funding authority shall - I know that the provisions state "may", but we all want it to be an obligation—make sure that there are enough special school places. I hope that I need say no more.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I defer to my noble friend who has taken a special interest in making sure that legislation makes sense and is clear and coherent. I note what he has said.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a major objective of the Government's proposals and schools policy is to strengthen provision to meet pupils' special educational needs. Our proposals for all pupils with any special educational needs—those with or without statements—have gained a warm welcome and a wide measure of support. It is also true that children with statements

1511
are more easily identified and catered for in the sense that I know underlies the concern behind the amendment.
We are emphasising the role of the school in the new structure for special educational needs under the Bill; for instance, by requiring governors to formulate and report on their policies towards pupils with special educational needs. We are tightening up on LEAs' procedures in making assessments and statements. We are giving parents new rights of appeal to an independent tribunal. Underpinning all those initiatives is the code of practice which the Secretary of State will put before Parliament.
We shall be debating these important measures later. But I mention them now for two reasons: first, to demonstrate that we are in this Bill establishing a coherent structure for all special needs provisions; and, secondly, to emphasise that the system for special needs should not be seen as separate from the mainstream education system.
This amendment would go against both those principles. Its effect would be that in carrying out its duty to ensure that a sufficient number of school places was available in an area, the funding agency would not be responsible for places for children with special educational needs—up to 20 per cent. of the school population.
All schools—ordinary and special, self-governing and LEA —have a vital part to play in providing for pupils with special educational needs. The coherence of the planning system obviously requires that places for those pupils are properly considered alongside those for other pupils. In the majority of cases an individual pupil's special educational needs do not affect his or her requirements for a school place.
In order to maintain the coherence of the system which we have designed, it is essential that the FAS retains its responsibilities for planning school places for pupils with special educational needs in an area at stages 2 and 3. Education for such pupils should therefore remain within the scope of Section 10 orders. It would be invidious to take 20 per cent. of the population and to deal with them separately in terms of finding places for them. A large proportion of that 20 per cent. of young people belongs in mainstream schools. It will be for mainstream schools to ensure that they have places for those children, whether they are grant maintained or LEA maintained.
Lord Addington: The amendment was moved at this time of night in the spirit of inquiry. I thank the Minister for her reply. It helped to clarify at an early point government thinking in respect of the rest of the Bill. I shall read what the Minister said when I have a clearer head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 56A not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("() in the case of an order under paragraph (a) of that subsection, whether the local education authority or the funding authority shall have prime responsibility.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment follows on and covers much of the same ground as was discussed
1512
on Amendments Nos. 49 and 50, and I shall endeavour to avoid too much repetition. The amendment has two purposes. First, it clarifies the way in which an LEA and a funding authority would work together. Listening to our debate tonight, even in this august company, it is clear that clarification is needed.
Specifying either the LEA or the funding authority as having the leading role, will make it become crystal clear to everyone to whom an outsider should refer in the first instance. In my experience, that is a common pattern for industrial co-operation where a conflict of interest may be involved, and for good reason. It is a simple arrangement and it works. It is a pattern that has been adopted with great success in the Ministry of Defence in its prime contractor arrangements. It does not lessen the influence of the junior partner, but makes the working relationship clear, and avoids uncertainty and jockeying for position.
Secondly, the amendment would give the Secretary of State encouragement to designate a LEA as having prime responsibility when the 10 per cent. barrier has been passed and where that LEA was clearly performing well, as for instance, does my LEA in Hampshire, which has been extensively, and quite rightly, praised by Ministers recently. By doing that, good current practice would continue with the minimum of uncertainty and the funding authority would be able to concentrate, in the early years when it is developing its role and skills, on those areas in most need of its attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to be helpful to my noble friend, but I have to say to him that once the 10 per cent. trigger point has been reached and passed, then funding agencies are responsible for grant-maintained schools and LEAs are responsible for LEA schools. While the LEA has a duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act, as I have already said, if it failed to act under that responsibility, and there arose a shortage of place, the local authority would clearly be in default of that Section 8 duty. At the same time the funding agency would, for its own schools, come under a duty to bring forward proposals to make good the deficiency unless the duty did not apply; that is, unless an order to do so would be inconsistent with the efficient use of resources or if it were a clear-cut case that the responsibility was more with the LEA than with the funding agency. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the LEA will be in the lead when it has no control over GM schools and that GM will be in the lead when it has no control over LEA schools.
The important point is that there is a prime responsibility in terms of the Section 8 duty under the 1944 Act for the local authority, but both bodies have a duty to provide. I suspect that in 99 per cent. of cases the issue of who should provide is clear cut. It is only on the rare occasions when they disagree or when there is tension about who should provide that the matter will come before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Clearly, one hopes that it will be resolved at local level. It would be desirable for the bodies to co-operate, but in the unlikely event of them not co-operating there is a fall-back position for my right honourable friend.
Earl Russell: I am not sure that the Minister has taken on board the thrust of this most interesting amendment. I take her point that the funding agency cannot be responsible for local authority schools or the local authority for grant-maintained schools. However, I cannot help wondering whether in putting that argument forward the Minister has done more damage to her Bill than she realises.
Her argument is of course perfectly sound in so far as it relates to individual schools. But if the Minister is thinking only in terms of individual schools she is giving away the Balkanisation which is at the back of the thinking on the Bill. There are of course many questions to which the noble Lord's amendment would direct our attention which stretch beyond any individual school. The question of overall provision is the most obvious and whether, for example, the building of a new housing estate will lead to a case for a new school. There are also the questions which we shall touch on later about the youth and music services, school meals and the careers service. Those matters call for overall thinking about the service as a whole which stretches beyond the range of any individual school. That is where I should find the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, extremely helpful. I should be glad to know that the Government had understood and had considered the thrust of the point behind it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl raises an interesting point, but we are not necessarily talking about an individual school. We are talking about there being more children than there are places, or there will be deemed to be some time in the future a tension between the numbers of children and the provision of places.
Perhaps I may take the specific example which the noble Earl gave of the building of a new housing estate with a need for a new secondary school. Let us suppose that the FAS is in place and that it is in the secondary sector, as are most of its schools. There is then the Section 8 duty on the local authority to make sure that the needs of that potential population are planned for. However, planning and meeting that need could be for the LEA, if it is its responsibility, or it could be that of the grant-maintained sector. If all the schools in an area were in the grant-maintained sector, for example, it would make more sense that that sector took upon itself the responsibility to meet that need. Therefore, there is no tension.
There is a clear Section 8 duty on the local authority to ensure that children in its area have places, but the duty to provide is on both the LEA and the FAS, if it is in existence. It may be clear cut if the FAS has only one or two schools, but if it has a quarter, a half or the whole of a sector the duty is much clearer; it falls to the funding agency. Therefore, it is not possible to give one sector or the other a leading role. It would be a moveable feast and it would change year to year.
Earl Russell: Does the responsibility for overall planning rest anywhere at all?
Baroness Blatch: The structural planning, which is a local authority responsibility, remains with the local
1514
authority. However, we are dealing with planning for school places within the context of a structured plan, of development in an area and of there being a rising or a falling birth rate. It would fall to local authority statistics in the first place and the reading of those statistics would show whether more or fewer places were required in an area. It would then be the shared duty between the FAS and the LEA to meet that need.
1 a.m.
Lord Lucas: I was very interested to listen to that exchange between the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend the Minister, as I was to her initial reply. We have heard much this evening on these matters and no doubt we shall hear more in the future. I shall read what my noble friend said. I expect that I shall return with further comments but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("() Before making an order under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the making of such an order will not endanger the provision of facilities for adult education.").
The noble Baroness said: I know that the Minister is sympathetic towards adult education. I believe that she recognises that at present the need for effective and well-supported adult education in the country has never been greater. There are high levels of unemployment. There are large numbers of older people for whom adult education provides many extremely valuable outlets. People are seeking a second chance, a fresh start. There are a whole variety of needs which are all very much to the fore at present.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is extremely important that adult education should expand rather than decline. I am sure that she knows also that in many parts of the country there is very grave anxiety as to whether adult education colleges will be able to maintain their place, let alone expand as many of them would wish, because of the resource problem.
As the Minister knows, it has always been a problem that the responsibility for financing adult education has rested with the local authorities, but that responsibility has been discretionary rather than mandatory. That inevitably means that when there is pressure from schools and other areas where there is a mandatory requirement on local authorities to make adequate provision, it is extremely tempting—indeed, sometimes there is no choice—to relegate the claims of adult education to the bottom of the queue and the claims are not met or not met adequately.
This amendment is not unrealistic. It does not seek a mandatory requirement on local authorities to provide adult education. It merely seeks that in meeting their other obligations laid out in the clause, they,
"will not endanger the provision of facilities for adult education".
That is not imposing a mandatory requirement on the local authorities to provide those facilities. It merely asks them to bear in mind that amid various

1515
competing claims for the money which the local authorities have, adult education requirements shall be borne in mind. We believe that it would be extremely helpful to avoid the further development of the Cinderella position of adult education if that could be written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: There is also a specific point on which it would be helpful if the Minister can reassure the Committee. Great use is made of school facilities in the provision of adult education. There is real anxiety—it may be well-founded, it may not—that any acceleration of grant-maintained status may mean that those facilities will not be so readily available for use in the furtherance of adult education.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We know that the Minister is well disposed towards adult education and has put on record her commitment to improving access to higher education. The use of schools for the provision of adult education takes place in some of the most deprived communities of our society. There is anxiety that this could be undermined unless specific reassurances and provisions can be given. I believe the Committee will therefore be particularly interested in the Minister's reply tonight.
Baroness Blatch: This is another important point. Clause 10 concerns the provision of sufficient places in a local authority area for pupils of compulsory school age but it is not appropriate that the introduction of procedures which are intended to facilitate the efficient planning of provision for school pupils should hang on the adequacy or otherwise of facilities for further education for adults.
Local authorities have a duty by virtue of Section 41 of the 1944 Act, as substituted by Section 11 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, to secure the provision for their area of facilities for further education for adults. Any order made under Clause 10 will not change the LEA's responsibilities under Section 41 of the 1944 Act, even where the responsibility for providing school places remains wholly or in part with the funding authority. In any case it is for the governors of individual schools to decide whether or not their school premises should be used for adult and community education provision and it will remain open to local authorities at all times, by agreement with the governors of schools, including grant-maintained schools, to provide further education for adults through school-based provision if they so wish.
The use of school premises out of school hours is a matter for the governors. This is similar to the position in LEA-maintained schools. A GM school would be expected to charge sufficient to cover the cost if its premises were used for non-school activities. Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of GM schools have increased the community use of their premises since becoming grant maintained. I have seen some interesting results of the early surveys on that.
Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education for adults is divided between the new further education funding councils and the local authorities. The Funding Agency for Schools has no
1516
role here. The further education funding councils' duties will be to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education for adults as set out in Schedule 2 to the Act. Schedule 2 includes courses leading to academic and vocational qualifications; courses enabling adults to gain access to such qualifications; basic skills courses; courses to develop proficiency in English as a second language and courses for students with learning difficulties, preparing them for entry to one of the above courses.
Local authorities will continue to be under a duty to secure the provision of all types of further education falling outside the scope of Schedule 2. Such courses will largely be of a less formal nature, mostly not leading to qualifications, and they will serve the general educational and leisure purposes of local communities. It is not a question of there not being provision or whether there should be provision. The provision for adult and community education is made within other legislation and not necessarily in this legislation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I hope it is in order for me to speak to Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with this amendment and stands in my name.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall therefore quickly address that matter. The Funding Agency for Schools, as its name implies, is concerned with schools. Much of the provision of the youth service takes place in schools, and therefore it could be argued that the FAS will have an interest in the youth service. However, the responsibility of the FAS will be planning provision of school places rather than extracurricular facilities such as the youth service. The FAS will therefore be likely to have only a peripheral interest in the youth service.
In authorities where the Education Secretary gives the FAS a shared responsibility for planning school places under Clause 10, the sharing of responsibility is likely to cause confusion, and the service be destined to suffer as a consequence. The future provision of the youth service could be at risk if grant-maintained schools no longer wished to be involved in its provision. For communities in which there were only grant-maintained schools access to the youth service could be lost if alternative provision were not available to the LEA. This amendment standing in my name seeks to ensure that the youth service will remain wholly the responsibility of the local education authority.
Baroness Seear: I am not surprised but I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Of course we are aware that the vocational and other courses which she listed will be financed by the funding body. However, as we have argued previously, there are a great many other activities in adult education, many of which lead on to vocational courses. It is those courses, which are not directly funded by the funding authority but which are still the responsibility of the local authority, about which anxiety is being expressed.
Although, as the noble Baroness said, there is an obligation on local authorities to provide for adult

1517
education, that has been discretionary. I do not believe that she met my point that when money is very tight and there are heavy demands from the schools, for which there is a mandatory responsibility, and real pressures, it is inevitable that the non-vocational part of adult education—and I believe that the distinction between vocational and non-vocational courses in relation to adult education is a false one—is in real danger of being squeezed out.
I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that adult education colleges up and down the country are extremely anxious about this Bill. She knows some of the more fortunate colleges in London and my own particular area of interest. Those colleges have been well supported. We are very grateful that that is so. But that applies to a very small number of fortunate colleges in London. For a great many others, that is not true and adult education, which is not specifically vocational, is to go. We believe that if the proposed words were on the face of the Bill the position of adult education colleges would be strengthened when approaching local authorities for support.
At a quarter past one I shall not press the amendment. If I say that I wish to withdraw the amendment I hope that I shall be allowed to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert:
("() For the purposes of this section responsibility for providing sufficient school places means the provision of school places which are sufficient in number, character, and equipment available to afford for all pupils education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities, and aptitudes, and of the different periods for which they may be expected to remain at school, including practical instruction and training appropriate to their respective needs, but does not include music education.").
The noble Lord said: Frequently, some of the richest educational experiences of children are derived from co-operative efforts which have been organised effectively on a local authority basis for the past 40 years. Much cultural activity is most unlikely to continue on the same scale without the excellent stimulus that so many education authorities have provided.
The envisaged reduction in the role of local education authorities has serious implications for music provision, as it has for the arts and museums, which are covered by Amendment No. 62. The attack on local education authorities—and I believe that it is an attack—will undermine activities such as school orchestras and choirs. That is a deplorable development when the United Kingdom has acquired such a high international standing in those spheres. I fail to understand how we can go through an identity crisis as a nation and wonder why we are not good at this or that yet, having reached a peak of excellence in music, we do not do everything possible to sustain that role which is admired throughout the world.
As we have seen, more than half the provisions of the Education Bill are aimed at extending the number of grant-maintained schools. That has the potential to
1518
separate individual schools from the wider educational and social community with important implications for arts and music activities. On a practical level, the co-operation which has existed between local authorities and national bodies such as the Arts Council is likely to suffer. The tasks of those bodies in encouraging high standards of performance and participation in artistic ventures will be monumental when they have to communicate with the governing bodies of schools or small groups of schools.
Individual schools lack the resources to co-ordinate group music making such as orchestras and choirs. To achieve that requires a structure which will strategically co-ordinate, organise and maintain quality and range of provision. It is clear that most schools could not possibly provide a wide range of musical opportunities on an individual school basis. The cost of providing musical instruments and specialist teaching would be prohibitive. Clusters of schools—the prophesied consortiums—could not match the provision an LEA-wide service is able to provide. LEA advisory and support functions, including peripatetic teaching, are clearly vital for high quality music tuition. The removal of peripatetic teaching will cut off access to instrumental teaching, usually in groups as part of the curriculum in primary and lower secondary phases. I gather that the Government have been considering using Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972, provision of entertainments, to allow LEAs to maintain school bands or orchestras. But school bands and orchestras are just one part of music provision in schools. One cannot be divorced from the other. Orchestras and bands feed off the music in schools. LEAs should be retaining the planning role for music in schools.
I know how seriously the Minister takes the challenge to education and how much she cares about the standing of Britain in the world. She has not infrequently referred to it in her speeches. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the issue of music and culture. I hope that she will realise that there is a great deal of anxiety abroad and will be able to reassure us today in the context of the amendment.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support the amendment because I see the object of it as to create, as it were, a safe haven for a very special and specialised subject, music, which in terms of teaching and learning is quite unlike any other subject in the curriculum. Of course, the curriculum includes music education, and that is not what concerns me. But I hope that we would all agree that any respectable school programme must include a great deal of extra-curricular music, especially musical instrument tuition, instrumental ensemble work, school and county orchestras and choirs of all sorts, shapes and sizes. On this side of the Chamber we would like to be sure that music education outside the curriculum is not affected by Clause 10, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that such will be the case.
The prime responsibility of the funding agency for schools must be the planning of school places rather

1519
than the organisation of extra-curricular programmes, and it is in the nature of things that music education, in its widest sense, will be only a marginal interest to the FAS. To divide responsibility would also be a recipe for comprehensive confusion. In any authority where the Secretary of State had given the FAS shared responsibility, the future of music education would be in grave danger if grant-maintained schools did not want to be involved in it. Everybody else would then suffer. We believe that the provision of music education can best (and most safely) be left to the LEAs. They have, after all, a remarkable track record.
Practical music differs from other subjects in one way above all others. You cannot teach the trombone to 20 people at the same time. Instruments have to be taught one to one or in very small groups by expert teachers. The LEAs over the years have developed an excellent system of peripatetic music teachers, serving groups of schools and providing skilled, targeted teaching with the maximum economy of time. If Clause 10 is to apply to music, peripatetic teaching is gravely at risk—not that it is not at risk already.
The rot has already set in. The London borough of Barnet disbanded its service in 1990. Coventry Centre for Performing Arts closes this year. South Glamorgan Visiting Music Service will be terminated if it is not self-financing within six months. So much for gwlad y gan, the land of song. In Newcastle the size of the service has been halved; 11 teachers have been made redundant. In the London borough of Barnet all 43 teachers in the award-winning music team have been awarded their own redundancy notices. In North Tyneside the service has been disbanded and the teachers have been offered jobs in other council departments. I have it on good authority that the senior woodwind teacher was offered a job as a gardener. Just imagine it: he might perhaps be able to prune with his piccolo, but what will he do with his bassoon?
In the matter of extra-curricular music education, local education authorities have always given remarkably good value for money. Now they are being so persecuted, cribb'd, cabin'd and confined that they are being forced to make these crazy cuts in a service which has been the envy of the world. They must be allowed to provide musical education services because the FAS has other priorities, no commercial adventurer will think it worth his while and the school music teachers are simply not equipped to cover so wide a range. No music teacher can teach the violin, the oboe, the trumpet, the guitar, the synthesiser, the sitar and the lute, run an orchestra, organise a steel band or a jazz combo, recruit and train a choir and at the same time and for low pay give instruction in harmony, counterpoint, composition, analysis and the entire history of music. There is a vast area in music education which can only be filled by the services of a local education authority. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of the amendment and accept it.
Earl Russell: All the amendments are joined by themes which are perhaps a little more appropriate. It is more far-reaching than the Government Front Bench realise. One is that they all raise the question of overall planning, on which I say no more at the
1520
moment. The other is that they all deal with activities which are carried on very often in the schools in association with the education service but without being the central part of the school's activities.
Those are all, therefore, likely to become peripheral in the horizon of the funding council. In fact, it means that they all run the risk of being relegated to an educational Channel Islands. We all know the difficulties which arise whenever we have to try to deal with an issue which falls between the boundaries of different ministries. It is hard to get it to the top of anybody's attention.
What we suggest in all the amendments—the youth service, music and adult education—is that they will be put in that position where they fall, as it were, between the boundaries of different ministries. We suggest that since these are services which large numbers of people value in all quarters of the House, it could produce an unfortunate and unforeseen effect. We hope that that point will be given some thought.
Lord Addington: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his Amendment No. 59. Also, since Amendment No. 61 covers similar concerns in a different field, it may be appropriate and assist brevity if I try to tie in my comments on that amendment as well.
Here we are talking about issues where we have economies of scale of interest and finance. We have people with expertise across the local authority area which is used in outdoor activities. One teacher or other person is available to take people, for example, sailing, canoeing, camping, hill-walking or whatever else goes on. Also, we can recruit people into large enough groups to make up the units. For example, one needs x number to crew a boat and x number to go walking safely. One also needs a certain amount of expertise from various fields such as safety and navigation on land and water. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, in music one cannot expect to find all the human resources in one school. In addition, if there is one type of expertise in one school, in x number of years one may conceivably not find sufficient people to utilise that expertise.
Thus I suggest that this whole group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 59, 61 and 62, to an extent should all come together. I should have no objection, although I cannot speak for other noble Lords, if the noble Baroness chose to answer them all at once. It is a situation where we are trying to maximise and become as efficient as possible in using the physical interests of the pupils and the physical resources of the teachers.
Lord Judd: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has made a sensible suggestion which the Minister may find convenient. Therefore, perhaps I may add a word on outdoor activities, the arts and museums.
Outdoor education centres have, as I believe everybody realises, provided powerful learning experiences for nearly a quarter of a million young people through direct contact with mountains, moorland, rivers, caves and sea in a form of education which is sought often through arduous and

1521
adventurous undertakings or careful observations and research in order to explore both the physical world and the more difficult terrain of human aspirations and capabilities. It is a form of education which we recognise has proved to be a powerful experience which is increasingly shown to complement and enrich the curriculum, and it is one for which Britain has again long been recognised as a world leader.
The residential outdoor centres, which have so well shouldered the responsibility for the lives of countless young people over the years, have become internationally respected models of good outdoor practice. The concern is that qualified and experienced staff are the most expensive item in any centre's budget and are most likely to suffer when cuts are made. The tightening of LEA central budgets as schools opt out is already affecting the budgets of outdoor centres. The addition of other provisions to that made by LEAs could put still more pressure on costs and cause the dismantling of the provisions currently made.
We have to recognise the fact that in recent weeks there has been—a matter already referred to in the debate today—acute anxiety about what happens when this kind of activity moves outside the well-proven and responsible spheres of local education authority provision with all its professionalism.
Local authorities also currently provide extensive arts, museum and cultural activities. There is a natural overlap between those and the provision of the rest of education. Local theatres often provide the best opportunity for those studying English or foreign languages to see plays or books they are studying performed. Museums provide a valuable resource to schools, whether to give children examples of life in a particular period of history or a specific event in their own area. Initiatives such as city farms offer inner-city children a valuable opportunity to see animals in the flesh and learn about the workings of farms which directly or indirectly provide them with food. Those services are all invaluable educational resources which help interest children in their school and in learning.
For such services to be planned and provided to meet the needs of schools at a realistic cost which reflects their educational value they must be overseen by the local education authority—the only body which currently and for the foreseeable future has some responsibility for the totality of education in the area.
Baroness Warnock: I must add my support to the amendment. I probably said enough on another occasion about the importance of music education. I fear that in speaking again on the other aspects of this amendment I may well be accused, as may other noble Lords, of thinking that money does not matter. There is a cost element. The local authority must expend its money on keeping these services going. I believe that educationally this is one of the most important fields. No single school, as we have heard, can possibly supply the teaching of music; nor can it keep the necessary supply of musical instruments required for people who are embarking on their instrumental studies. We cannot afford to lose that glorious aspect of education.
1522
On the subject of museums, it is not just the schools which will suffer but the museums themselves. I know that the museum whose running I have been deeply involved in—the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge—depends very largely on support from the local authority, which pays the museum a yearly subsidy provided that the museum will lay on exhibitions especially for schoolchildren. The museum loves to do that and does it very well. If the local authority has no responsibility for that form of education, then the museum will greatly suffer.
I see no alternative to local authority involvement. No independent trusts or companies will be interested in what cannot be a commercially viable provision.
The other feature of local authorities which I must emphasise in all those connections, but particularly in music, which is what I know about most, is the knowledge of the individual children who are taught and provided for in, for example, the Saturday morning music schools that the local authority provides. That has an important careers aspect in the sense that the local authority music advisers are extremely good at finding places for children to continue their musical education and at suggesting careers that they may adopt and helping with their training. If we lose all that, we lose not only a great music tradition, which has only recently been built up, but also a personal interest in the children which enormously supports and helps them and, putting it at its crudest, helps to prevent them from becoming delinquents. I therefore hope that we shall be assured that the local authorities will retain those powers.
Lord Lucas: I do not entirely share the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others. If I may take an example, in Hampshire we have an excellent music service which is in the process of being devolved under the local management of schools scheme. The initial indications are that about one-third of schools will not take it up. The reason is that they wish to spend more and spend it better. They have found and are finding ways in which they can organise their music more to the taste of their pupils than is done under the Hampshire music service, good though that is. The reason is that parents demand that there should be good music provision, good sports provision and good extra curricular activities in schools. It is one of the major things by which they judge a school because they know much more about that than about education. I am sure that the grant-maintained schools, which have to compete hard for new pupils, will be particularly concerned to provide those sorts of services. And were not the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, those of local education authorities cutting provision rather than of grant-maintained schools cutting provisions?
I hesitate to add a concern of my own, but I feel a shadow coming on from the direction of the further education funding council, which appears to be developing the idea that a lot of funding of sixth form colleges should be related to outcomes and that outcomes should be measured in terms of examination results. If that becomes the way of sixth form colleges, and certainly if that seeps into the rest of the education

1523
system, there will be a strong disincentive to provide extra curricular activities generally. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch can assure me that there is no intention of allowing that to happen either in the school system or in further education.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, perhaps I can add a word on Amendment No. 61 because mutatis mutandis what I said about music education applies equally to outdoor education. It is extra curricular; it is vitally important; and it is heavily funded by the LEAs both in terms of money and experience. It is perilously at risk. Outdoor education gives opportunities for excellence to non-academic pupils in schools or to those who are not particularly artistically gifted. Its very existence permits more people to do better, and that is perhaps one of the central concerns of all education.
In this specific matter there is the unique importance to be borne in mind of safety—safety on mountains, on rivers and in caves. And this is a labour-intensive matter. One cannot put 30 school pupils into Lliwedd Slabs in Snowdonia to teach them the elements of rock climbing with only one instructor: they tend to fall off and it reaches the newspapers. Once again, Clause 10—despite what may be grimaced on the other side of the Chamber—is inappropriate, irrelevant and perhaps even positively dangerous if it applies to outdoor activities.
Lord Addington: I want to make one very brief point in response to the taunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He talks about maximising the response. How does he know exactly whether that musical response will meet the needs of the pupils and not just their parents? How does he know whether in two or three years' time, once they have set up a wonderful classical section, there will not be half a dozen budding jazz musicians?
Baroness Blatch: I wonder where some noble Lords have been over the past 25 years. All I can say is that the musical needs of many hundreds of thousands of children are not being met in schools because of the very ad hoc system. I have seen the liberating of systems—just the kind of example that has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas—where more children's needs in terms of musical talent are being met. It is very exciting. I am in and out of schools all the time and I am constantly moved by the quality and the quantity of good music sung and played by our young people.
Amendment No. 59 does not make sense. It is not possible to exclude music education from the provisions of Section 8 of the 1944 Act. Music is a foundation subject of the national curriculum and compulsory for all pupils aged five to 15. It was indeed this Government who made it a compulsory subject in the national curriculum. Schools can also offer music as an A-level subject. It is therefore not possible to exempt schools within the grant-maintained sector and under the responsibility of the funding authority from providing music education.
1524
Our proposals will not prevent schools, as now, offering extra-curricular music activities such as school choirs and individual and group instrumental tuition. Where they provide instrumental tuition as an optional activity, they can of course charge a fee, which must not exceed the cost to the school of providing the service. I see no reason at all why our proposals should discourage schools which are keen to provide such additional activities from doing so.
There is no reason why the delegation of funds to schools in respect of non-mandatory music services should affect the existence of these services. Local Management of Schools, the method by which money is delegated to schools, does not reduce the overall amount of money which is available for education. It is simply a fairer way of allocating resources. We know already how much better schools make use of that money than LEAs themselves. It must also be said that local authorities are not required under our law to delegate provision for music services.
Turning to the other amendments, as I have already explained in relation to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, the current provisions of the Bill are based on Section 8 of the 1944 Act. I do not intend to go over that ground again. But it is our view that the local authority's duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act does not extend to the providing of music. As for Amendment No. 61, there is no reason why the delegation of funds to schools in respect of non-mandatory outdoor education services should affect the existence of those centres. I repeat that Local Management of Schools, the method by which money is delegated to schools, does not reduce the amount of money available for education but is simply a fairer way of allocating resources. Again local authorities are not required to delegate provision for outdoor education.
I think that noble Lords have taken a very pessimistic view. All the evidence is that these services are thriving. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that he follow my tracks around some of the counties in this country where the prospects are very exciting indeed.
Lord Judd: I notice the fervour with which the Minister speaks. I always think that that illustrates her commitment. I do not question her commitment. It is the doubt whether she is deploying it in the most effective way that disturbs many of us in the Committee.
I hope the Minister will understand that we listen when the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness talk about the best possible chance for all our children and talk about one nation. I imagine that all those who have participated in the debate are relatively privileged members of society. I am sure that we would all be glad to contribute to the wider activities of the schools and groups to which our children belong. We would be glad to see the children benefiting from that. We know that resources are not limitless. But what we are really disturbed about is that in so many of the areas of the most acute deprivation it is simply not possible for parents living on a minimal income to contemplate fees. It is not

1525
possible for them to contribute to the provision of the kind of resources which more affluent communities in some of our shires can contribute.
Therefore, far from moving towards one nation with better opportunities for all our children, this process is becoming divisive. That is what underlies our whole anxiety. We sit in this Chamber and beat our breasts about what is happening with crime and delinquency which results from people going through pretty negative experiences in the grim reality of their daily routine in life. What is so challenging about so many of the outdoor activities which we have heard about is that they enable precisely those kinds of children and young people to have an experience which helps to build character, self-confidence, and the rest, and to become positive. That goes for other cultural activities.
I am not questioning the good faith of the Minister but if it were some other hour rather than 20 minutes before two o'clock in the morning, because of the anxiety which exists I would be pressing this amendment to a Division. In the circumstances, I do not intend to do that. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. But I hope that the Minister will find it possible to say something a little more reassuring tonight.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will accept an invitation from me to visit Great Barr, Handsworth and Small Heath schools in Birmingham. They are grant-maintained schools serving very difficult and deprived areas. He should listen to the music and see what the cultural experiences are of those children. They are second to none. They are schools which can do it. What we need to do is to disseminate that good practice. Those schools are serving the children and their families extremely well.
Lord Judd: I shall be delighted to accompany the Minister on a tour of the whole country. The sooner we can arrange that together I shall willingly clear my diary to do it. It would be a good experience. If we are doing that we shall have to make it a representative journey. There are quite a number of places which I shall invite the Minister to visit as well.
Baroness Blatch: The point I make is that if those schools can do it, all schools can do it. They need the will and the determination and the attitude to do it.
Lord Judd: They also need the parental income.
Baroness Warnock: Will the Minister address the problem which I do not believe that she has addressed? I do not doubt that individual schools can make very good contributions to instrumental music.I also believe that schools are capable of entering into a consortia and perhaps having larger choirs and orchestras. Nevertheless, I do not believe that any single school or small group of schools, even if they had the will to do so, are capable themselves of producing something to the standard of the best of our town-based and country-based orchestras, which leads to many of their children members going into the
1526
National Youth Orchestra. That is the kind of thing which individual schools are quite incapable of doing because of their size. Can the Minister address that problem as well as telling us, which I believe, that many schools have good standards of music. Many schools have a lousy standard of music as I know from going around the schools.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 69 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert:
("() For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the kind of education to which an order relates—

(a) where an order is expressed to relate only to primary education, includes any secondary education provided in a primary school and excludes any primary education provided in a secondary school, and

(b) where an order is expressed to relate only to secondary education, includes any primary education provided in a secondary school and excludes any secondary education provided in a primary school.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 70 I speak also to Amendments Nos.96, 97, 140, 175, 182, 192, 308, 316, 318, 321, 323 and 328. I know that these amendments may at first sight seem rather complicated, but their essential purpose is simple. First, it is to enable grant-maintained middle schools to be established and to enable them to be fitted into the framework already set out in the Bill. Secondly, it is to make clear that the funding authority may not propose the establishment of a grant-maintained nursery school although proposals may be made for a grant-maintained school to provide nursery education as well as other primary education.
I have pages of explanation of these amendments and if any noble Lord wishes to question me on any of them I shall, of course, respond to such a request. However, because of the hour I hope that the Committee will allow me simply to move Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 4, line 46, leave out ("in respect of the area to which it applies")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I should like to speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. Again, if Members of the Committee are not over-inquisitive about what these amendments are about, I shall deal with Amendment No. 71 which is required as the effect of Schedule 2 is no longer to be restricted to the area of the LEA to which the order applies. In particular, Schedule 2 (as proposed to be amended) will contain provisions which may affect who is to pay for boarding places outside the area to which the Clause 10 order applies. As noble Lords know, LEAs do purchase places in boarding and independent schools from time to time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult
.—(1) Before publishing proposals under sections 45, 92 or 101 of this Act (and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of each of those sections) in relation to a school or schools in any area each funding authority shall consult and at all times have regard to the views of the bodies described in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those bodies are—

(a) the local education authority for the area in question;

(b) the governing bodies of other schools in the area;

(c) the Diocesan Board of Education (where the proposals relate to or may affect any Church of England voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school to which the Diocesan Board of Education appoints one or more of the Foundation governors);

(d) where the proposals relate to or may affect any voluntary schools or any endowed grant-maintained school other than one mentioned in paragraph (c) above, the persons or bodies who appoint one or more of the foundation governors of each such school.

(3) Any reference in this Act to a Diocesan Board of Education shall be interpreted as a reference to the Diocesan Board of Education constituted under the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 for the diocese concerned.").
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment seeks to ensure that before making proposals the funding agency should consult essential interested parties. The Bill already provides clearly who can object once the proposals have been published. Clauses 92 and 101 set out who can object in detail, but consultation before proposals are issued is just as important as objection once proposals are made. Indeed, consultation before proposals are made may be more important because once proposals are formulated they have a tendency to take on a life and momentum of their own.
The Bill indicates that the Secretary of State will give guidance to the funding agency as to who shall be consulted, but I think that that should be on the face of the Bill, as who should object is already on the face of the Bill. The Churches have a particular concern here. Because we have been represented on the local education committees, we have automatically been involved in the preparation of proposals affecting any school. That has helped the Churches to do their own strategic planning when trying to ensure that a church school is within reach of every child. However, as and when the local education committees disappear, we shall have no assured place in this strategic planning and in the preparation of proposals, and we need one if we are to be sure of genuine choice and diversity. We need, therefore, to be assured of this full and genuine consultation before proposals are made by the funding authority.
Amendment No. 72 is grouped with Amendment No. 72A. They are almost identical except that they differ in the reference in Amendment No. 72A to the "Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop" concerned where the school affected is a Roman Catholic school. The Committee will remember that in moving an earlier amendment I said that in the past there have been sensitivities about referring to the Roman Catholic bishops in primary legislation. We for our part do not see that difficulty, but in case there is difficulty either on the part of the Government or elsewhere we have moved the provisions in two alternative forms—if I
1528
can put it like that. I hope, however, that the Government will accept them in principle. Although I am happier with Amendment No. 72A than with Amendment No. 72, I move Amendment No. 72 which stands in my name. I beg to move.
The Duke of Norfolk: As Amendment No. 72A is grouped with Amendment No.72 perhaps it is in order for me to speak to it. Amendment No. 72A seeks to include Roman Catholics in the arrangements set out in Amendment No. 72. In brief, the requirement sought by way of the amendment is a duty to be imposed upon a funding authority to consult the providing bodies when the funding authority is preparing proposals for Clause 45 (the establishing of new grant-maintained schools); Clause 92 (the changing of the character of former voluntary schools); and Clause 101 (the discontinuance of a former voluntary school).
At this time we acknowledge reluctantly that representation of the voluntary providing bodies on the funding authorities will be minimal. By this amendment I hope to secure a statutory right to be consulted in the case of proposals being prepared in one or more of the key areas to which the clauses I have listed refer. Again, the Catholic Bishops are anxious to be seen, as the Government have frequently acknowledged, to be an active partner in the provision of state education. Without the close involvement the amendment seeks to secure, the Churches' oversight of their own schools could be perilously and permanently impaired.
Lord Northbourne: I support Amendment No. 72A. The right reverent Prelate referred to developing a coherent policy so that there is an appropriate church school available at each stage of the child's development. We are talking here about a partnership between the Church and the state to provide education. In the amendment we are asking only for consultation. It would be unacceptable in a partnership if the partners were not consulted in the case of important issues such as the establishment, change of character or discontinuance of one of the partnership's schools. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may say a word in support of Amendments Nos 72 and 72A. They go some way towards remedying the lack of consultation that there has been in the preparation of previous legislation and in the prescription under previous legislation as to what should be done in specified cases.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will accept that I accept what they say and what they ask for in principle, will take this proposal away, think about it and return with it on Report and between now and Report will consult the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 72A:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consult
—(1) Before publishing proposals under sections 45, 92 or 101 of this Act (and without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of each of those sections) in relation to a school or schools in any area each funding authority shall consult and at all times have regard to the views of the bodies described in subsection (2) below.
(2) Those bodies are—

(a) the local education authority for the area in question;

(b) the governing body of other schools in the area;

(c) the Diocesan Board of Education (where the proposals relate to or may affect any Church of England voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school to which the Diocesan Board of Education appoints one or more of the Foundation governors);

(d) the relevant Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop (where the proposals relate to or may affect any Roman Catholic voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school to which that Bishop appoints one or more of the Foundation governors);

(e) where the proposals relate to or may affect any voluntary school or any endowed grant-maintained school other than one mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) above, the persons or bodies who appoint one or more of the foundation governors of each such school.

(3) Any reference in this Act to a Diocesan Board of Education shall be interpreted as a reference to the Diocesan Boards of Education constituted under the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 for the diocese concerned.").
The noble Duke said: I am pleased to follow the Church of England, as usual, in these ecumenical days. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 72A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 74:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Criteria for an exclusion
.—(1) The articles of government for every maintained school, grant-maintained school, maintained special school and non-maintained special school shall provide that no pupil shall be permanently excluded unless—

(a) all reasonable steps have been taken by the school to avoid excluding the pupil, and

(b) allowing the pupil to continue to attend the school would be seriously detrimental to the education or welfare of the pupil, other pupils or staff at the school."

(2) A plan should be made for a pupil excluded from school which may include placement in a residential school.
(3) At all stages parents and pupils must be involved.
(4) Account must be taken of inadequate social conditions and a disruptive family.").
The noble Baroness said: I have great compassion for my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she is withstanding this terrible ordeal at such a late hour. Combined with that it is a worry and distress to me that we should now be discussing these amendments. I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 en bloc. They refer to exclusions from school.
When dealing with the Education Reform Bill in 1988 I moved an amendment relating to non-school attendance. I regret to say that at that stage my amendment was refused by the Government. Now we are in a terrible state in relation to non-school attendance. Recently I visited a city where 7 per cent. of all the children are out of school on any one day.
1530
That city has the highest juvenile crime rate in Europe. Therefore, I believe that the amendments are of vital importance.
I shall speak first to Amendment No. 74, which lays down that all reasonable steps should be taken to avoid excluding a child from school. I have deep sympathy with many teachers who find that particular children are so disruptive, difficult and upsetting that they are almost glad when those children are not in the class. However, I am afraid that that will not do. There must be some way of helping such children to attend school.
I understand that some pupils are so disruptive that they disturb all the other pupils. Under those circumstances something must be done about them. I recommend that a plan should be made for every pupil excluded from school. That plan might include placement in a residential centre. There are in this country some excellent schools, many of which are known to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in which there are vacancies. However, those vacancies are not being taken up by the local authorities, which would be cheaper for the taxpayer, although the schools are expensive. If children cannot be helped at home or in their day schools there are residential schools which are able to take them.
The plan should include the attendance at a case conference of someone from the social services. At all stages the parents and children should be involved. I also believe that, when children are excluded from school, account must be taken of inadequate social conditions and of the disruptive family. I have known children stay away from school because they are living in bed and breakfast accommodation and because of the difficulties at home which have led to their becoming out of control. Some children may live with single parents who are unable to cope with them, or they may have been sexually abused in the home. When considering the position of children who are excluded from school, social conditions and the disruptive family should be taken into account. There are places which can deal with such children and many of them are successful.
I cannot refrain from saying that the Home Secretary has recommended that centres should be set up for children who have committed crimes. Many such children have not attended school. It would be far better to spend the money which the Home Office recommended should be invested in those extraordinary centres on sending to existing residential schools which have vacancies the children who have been excluded from school.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 cover the whole question of the reviewing of cases of children excluded from school. Amendment No. 77 provides for a tribunal so that if the parents of a child who is excluded from school are upset about it and feel that they have good cause to be upset, they can apply to a tribunal. They would be able to apply to a tribunal on various other matters, in particular as regards a child who is excluded from school for a term and then not allowed to return.
I have been brief because it is late. I shall not divide the Committee because I wish to return to the matter.

1531
We must tackle this problem and tackle it well. Although all measures should be taken to keep the child at home and in school where it is possible and practicable to do so, some children need to attend residential establishments and such establishments do exist. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Lord Elton: My sympathy goes equally to the Minister and to the Deputy Chairman who also seems to be having some difficulties. I have amendments in this disintegrated group. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C, 81D and 87A. Those amendments are grouped together and also deal with exclusions.
We have a difficulty in this regard, to which I referred earlier. I am sorry that the Minister is not on the Front Bench at present because it was her reply to a Written Question which led me to suppose that we should by now have the Government's response to the consultation on exclusions. A two-year monitoring period of exclusions was established. The committee, which I chaired, inquiring into discipline in schools, recommended a three-year monitoring period. The Government completed it in November of last year. I had thought that the report would be ready in time for the passage of this Bill. It was not available for its passage through another place and it is not available now. Because of the difficulties of the situation, I gently chide my noble friend. I hope that it will available before we return to the issue. It will be extremely serious if it is not available for the Report stage of the Bill.
The Bill does not seem to recognise the fragility of the situation when a pupil is readmitted on a direction but the school is reluctant to receive him. In that regard I am slightly on the other side of the net from my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I see the great difficulties which disorderly children can in extremis cause in a school and the penalties which all the children in the same class, and perhaps in the same school, can suffer as a result. Their interests must be guarded.
If a pupil is to be ejected as a result of Clause 11 by an order made under Clause 12, the odds against the successful return of that pupil are extremely high. I realise that recourse must be had to forcing a pupil on an unwilling school from time to time, but one must recognise that, to be fair, the school must be given rather more purchase on the pupil that it formerly had.
These amendments propose that a school may make conditions or specify an agreement and that the direction to return a pupil to an unwilling school shall be made subject to the agreement of the parents or the pupil, or both, to certain conditions. If those conditions are not fulfilled, the pupil shall again be excluded and, probably, permanently excluded.
Amendment No. 87A proposes a new clause after Clause 12. It sets up a method whereby the conditions may be enforced or altered as needed during the period of return. It is a long measure and I shall not now go through it with the Committee. I hope that the Government will look closely at this matter because
1532
when we made our report we looked closely at the idea of home/school contracts and came to the conclusion that an unenforceable contract was a menace because once it was seen to be unenforceable it would be exploited and be worthless. This provision at least has an element of enforceability and I commend it to the Government.
In the same group I have Amendment No. 86. That deals with the occasion when the relevant authority is making a direction on a school within a group of schools among which a child has not been able to find a welcome. It seems to me that before making such a direction the authority should not only consult the school on which it is making the direction but it should also consult the other schools that have excluded the pupil to see what the trouble really is so that it can make its direction in reasonable terms. That is a great deal less than I had intended to say on the matter of exclusion which I think is central to getting the system right. However, I think that is all the Committee is able to take aboard at this time of night. Therefore, I shall sit down.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I, too, shall be extremely brief on this subject although I share the view that it is an extremely important subject. I wish to start off by performing the sporting feat of being on both sides of the tennis net with both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I can see the need to keep children at home and to keep children with their families. I can also see the need to protect the interests of other children in the class and indeed in the school. I echo the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the fact that the Government's consultation paper has not been produced for this debate. I share his hope that it will be available for the Report stage.
I am sorry to return to the question of funding but surely one partial solution to this problem is to give local education authorities adequate support services which are properly funded. Perhaps one additional idea which is not contained in these amendments but has been suggested—I hope the Minister will be able to address this point in his reply—is the idea of providing financial support for excluded pupils through the GEST programme; the grants for educational support and training. That is all I want to say on these topics. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: I offer my apologies for the absence of my noble friend the Minister but she cannot reply to all the amendments. However, I assure the Committee that my voice is bearing up. I hope we can come back to this debate on exclusions at a later stage in Committee. Later on I will be repeating the assurances given earlier by my noble friend that we shall have an opportunity—I believe she mentioned this in her answer to my noble friend Lord Elton—to see the Government response before we come back to this in Committee.
My noble friend has already referred to the vital importance of maintaining good discipline in our schools. It is—and has always been—a key indicator of school performance. In maintaining good order the

1533
head faces many difficult decisions. One of the most difficult is whether to exclude a pupil. Exclusion of a pupil from any school is a serious matter. It is a sanction that should be used sparingly and wisely. It should always be the last resort, never the first. The Government are concerned about the number of pupils that are being excluded from our schools and that the provision made for them once they are excluded is not always satisfactory.
As my noble friend mentioned, those concerns led us to issue a discussion paper on the subject at the end of November. There was a good response to that paper. Over 200 constructive and thoughtful replies were received. Those comments are being considered and the Government will shortly be bringing forward their own proposals in the light of the analysis of those responses.
A number of the amendments appear to echo, albeit in somewhat different wording, the existing provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I am thinking in particular of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I am sure that the Committee will agree that we should be wary of change for change's sake. Indeed, a number of respondents to our discussion paper made that very point. If changes are required—and I stress that the Government will be announcing their own proposals shortly—I hope that we may restrict them to matters of substance. Furthermore, for the reasons I expressed earlier, I do not consider it appropriate to impose in primary legislation detailed and specific requirements.
The Government's discussion paper specifically asked whether guidance would be helpful and what aspects it should address. There was a generally positive response and, although the Government are frequently criticised for the amount of administrative guidance offered to schools, I believe that this is one area where a constructively worded DFE circular would be both welcome and timely.
As for appeal arrangements, in the case of county, controlled and maintained special schools, LEAs already have powers under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to review decisions to exclude pupils permanently and to consider, after consulting the governing body, whether the pupil should be reinstated and, if so, to give directions to that effect. Where the LEA confirms the exclusion decision it remains open to the parent—or the governing body if the pupil is to be reinstated—to appeal against the decision to a special committee established by the LEA. Arrangements also exist for parents to make representations to the governing body and, if they are not satisfied, to appeal to a separately constituted appeal committee against the permanent exclusion of their child from a voluntary-aided or grant-maintained school.
I do not see any need to replace those existing arrangements for review and appeal, which seem to have worked reasonably well over the years. However, we are considering what further guidance could be given on the conduct and procedures for appeals in the context of the analysis of responses to our discussion
1534
paper on exclusions. The present Bill also includes provision for independent members to be appointed to appeal committees.
The Government are not persuaded of the need for an exclusions tribunal to be established. As I have explained, there are existing procedures for review and appeal, firstly, to the disciplinary committee of the governing body and beyond that, either to the LEA or, in the case of GM schools, the governing body's appeals committee. Adding a third tier to those arrangements creates a further layer of bureaucracy in a process which needs to be resolved relatively quickly in the interests of the child. Our aim should rather be to improve and speed up existing appeals procedures so that the arrangements to secure suitable education for the pupil—either by reinstatement, admission to another school or the provision of education otherwise—can be made for the pupil as soon as possible.
I hope therefore that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will not press her amendments. I believe that she said that two o'clock in the morning was not a suitable moment to do so. Perhaps we can return to the subject at a later stage.
I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C, 81D and 86 in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton. I agree entirely with my noble friend that the decision-making power should be used only after consultation with all the parties directly concerned, but I believe that the requirements to consult already imposed on the directing body in Clause 12 are sufficient. I do not think that there is any need to impose further requirements as suggested in the amendments.
With respect to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D in particular, we support the notion of non-binding agreements between schools and parents but would not want those to become an integral part of the admissions or exclusion procedure. That is why I resist those amendments—although I suspect that my noble friend will not wish to press them tonight—which would allow schools to set conditions before they agreed to admit a child under Clause 11.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend will forgive me for intervening, it is important that we get it straight. I would not dream of pressing any issue at this hour or without reading what he said. However, I am not sure that what he says is clear.
Amendment No. 87A is the new clause providing the procedure for consultation and agreements (or contracts as we used to call them) before readmission. Does he say that that is a matter against which the Government's face is set? I would think that that was a mistake.
Lord Henley: I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D. I do not believe that I had come to Amendment No. 87A.
Lord Elton: Amendment No. 87A was part of the group with Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D. It is the new clause after Clause 12. I sent a copy to my noble friend's department. I believe that it is aware of

1535
the grouping. Although quasi-judicial is too grand a word, Amendment No. 87A sets out the procedures by which a contract, agreement or conditions can be monitored and can trigger the final exclusion of the child or can be used as a means of inculcating better behaviour.
Lord Henley: I would not like to say that our face is firmly set against the provision. Bearing in mind the late hour, it would probably be best if we came back to the issue or corresponded on it between now and a later stage in Committee. My advice at present is that we would not be happy with Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C and 81D. However, I would be prepared to have another look at Amendment No. 87A, possibly before a later stage, if there were something on exclusion which might meet my noble friend's concerns.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has received further advice which I do not think will take him a great deal further down the track.
I too believe that we should come back to the issue. I am a little puzzled that he says we should return to it later in Committee. We are now dealing with the part of the Bill which deals with exclusions, as I understand it.
Lord Henley: If my noble friend will bear with me, when we reach Part IV, Clause 181, in a day or two's time, it might be a suitable moment to come back to this subject.
Lord Elton: Again I am grateful to my noble friend, although how much digestion of the report he promises we shall be able to procure before then is open to doubt.
Baroness Faithfull: We are in great difficulties over this issue. In moving Amendment No. 74 I have spoken rather volubly. I thank the Minister for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall be bringing the matter back at the next stage of the Bill. Am I allowed to withdraw Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 76?
Lord Henley: What my noble friend should do is not to move them when those amendments are called. Perhaps she will withdraw Amendment No. 74.
Baroness Faithfull: I do so, so long as I can bring the amendments back at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 74.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 81:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Welfare of the child
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, governing bodies of grant maintained schools and the governing bodies of voluntary schools in the exercise of their functions conferred upon them by or under this or any other enactment to ensure in any decision concerning a child that the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Elton and I seem to be on two sides of the fence, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said. However, this provision connects with the children who are
1536
disruptive and difficult possibly because of very difficult home circumstances. Perhaps they have been sexually abused. There may be disruptive conditions at home. The best way to help that child may be to send him to a residential school.
Experience has shown that a number of children have been recommended by a psychiatrist and a psychologist to go to a residential school but the school named by the psychiatrist for the child was expensive and the city treasurer was not prepared to pay the fees on behalf of the local authority. I point out that, under the Children Act, the welfare of the child is paramount. I believe that however expensive a school is the primary consideration for a seriously disruptive child should be the welfare of the child and not the fact that the treasurer says the school is too expensive. Therefore, I wish to air the whole problem of expense. Paying for those children to go to an expensive school is in the end cost effective because most of the children are successful and leave the place well adjusted, and not delinquents. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The group has been broken up and I shall deal with my amendment briefly when I reach it.
Lord Henley: I thank my noble friend for that. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has moved Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81, I believe. As I indicated earlier, Section 22 of the Education Act 1986 lays on head teachers the responsibility for maintaining high standards of discipline and behaviour in schools and for regulating the conduct of their pupils, subject to any guidance provided for them by the governing body. Having given this responsibility to head teachers, we look to them to exercise it sensibly.
Lord Elton: I believe that Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 were not moved, which is why I did not speak to my amendment. We are now on Amendment No. 81.
Lord Henley: I apologise, I shall move straight on to Amendment No. 81 and the question of the welfare of the child and, as my noble friend said, the provisions of the Children Act. Those provisions lay stress regarding the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned. This is appropriate in that context. They apply when important decisions are taken which affect a particular child. However, although there are some areas of overlap, the main concerns of the Children Act and the Education Bill before us are different. The former is primarily concerned with every aspect of a child's welfare—parental responsibility, guardians, care orders, the protection of children and fostering. The Education Bill includes provisions to ensure that parents will play an active part in choices regarding the child's education. There is therefore no need to include on the face of the Bill a provision regarding the ascertainable wishes of the child, as the noble Baroness stresses.
We have long exhorted LEAs to take into account the wishes of the child when carrying out their duties, particularly on occasions such as were mentioned, but we do not believe that it would be necessary or desirable for the Secretary of State to set guidelines on how people's views might be ascertained. Those are matters which are entirely for local determination in

1537
the light of the particular circumstances. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I think perhaps we have not understood one another very well. Amendment No. 81 is concerned with the financing of special cases of children excluded from school who cannot be dealt with either at home or in the school and the funding of those cases. Inevitably the child is consulted under previous legislation.
I do not really agree with the Minister, but at this late hour it is a complicated business and I shall not pursue the matter further. I shall withdraw the amendment and bring it back at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Direction to admit child to specified school]:
[Amendment No. 81A not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81B:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert:
("() If no school meets the criteria set out in subsection (2) of this section the appropriate authority may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State under section 12 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is one of a very small group: 81B, 85A, 86A, 86B and 86C. Clause 11 makes no provision for when a pupil is permanently excluded from the only school within a reasonable distance which provides suitable education. The system under Clause 11 is that a pupil shall be put into a school by direction provided that the school is within a "reasonable distance", offers a suitable education and that the pupil has not already been permanently excluded from it. For instance, if one excludes a classicist from, say, Ashbourne Grammar School, I think it most unlikely that there will be another place available. I may be wrong, but I am sure that in many rural areas it will be impossible to find another place to deal with him satisfactorily; and he must be dealt with. It would be a pity if he were dealt with necessarily by education other than in school.
The amendment draws attention to that difficulty and suggests that the authority should in that case make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who might or might not act upon it, to re-inject the pupil into the school from which he has been permanently excluded. I am on the other side of the net this time. I hope that the noble Lord is seized of the problem, and if he cannot deal with it now perhaps he can deal with it later.
Lord Henley: I hope that I am seized of the problem and that I am on the right or the appropriate side of the net. I hope that we understand the concerns which lie behind these amendments. My noble friend envisages a situation in which the only suitable secondary school within easy reach of a child's home had either excluded the child or had refused to admit him or her. I expect that that already happens from
1538
time to time. It is precisely in order to help parents with children in such circumstances that we have included Clauses 11 and 12 in the Bill.
Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain why I think that the clauses as drafted would provide sufficient protection for all parties involved. If the child had been refused admission to the only school within easy reach on the grounds that the school was full, the appropriate authority would be perfectly entitled to direct the school to admit the child. Clearly it would have to think carefully if there were a large number of pupils in the same position, since a school could reasonably claim that it would not be able to accommodate them all. The admission of one extra person would be unlikely to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The LEA or the funding agency would not need to consult the Secretary of State before making such a direction but it would need to consult the school in question, which would have the right to refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
The options available to the directing authority would be different if the child had been excluded from the only school within reach. It would not be able to direct the school to re-admit the child. But under amendments which the Government will table shortly the LEA in which the child in question is resident would be required to provide suitable education other than in school. Again, there would be no need for the appropriate authority to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be satisfied with this explanation and will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Elton: It is late at night. I shall only say that the Government therefore say that a child so excluded must necessarily be educated other than in school. It may well be the right decision, but it is perhaps a regrettable one and we shall discuss it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81C and 81D not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert (", unless the school is a voluntary school that has in place a section 6(3) (b) 1980 Act arrangement, the terms of which would preclude such admission or, in the case of a grant maintained school that was formerly a voluntary school where such similar arrangement forms part of the agreed admissions policy as under the provision of section 72 and paragraph 2(a) (iii) of Schedule 5 of the 1988 Act, the terms of which would similarly so preclude.")
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the fact that there appears to have been a typing error on the Marshalled List. The second line of the amendment should read "section 6(3) (b)" rather than"6(6)".
This small, but important, amendment relates to voluntary schools which have a special agreement with the local authority about admissions to the school and to grant-maintained schools which are likely to negotiate a similar agreement at the time of their formation. Under those agreements the LEA imposes a limit, either in numerical or percentage terms, on the number of "non-adherents" who may be admitted to the school at the relevant age-group. That is done in order to protect the religious character of the school. Schools are obliged to admit up to the standard

1539
number of non-adherents. For example, a Catholic primary school with a standard admissions number of 30 each year, might reach agreement whereby only five non-Roman Catholics should be admitted.
Where the Section 6(3) (b) agreement is in place, the imaginary school already cited may accept five non-Catholics —the limit of the agreement—but if for one reason or another they only recruit 24 Catholics the amendment confirms the existing situation that they should not be forced to accept another non-Catholic to make up the standard number, even though the school remains one short of that number.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to place on the face of the Bill a continuation of agreements, where they exist, in the sort of cases described at Clause 11. I beg to move.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Hylton: In supporting the amendment perhaps I can point out that when replying to an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Henley, defended the existing arrangement. Amendment No. 82 refers specifically to an existing arrangement under the 1980 Act. As has been pointed out, it continues an existing practice which tends to preserve the character and ethos of specific schools.
It is important in this context to remember that many Roman Catholic schools were built and created with 15 per cent. of voluntary contributions, often from parents, parishioners, from the diocese, and from a whole range of bodies outside the educational system as it then stood. That is only one reason why it is desirable to continue what already exists.
Baroness Blatch: I am well aware of the anxieties of voluntary bodies that the direction-making power in this clause could be used to override agreements for preserving the religious character of aided schools. But I hope that I can convince the Committee that their anxieties are without foundation. Both I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have great respect for the valuable contribution which Church schools have made to the education system over the years. Indeed, I absolutely respect the point made in regard to the 15 per cent. contribution and the efforts of parents. We will not allow that to be undermined.
Clause 11 must be read in conjunction with Clause 12. We believe that the body responsible for securing the supply of school places in an area needs a new power to deal with the tiny minority of pupils who are unable to obtain a place at a school within a reasonable distance of their homes. But we have no intention of allowing either LEAs or the funding agency to ride roughshod over the rights of schools or parents. That is why Clause 12 requires the direction-making body to consult all those concerned before it makes a direction. And, as an ultimate safeguard, the governing body of a school will have the right to refer a proposed direction to the Secretary of State.
We do not expect this power to be used at all frequently. It is rare for a pupil to be excluded from or refused admission to all suitable schools in the area. But plainly there will be occasions when it is
1540
reasonable, and plainly in the best interests of the child, that a school, even though it is full, should be required to admit a pupil; for example, when the nearest alternative school with spare places is some miles from the child's home.
I accept, of course, that the possibility of direction to a voluntary-aided school may arise. But the Secretary of State would only uphold a direction which would override the religious character of an aided school in exceptional circumstances where there was no other alternative within easy travelling distance. I trust that Members of the Committee will feel able to rest on that assurance and withdraw the amendment. I repeat that it would be only if there were no other alternative and that became the most appropriate school; with, of course, the right to challenge that decision.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, which certainly gives some comfort on this issue. At this late hour I should like to have the opportunity of taking away what she has said to consider it further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Procedure for giving direction]:
[Amendments Nos. 85A to 86C not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Excluded pupils
.—(1) The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 23—

(a) in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) the words "or indefinite" are omitted; and

(b) in paragraph (b) the words "or indefinite" are omitted.

(3) In section 24 paragraphs (c) and (e) are omitted.
(4) In section 25 paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are omitted.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 87 has broken loose from the group but the noble Lord need not seek for his notes. I move it only to say that I shall return at Report stage to the question of the ending of indefinite exclusions. That was covered in my noble friend's group but the noble Lord did not mention it in his reply. It is too important to leave aside. I shall be returning to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I merely say that I note what my noble friend says and will come back to this at a later stage.
Lord Elton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87A not moved.]
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 87B:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Mid-day dinner break
(".The mid-day dinner break shall be organised so as to enable all children to be seated together and served either with school dinners, a cafeteria meal or a meal brought from home.").
The noble Baroness said: We come on to a different subject and I feel quite hungry at the thought of it. I move this amendment out of experience of visiting several schools.
Since school dinners ceased under the previous Act, only children whose parents are in receipt of income support are supplied with school dinners. At one school I visited, the school bell rang at one o' clock and, tinkle, tinkle, tinkle, outside the gate of the school was the pizza van. There was a rush from the school to the pizza van. Children bought themselves a pizza, not having washed their hands. I happened to go on a spring day. They all sat about on the steps of the school eating their pizzas.
I do not think, first, on social grounds, that that is a good way for children to be brought up. I believe that the way school dinners used to be served provided a social training for children. They all sat down together. They had to talk together and talk to the staff, not that the staff always enjoyed it. Nevertheless, it was a social occasion. I believe that, from the point of view of the atmosphere and discipline of the school, school dinners were a good institution.
I realise that it would be unwise to recommend the return of school dinners as they used to be. Therefore I have said:
"The mid-day dinner break shall be organised so as to enable all children to be seated together and served either with school dinners"—
to which the children whose parents are on income support are entitled. Even now a cafeteria meal that the children can buy is served. Alternatively, some children bring their meal from home. I believe that this amendment would serve to produce a better social atmosphere in school and would be healthy for the children. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: It may be convenient if I speak to Amendment No. 88 which is grouped with Amendment No. 87B if that is acceptable to my noble friend the Minister. I should like to suggest that any education policy cannot ignore the importance of providing and maintaining certain standards for the health of the pupils who are meant to benefit from the education policy. Amendment No. 88 seeks to ensure that the Government accept their responsibility to make a contribution by publishing guidelines on the nutritional values required to provide for and maintain those children attending schools, whether LEA schools or self-governing grant-maintained schools.
As my noble friend Lady Faithfull has already said, at present not only is there no obligation on any authority or school to provide food for their pupils other than for those eligible for free school meals, but there is also no quantifiable or identifiable yardstick which sets out what those free meals should contain; so that the provision can vary from a couple of sandwiches, which I understand is sometimes the case under some LEAs, to what would generally be
1542
considered to be a proper hot meal. We should remind ourselves that this situation is applicable to those children of parents in the country's lowest income groups and for whom the school meal is frequently the only substantial meal of the day.
Taking into account school meals in general, however, there is a lack of adequate provision of certain nutritional contents in the diet which can, as we know, lead to a number of diseases; coronary heart disease being particularly prevalent. The foundations for that illness can begin in childhood. It is the single largest cause of death in this country as well as being the highest cause of death when the United Kingdom is compared with other developed countries. The question of coronary heart disease has been singled out as one of the key areas targeted in the recent report of the Department of Health, The Health of the Nation.
These are not the only problems which have arisen in this country, particularly among the young. There is the problem of obesity and in certain cases, for instance, severe behavioural problems which are influenced by unsatisfactory diet. Amendment No. 88 would place responsibility on the Secretary of State to issue guidelines—I emphasise guidelines—which would be widely drafted, offering wide options allowing for considerable flexibility, and setting out what are in effect minimum requirements for a healthy diet based on the needs at different ages and separate standards for boys and for girls.
Much work has already been done in this field. The national nutritional guidelines have been established by the committee for medical aspects of food policy and recent surveys have shown, in line with the Government's 1991 dietary reference values, that, for instance, in the case of a high proportion of girls both iron and calcium intake are below even the lower reference for nutrient intake.
These aspects of dietary recommendations have been skilfully analysed and recently published by an expert working group under the aegis of the Caroline Walker Trust. The findings were endorsed by all three major government departments concerned—the Department of Health, MAFF, the Department for Education—and supported by leading scientists in the field, including Sir Francis Avery Jones, a very distinguished gastro-enterologist.
The advantages of adopting this amendment are clear to me, at any rate, if not to my noble friend. There would be a standard attainable throughout the country; it would enable schools and LEAs, when publishing tenders for catering contractors, to identify required standards. For instance, one LEA in Berkshire used the Caroline Walker Trust publication to guide it. The catering contractor in that county which obtained the tender for Berkshire schools, emphasised the desirability for such standards to be identifiable when tendering.
Efficient and imaginative provision within the guidelines, and co-operation where possible in each school with the head teacher, has resulted in Berkshire with an increase in the take-up of school meals from about 30 per cent. to 39 per cent. in the space of about two years. Monitoring by the authority or school is

1543
also easier when there are guidelines on which to base their investigations into value for money and for the kinds of provisions supplied. In a recent survey by the Consumers' Association parents have responded with nine out of 10 in favour of the provision of school meals.
Finally, budgetary implications must not be overlooked. With grant-maintained schools and the setting up of local management schemes there could well be a dramatic slipping of standards of nutritional value in order to allocate funding for other purposes unless there is some guideline or target which, while not being mandatory or essential, should be encouraged to be followed. Parents and school governors would also have their responsibilities simplified if some kind of guidance is made available.
The immediate budgetary responsibility must also be seen against the background of the long-term health of children which in the end dictates the general level of good health in this country. Already in 1937, Boyd Orr recognised that,
"From the point of view of the State, the adoption of diet lower than the optimum is uneconomic. It leads to a great amount of preventable disease and ill health which lay a heavy financial burden on the State."
If for no other reason, I very much hope that my noble friend will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
2.45 a.m.
Earl Russell: In supporting these amendments, I shall say only that I hope that the Department for Education will consider the excellent section on diet in the Government White Paper, The Health of the Nation.
Lord Elton: Those who read my noble friend's speech will find that it made an excellent case for the guidelines for which she is asking. It is not necessary to support it further.
I do not in all honesty expect the Government to accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, but I hope that while the Bill is going through the House they will look at their school dinners policy and, perhaps over the years to come, will remember that it is not only a question of nutrition but of socialisation. As I have said before, what happens in the dinner break has a marked effect on what happens in the first period after the dinner break. The whole thing is part of the same policy.
Lord Rea: In supporting the two amendments tabled by the two noble Baronesses, I shall try to be as brief as possible although this is an extremely important topic. A mark of that importance is the fact that I am still here at 2.45 a.m. to support them. I am not alone in considering the amendments important. That is also the opinion of the organisation of which I am vice-chairman, the National Forum for Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, which represents 35 national bodies with an interest in the prevention of heart disease.
If the Minister agrees to the amendment here and now, that would be wonderful. If she intends to take it away and think about it, I seriously commend to her the report which was mentioned by the noble
1544
Baroness, Lady Elles, on nutritional guidelines for school meals, published by the Caroline Walker Trust, which translates the recommendations of COMA, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, on recommended dietary allowances to the school situation. Several facts about diet in childhood have become scientifically much clearer since the nutritional guidelines for school meals were abolished in 1980—mistakenly, in the view of almost all nutritional expertise of all political shades.
With regard to coronary heart disease which has been mentioned and in which the United Kingdom is a world leader —if "leadership" is the right word for a parade of death certificates—it is now clear that the origins of this illness occur early in life and that diet in infancy and early childhood matters. It is now clear that those adults who develop coronary heart disease are more likely to have had a nutritionally deprived childhood than those with healthy hearts. The ill effects of that can be countered to a great extent by good, well balanced meals at school, to which the children who are most in need will be entitled because children with a deprived diet are more likely to develop heart disease in later life. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may say from this Front Bench that if the Minister is able to respond positively to the amendments, she will have the full-hearted support of the Opposition.
Lord Henley: That Minister is not responding; I am responding, but no doubt I shall have the full support of the noble Lord.
Responsibility for school meals matters rests with local education authorities and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. It is for them to decide what sort of service should be provided—a three-course meal, a snack service or the statutory minimum of a meal for those entitled to free school meals only—and the facilities that are appropriate to deliver those meals. The Government do not specify the type of service that LEAs and schools must offer, but they must provide a meal free of charge to any pupil whose families receive income support. We are satisfied that these arrangements allow LEAs and schools to provide a service which takes into account local priorities and tastes—because they differ across the country—while establishing safeguards for those on the lowest incomes.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull would require schools to make arrangements for all children to sit together to eat either a meal prepared by the school meals service or food that they have brought from home. But children's eating habits have changed. Not all children eat school meals or packed lunches. A significant minority now choose to make their own arrangements, which might involve going home for lunch or eating off the school premises. What pupils eat, or do not eat, at lunchtime is a matter for the pupils and their parents.
A requirement for all pupils to be seated together would place unacceptable constraints on the organisation of schools. It is for the head teacher of a school to plan the school day. He may, with good

1545
reason, decide that dinner should be taken in two sittings, with half the pupils in lessons while the other half are eating, and to make his arrangements for lunchtime supervision of the pupils accordingly. It is entirely a matter for the individual school.
LEAs and schools are at liberty to specify nutritional standards to those who prepare meals. Most authorities have introduced "healthy eating" options on school meals menus and are changing their ingredients and cooking methods in response to medical advice.
The Education Act 1980 removed the requirement on LEAs to provide meals which conformed to government-determined nutritional standards. LEAs supported the change. Guidelines were abolished because they resulted in a great deal of what I am told is called plate-waste and were very expensive. Furthermore, they acted as a straitjacket within which LEAs were unable to make improvements in terms of variety of food, use of convenience foods and changes in food delivery, such as the cash cafeteria system.
It would be impractical to impose national nutritional standards on the meals served in schools today. To apply standards to meals served in secondary schools would be very difficult, since most operate cash cafeteria systems offering pupils multiple choices. In primary schools, most of which still offer a set meal, the problem, as most parents will know, is creating meals which children will eat. Children have a greater choice than before. The fact is that, if school meals are not to their liking, however nutritionally advisable, pupils will not eat them, will bring their own food, go without, eat snacks or eat at shops and cafes outside the school gates, where they are likely to eat worse at greater cost.
But, as I have said, an absence of government guidelines does not mean that no thought is being given to nutritional standards. The Caroline Walker Trust, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, published last November a report on nutritional guidelines for school meals. The report includes guidelines for the nutritional composition of school meals which the authors hope will be adopted voluntarily by school meals providers in drawing up tender specifications. The Government have acknowledged the trust's initiative as a contribution towards the aims set out in The Health of the Nation White Paper, referred to by my noble kinsman Lord Russell. The practicability of the guidelines is to be tested by the catering working group of the Nutrition Task Force established following the White Paper. Government departments, catering groups and representatives of the School Meals Campaign are all involved with this.
For the reasons I have given, I believe that it is inappropriate for the Government to dictate what a school's lunchtime arrangements should be or to promulgate national nutritional guidelines. Those matters are best left to others. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for his reply, by which, I must confess, I was somewhat shocked. It seemed to me to be divorced from the
1546
reality of what is happening in schools today. Many women are working. They give their children nothing to eat, either before they go to school, or for lunch at school. That is not true of every child in every family, but a high proportion of them.
I sought the views of some children. I spoke to three different sets of children from three different schools. One would hardly believe it, but they all wanted school dinners back again. However, they said that they used not to like the school dinners provided in times gone by. When I asked them what kind of school dinners they wanted, they said, "We should like to have good salads and good fruit". They especially wanted good fruit.
I am sorry that my noble friend does not think that this requirement can be included in the guidelines. I can quite see that Amendment No. 87B should not be included on the face of the Bill, but I think that it should have gone into the guidelines. I might bring this matter back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 88:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("School meals
. The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines to local education authorities and grant-maintained schools on nationally agreed nutritional standards for school meals.").
The noble Baroness said: I was disappointed, not surprisingly, by my noble friend's reply to the previous amendment. There was no question of dictating what anyone should eat. If the Minister had looked at page 70 of the Caroline Walker Trust report he would have seen a summary of nutritional guidelines for school meals. That could not be simpler. It merely dictates —if one can use that word—the amount of iron, calcium and nutrients which should be provided in school meals during a certain period.
I thought that that was a minor request. I understand that the Government may not want to change the face of the Bill at this stage. However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that schools are issued with the guidelines even if they are not included in the Bill. That is the least that can be done by a responsible Department for Education. After all, it is responsible not only for the moral, spiritual, educational and intellectual development of children but, above all, for their health. If they were not in good health they would not be able to benefit from the teaching. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I wish to stress that we acknowledged the publication of the Caroline Walker Trust. We acknowledged that its initiative was a useful contribution towards the aims set out in White Paper, The Health of the Nation. We do not believe that it is a matter which should appear on the face of the Bill. However, I am prepared to take away my noble friend's advice and look at the possibility of guidelines. Perhaps we can return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Elles: I thank my noble friend for that much more helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Miscellaneous functions relating to grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 8, line 25, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: The amendment removes from Clause 15 the reference to Clause 98. It is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps the Minister will give the Committee a few words of explanation. I understand that the amendment prevents the Secretary of State from delegating to the funding agency the responsibility for approving the change of site of a grant-maintained school. What is the purpose of including that provision?
Lord Henley: It requires that a self-governing state school may transfer to a new site only by order of the Secretary of State. I stress that the amendment is technical. It is a necessary consequential change so that new provisions which we shall be introducing at a later stage in our deliberations regulate the transfer of site of both self-governing and LEA-maintained schools. The new provisions will replace Clause 98.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Functions in respect of grants for certain expenditure due to immigrant population
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order impose on a funding authority the function of paying on his behalf grant under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 (grants in respect of special provision for immigrants) payable by him by virtue of section 211(1) (a) or (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (grant-maintained schools, CTCs and CCTAs).
(2) The payments shall be of such amounts and be paid to such persons as the Secretary of State may, in accordance with section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, determine.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment provides for an enabling power so that, should the Secretary of State so wish, he would be able to transfer to a funding authority the mechanical function of paying Section 11 grants to grant-maintained schools, the education associations, the CTCs and the CCTAs. The funding authority would not judge claims for Section 11 grants but would simply make those payments of Section 11 grants which the Home Secretary had determined. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: We are supportive of the principle behind the amendment but perhaps the Minister will clarify a few points. Will the responsibility of the grant be transferred to the Department for Education given that nearly 90 per cent. of the grant is used for educational projects? Will the terms of the grant be extended to include all immigrants, not only those from new Commonwealth countries?
I understand that Section 11 grant is given pro rata to grant-maintained schools, no matter how small the number of children from new Commonwealth countries. I give just one example. I gather that in Tower Hamlets a Church of England secondary school with few ethnic minority pupils receives an
1548
excessive share of the Section 11 money that is given to Tower Hamlets. Why is that so? How will the grant be distributed to CTCs? I hope that the Minister can clarify those points.
Also, what explanation do the Government have for the 30 per cent. reduction in the amount of Section 11 money available for the 1994–95 financial year?
3 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: First, the intention is that the grant remains with the Home Office. However, the noble Lord raises an interesting point in that regard; namely, the number of ethnic minorities covered by the grant. The noble Lord will know that that is a contentious issue on which considerable debate is taking place between my department and the Home Office. We know the particular challenges which schools face when they are dealing with a child who has a language difficulty. It should not matter from which country that child originates. If there is a language difficulty, that imposes a burden on the teacher in the classroom. However, that is a matter for other legislation at some other time.
As regards the other point about allocation systems, this amendment is about the mechanism for allowing grant to be paid. I hope that the noble Lord will support it. I shall write to him about the allocation and distribution system.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Secretary of State to issue guidelines
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines as to the arrangements to be made by—

(a) every school; and

(b) every local education authority

in England and Wales to ascertain, where practicable, and to give due consideration to the views of pupils.
(2) The guidelines shall in particular provide for arrangements to ensure—

(a) that proper consideration is given to the views of the registered pupils at a school as to matters affecting them in the running of that school; and

(b) that in making any decision affecting an individual pupil, the ascertainable views of that pupil about the decision are given due consideration, having regard to his age and understanding.").

The noble Lord said: Two organisations have drawn to my attention the subscription by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. Both have suggested stronger amendments than this in order to secure compliance with a duty which will fall on this country on 1st January next year. I do not advance any particular merit in the amendment except that it will give my noble friend the opportunity to say what is the position and whether any amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My advice is that there is no conflict between the Education Bill and the UN convention. Article 12 of the convention states that the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. We believe that the provisions of

1549
the Children Act should cater for that. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary to bring us within the ambit of Article 12.
Lord Elton: I must read that reply before I understand it. In the expectation that I shall but without any promise not to return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Complaints procedure
.—(1) Section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State, and" shall be omitted.
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide guidance for local education authorities' working arrangements subject to subsection (1) above and such guidance shall provide for complaints to be dealt with

(a) speedily and

(b) anonymously, if the complainant so requests."

(4) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) In the case of a complaint made under section 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944, the Secretary of State shall be required to acknowledge receipt of a written complaint within 3 weeks of receiving it and give due reason to the complainant if he has failed to dispose of the complaint within 3 calendar months".").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It seeks to insert a new clause relating to complaints procedures: first, to speed up a response to complaints procedures; and secondly, to allow them to be made anonymously if parents so wish.
Under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 parents and others have had the right to complain to the Secretary of State. But the more recent Education Reform Act provided parents with greater scope for making their anxieties heard at local level. Section 23 of the Act required all LEAs to set up local complaints procedures to deal with complaints about the curriculum. Each local procedure must be acceptable to the Department for Education. Parents can complain about LEA policy or the policy of a school. Under the Act, they cannot complain directly to the Secretary of State until the complaint has been dealt with locally.
Local complaints procedures are excellent in principle but there is evidence that LEAs can and indeed have dragged their feet in dealing with complaints. There has also been evidence of victimisation of parents who have complained. There is also an anxiety that parents are ignorant of their legal rights.
I give two examples. In June 1989 Mrs. Denise Bell complained about Ealing's religious education service. It was not until May 1990, nearly a year later, that the complaint was considered by the LEA and formally dismissed. Mrs. Bell then complained to the Secretary of State and the Department for Education took a further 16 months to deal with that complaint. Mrs. Bell eventually succeeded in her complaint but the
1550
whole process took over two years. Mrs. Bell also suffered a certain amount of intimidation. In fact it often takes a great deal of courage as a parent to lodge a complaint; that is, courage not only on one's own part but on the part of one's children who may be on the receiving end of victimisation.
More generally, the comprehensive report from the National Consumer Council of November 1992 highlighted instances where parental complaints had been dealt with satisfactorily and had led to changes in school policies. However, it also reported that the current system needed tightening up. For example, one LEA rejected a complaint with a terse letter and gave no reasons whatever for its decision. Another complaint took four months to be dealt with locally and a year by the Secretary of State. The report's recommendations include,
"timelimits for acknowledging complaints, replying to requests for information and … the final response to the complainant should be set and made public".
This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to regulate the local complaints procedure so that complaints can be made speedily and, if the complainant so desires, anonymously. It also suggests a time limit on the Secretary of State to acknowledge a complaint and give due reasons if he fails to do so within that specified time limit. This is a probing amendment but I hope my noble friend might be sympathetic to the principles behind it, particularly as regards parameters of time and of the possibility of anonymity to protect parents and their children who might feel that they needed to make a complaint. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I wish to express general sympathy for what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said certainly as regards the anxiety about complaints not being dealt with within an adequate time. However, I am a little uneasy about the way this measure is expressed here. I wonder whether it might not be better to suggest, for example, that if a complaint has not been dealt with within a specified time by the local education authority, a person has a right to complain to the Secretary of State. I am uneasy, too, about anonymous complaints. I quite understand the reasons why such a suggestion is being made, but a great deal of mischief can be made by people who cannot be held accountable for the complaint that is being made. I hope we shall not pursue that course.
Baroness Blatch: At the outset I must say that my noble friend has my admiration as she has sat through the full deliberations on the debate today and has performed duties too. I know that she is not well and I am sorry that her amendment is being discussed at such a late hour. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments, and certainly with the principle of them. I know that people are concerned at the speed with which complaints are dealt and at the intimidation that often arises in the process.
Let us look first at the proposed new subsection after subsection (1). It suggests that the Secretary of State should provide guidance to local education authorities by means of regulations. I am not sure that regulations are the appropriate vehicle for issuing

1551
guidance, but in any event the Secretary of State has already provided guidance to LEAs about arrangements for the consideration of complaints about the curriculum. DES Circular 1/89 outlined the criteria LEAs should follow when setting up procedures for the local handling of complaints and required them to submit their proposed arrangements for the Secretary of State's approval. It stipulated that the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that the arrangements would offer full and fair consideration to any complaint and avoid undue delay. It specifically highlighted the need to incorporate a mechanism to identify urgent complaints and to institute procedures to consider these appropriately. Every LEA has since had its procedures approved by the Secretary of State.
I recognise the concern that some parents may lack the confidence to make their complaint or will hesitate for fear that their child will suffer in some way. The circular of guidance specifically points out that a complainant should be allowed to be accompanied when making representations and that arrangements for an interpreter's presence should be made where necessary. Beyond that, there is no bar to a case being handled by a third party on the complainant's behalf, although I suspect that anonymity would be easier to preserve where the complaint was of a general nature than when it referred to provision made for a particular child.
I believe that the point has been made by the right reverend Prelate that the amendment may be defective. It is not so much a matter of anonymity but of the protection of the parent while the complaint is being made. It is difficult sometimes for parents to go through this procedure. I am sympathetic to that part of the amendment, but there is no need to legislate for guidance when arrangements are already in place. I shall willingly keep the adequacy of the guidance under review.
Turning to the proposed amendment after subsection (2), this concerns complaints which, having exhausted the local machinery, are referred to the Secretary of State under Sections 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944. I agree entirely with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee that it is reasonable and desirable to ensure a prompt acknowledgment of any complaints that are received in the department, and for a progress report or explanation to be provided if it proves impossible to resolve a complaint within a specified time. The department's internal procedures already cover such issues but I have asked for a check to be undertaken to ensure that the timescales proposed in the amendment are always adhered to. I believe that it is appropriate to include this sort of prescriptive detail in primary legislation.
We aim to dispose of complaints as speedily as possible, but the timing is not totally under our control. Most complaints call for consultation with the school and the local education authority involved, and also with the Office for Standards in Education. Given the limited number of precedents, issues are often raised on which legal advice is necessary. Moreover, there is sometimes further correspondence with the complainant, who may introduce new
1552
evidence after making his or her initial complaint. As a result, some cases take much longer to resolve than the department would wish, but we shall continue to make every effort to keep delays to a minimum. My noble friend knows that there is a great deal of scope for improvement, but I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his support in principle. I should like to reassure my noble friend that when I used the word "anonymous" it may have given the wrong connotation. I meant that a complaint might be made through a third party, say a parent governor, so that the child would not be picked out and victimised. However, I accept her point.
I thank my noble friend for her sympathetic response and her assurances concerning guidance and checking what is currently happening. I should like to read her remarks in the clear light of dawn, which is imminent. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend sits down, having heard my words coming back to me perhaps I may apologise now rather than tomorrow in front of a crowded Chamber for the fact that I said that I believed that it was appropriate to include this sort of prescriptive detail on the face of the Bill. I meant to say that I did not think that it was appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Cox: Sadly, that is how I understood my noble friend's remarks. While reserving the right to return to the matter later, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Resolution of disputes]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 9, line 1, at beginning insert:
(".—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as the Schools Tribunal, to exercise in relation to England and Wales the functions conferred upon them
(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint—

(a) a President of the Tribunal,

(b) the panel of persons who may serve as chairman of the Tribunal, and

(c) a panel of persons who may serve as the other two members of the Tribunal apart from the chairman.

(3) The President and the members of the chairmen's panel shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(4) The members of the lay panel shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) above may provide for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to be exercised by such number of tribunals as may be determined from time to time by the President.
(6) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide such staff and accommodation as the Tribunal may require.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to set up an independent body on the lines of the special needs tribunal to resolve disputes between the funding authorities and local education institutions.
Given the lack of clarity over the working arrangements of the parallel duties of local education authorities and the funding authorities it seems highly likely that disputes will occur not infrequently. The most obvious example is where there is a need to close a school within an area and the funding authority wishes to see an LEA school close and the LEA to see a grant-maintained school close. In such a case there may be many considerations to take into account: the catchment area of the school which will close, the alternative schools for children in that area and the provisions of the school proposed for closure which meet the particular needs of the community in terms of the curriculum, denominational provision or single sex provision.
Closing a school is always an emotive matter for the local community. It therefore seems appropriate to have an independent body familiar with similar situations with the experience and knowledge to take the decision, able to adjudicate in such cases. The tribunal proposed is similar in composition to that set up to deal with the special needs cases. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the proposition serious consideration. I beg to move.
3.15 a.m.
Lord Henley: I shall give the matter serious consideration. However, I have to say that I believe it is an invention of an additional complicated and completely unnecessary bureaucracy. I think it would also be a considerable waste of public money. Clause 17 already provides for the Secretary of State to resolve disputes. Perhaps the noble Lord thinks—I do not know—that in the example he gave, the Secretary of State would always find in favour of the funding agency, whatever "in favour" in that context might mean. There can be no question of such a situation arising. The Secretary of State must act reasonably at all times. He is, of course, open to judicial review.
Nor do I accept that there necessarily will be that many disputes. I hope very much that LEAs and the funding agency will be able to work together in harmony the great majority of the time. I think that disputes will arise rarely. The Bill tries to spell out in some detail which body is responsible for which functions. However, we recognise that there is the possibility. That is why we intend to legislate in the way that we do.
Lastly, I have to stress the cost. The proposed tribunal would have associated costs. Those costs would start to accumulate even before the tribunal was required to resolve any disputes. Members of an operating tribunal have to be drawn from panels of potential individuals. Those potential individuals would have to be appointed, a time-consuming and costly operation. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: I find that a bit rich. We are seeing an immense growth in bureaucracy with the funding authorities and the complexity that will arise from the
1554
legislation. To refer to the proposal as unnecessary bureaucracy when it is designed to smooth the working of the bureaucratic muddle that will be created is to me a little disingenuous.
There will be problems of credibility for the poor old Secretary of State. He will say, "We think we ought to set up a funding authority now, and it will take on increased powers." Then some disputes arise and he makes the judgment about what is right in the dispute. I do not believe that that will build up public confidence in the system.
Perhaps I may say this in the best possible spirit. It has been a long and exacting day. It is sad that we finish on a note that is characteristic of the preparation of the Bill, its passage through the Commons and the way in which it has been considered in this Committee. The one position of the Government is that they will not listen to any suggestions, however good in intention and however constructive, which come from outside their own ranks and bureaucracy.
Lord Henley: I simply do not accept that. I have taken on board quite a few points. I repeat the points I made. I do not accept that it is necessary to create another layer of bureaucracy. I do not believe that there will be the disputes that the noble Lord claims.
Again I must stress that the Secretary of State will be acting in a quasi-judicial manner. He therefore must act reasonably at all times. He is, of course, open to judicial review.
Lord Judd: I am a realist and withdraw. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Duty to compile information and conduct research about provision of education]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 9, line 11 leave out ("relevant")
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past three o'clock.

Education Bill
  Correction
  As a result of a mishearing, Lord Bruce of Donington, speaking on the Statement on Bosnia at col. 1270, line 32, of the report for 19th April, was reported as referring to "the Soviet command" rather than "the Serbian command".