Lords Sitting of 10 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

EC Tobacco Growers Subsidy
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of the subsidy to be paid in the current year by the European Commission to the growers of tobacco; and whether this represents an increase or decrease over the previous year.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, Community expenditure for 1993 is forecast at 1,401 mecu (that is, £1,113 million) as compared with 1,233 mecu (£875 million) for the previous year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have made any effort to stop this appalling waste of money on growing a commodity while at the same time financing propaganda to try to persuade people not to use it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we achieved considerable success in last year's CAP reform to reduce Community subsidies on tobacco. As I said in reply to a Question on 4th May, the Commission estimates that between 1994 and 1997 Community expenditure will reduce by 25 per cent. or more. We shall make strenuous efforts in 1996 when the next review of the regime occurs to press for a further reduction.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, how can the Commission possibly justify continuing to spend money for the production of tobacco? One understands the idea of spending money to support people who previously grew tobacco but not for the production of a substance which everyone knows is extremely dangerous to health. If it were produced now, it would be banned in almost any advanced country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that many Members of your Lordships' House will have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord says. However, if the Community were to put an end altogether to tobacco subsidies, that would not only have undesirable social consequences for southern member states but also would in no way alter consumer demand for tobacco products. If the Community were not to grow its own tobacco, it would simply import it. That is why it is more sensible to tackle the problem at the other end by trying to reduce the prevalence of smoking and at the same time making sure that the tobacco that is grown in the EC is of the less harmful, low tar varieties.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend seek to inform the members of the southern member states to which he referred that in the days when Athens led the world in democracy, the arts and architecture, and Sparta in professional defence, crops were still grown in their countries? Since the discovery of America, all the Mediterranean crops, from potatoes to sweet corn, are available there and are grown there profitably and all citrus fruits which have come since those days from the Far East are equally capable of being grown there.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has made some pertinent observations. However, there are few crops such as tobacco which can be grown intensively, using family labour, which can give a comparable return per unit of land cultivated. There are in addition other considerations, including the lack of transport, the market infrastructure and so on in isolated areas and the need to avoid growing crops that are already in surplus.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the widespread allegations which have been made and substantially proved of massive fraud in this area of Community expenditure, how can Her Majesty's Government justify the increase in expenditure in this field under Title B.17 of the budget amounting to £101 million? How can they possibly justify that? Further, how can they justify having representation on the Council of Ministers concerned with the problem? How can they justify a Council request to the Commission to enlarge the budget in respect of Greece by £19 million? Those are matters which require urgent attention. They require subsidies by the taxpayers of Britain.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are bound by the Treaty of Rome, which brings with it both obligations and benefits. The noble Lord is quite rightly concerned with the prevalence of fraud in the Community, but there are no specific figures for fraud in the tobacco sector. However, the establishment of control agencies and the reform of the regime to remove intervention and export refunds are steps which were agreed last year and which should reduce fraud in the sector.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, since we find it quite possible to pay farmers not to grow highly healthy and beneficial crops with the concurrence of the European Community, could we not find some way of paying tobacco growers not to grow a highly harmful crop?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already explained that the Community has a number of incentive schemes to induce tobacco growers to switch to alternative crops or to move to less harmful varieties. I believe that that represents the most cost-effective way forward.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the argument which he has reflected—namely, that if tobacco is not grown in Europe it will be obtained elsewhere—is the classic argument of the drug pedlar and the drug smuggler; if we do not sell it someone else will? Does he further agree that that is a

1039
thoroughly disreputable argument to advance to support this kind of operation? Will he reject such an argument whenever it is put to him?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already said that the Government believe that the absolute level of the Community budget for tobacco is too high. That is why we have been seeking to reduce it. But I also said that I do not believe that it was right to reduce it overnight. Some 200,000 families in the Community depend directly on the growing of tobacco, and about four times that number depend on it indirectly. What we have to seek to do is to reduce the absolute level of spending in an ordered way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind that this was just one of the nonsenses to which we signed up when we joined the Community in 1972 and the Bill was put through on a guillotine, is it not all the more essential that we should ensure that there is sufficient time to discuss the Maastricht Treaty Bill at a reasonable hour of the day and not through the night, so that all Members can have adequate time to see that they are not indulging the Government in more nonsenses like this?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House has borne those considerations in mind when agreeing the business for the forthcoming few weeks.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those who have read the Maastricht Treaty will know that Article 130r sets out certain Community objectives, including,
"protecting human health [and the] prudent and the rational utilization of natural resources"?
Do the Government believe that the tobacco regime meets those objectives of the treaty?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government are trying to tackle the problem at the other end by reducing demand for tobacco. The Health of the Nation White Paper identified a number of targets relating to smoking and related diseases which all government departments are working together to achieve. In particular, a reduction in the incidence of teenage smoking is a priority. We are taking a number of measures, including guidance to schools, a ban on advertising near playgrounds, stronger health warnings and so on.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is it not a fact that we subsidise European tobacco of such high tar content that, thank goodness, the West will not accept it, and therefore it finds its way into third world countries, where it does the maximum damage to health?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point, which is why there is a conversion programme, as I have mentioned, to attract farmers towards converting their crops to lower tar varieties so as to obviate the very problem which he identifies.

EC Broadcasting Directive: UK Obligations
3.16 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that broadcasting organisations in Britain are meeting the United Kingdom's European Community obligations that a majority of programmes showed be made in Europe.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC, the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, the Independent Television Commission and holders of non-domestic satellite service and licensable programme service licences were informed by the Home Office in 1991 of our obligation under the EC Broadcasting Directive to ensure that all broadcasters, where practicable, reserve a majority of transmission time to European works.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the anxiety caused because the Government, having exempted BSkyB in the Broadcasting Act from the newspaper ownership provisions, seem tempted in practice to exempt BSkyB from the country's obligations under the European Broadcasting Directive in terms of the provision of European programming and the prevention of a total flood of American television imports? Will he give an assurance that in October of this year, when they come to survey the situation, they will insist that the same rules apply to BSkyB as apply to the ITV companies?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is no question that BSkyB has been exempted from the majority European works requirement. The provisions in the directive apply equally to all broadcasters. We are in the process of compiling figures on performance in meeting the majority European requirement. Clearly, some channels are nearer to achieving it than others. A report will be made to the European Commission on the performance of all broadcasters later this year. It will cover the period 3rd October 1991 to 31st December 1992.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind when considering this matter that producers both in this country and in western Europe find it very difficult indeed to sell their excellent programmes and series to American networks? Is he aware that there seems to be a virtual ban on accepting productions from this country? Could the Government look for some equality? Otherwise, are we not forced to accept, at almost dumping prices, the huge production output from the United States, while they do not seem to want to take any of ours?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of any bans in America on buying European or British programmes. The Question on the Order Paper relates

1041
to the EC and to our obligations regarding that. But a number of British programmes have been sold quite successfully in America.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on one evening during the past couple of weeks all four of the ordinary television channels (Channels 1, 2, 3 and 4) were showing American films or American-made programmes at the same time?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is a matter for the broadcasters what programmes they wish to put on at a particular hour, taking into account the wishes of their audiences.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I was unclear about the Minister's reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Come October, will the Government's position be that the EC directive will be applied to Rupert Murdoch's satellites or not?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall consider each case individually, taking into account the particular circumstances of the channel concerned. Broadcasters must be free to show in general what the audience wants to watch. We do not have any rigid time limits. This is a new area which needs to be treated flexibly and each case considered on its merits.

European Air Fares
3.20 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards lower air fares in Europe since the adoption of the third liberalisation package.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the third aviation package was adopted on 1st January this year. Since then, several airlines have responded by offering substantial reductions on a number of services.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. It is good to know that British airlines, and in particular perhaps British Midland, have led the way towards lower fares. But does he agree that the one great danger to further progress and to our own airlines is illegal state subsidy to state-owned foreign competitors? Would he look in particular at the situation on the Heathrow-Dublin route, where Aer Lingus is cutting its business fares by up to £83 to match British Midland? It is a route on which Aer Lingus is already reported to be losing £15 per passenger? Moreover, does he agree that it is now apparent that Aer Lingus is looking to the Irish Government for state investment for restructuring? Will he ensure that the Commission is seized of this problem and, if necessary, raise it himself at the Council of Ministers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend so rightly says, it is rewarding to see a UK initiative bearing fruit. Indeed, my noble friend was the Minister responsible for pushing the aviation package to a successful conclusion. His hard work is
1042
your Lordships' reward. With regard to Aer Lingus, I wrote to the commissioner as soon as I saw some comments in the paper and asked him to make sure that he took a formal look at any application that was made by the Irish authorities. As yet, none has been made.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that reductions had been made. That was good news. However, there is a worry that a number of amalgamations are taking place at this time. Will he give an assurance that the British Government will encourage the relevant EC authorities to look carefully at any combinations to ensure that they do not lead to cartels and price fixing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We need to prevent cartels. One of the great advances of the third package was that we got rid of so much bureaucracy that had been thwarting the aviation industry. Britain has more airlines than any other country in the world except for America. A great many of them, something like 75 per cent., have international destinations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many noble Lords on this side of the House have been waiting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, balance his impassioned intervention on an earlier Question with a welcome for the substantial savings for the travelling public that have been achieved by this package?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, did not jump to his feet to commend the work of the United Kingdom. I know that he would prefer to pay the former price of £408 to fly from Manchester to Paris rather than the current £330. Of course, we would not have got that package had we not been in the European Community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in deference to the House I rationed my interventions.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, since the Scandinavian and Nordic countries may well shortly be joining the European Community as full partners, is my noble friend aware of the scandalous situation on the airlines to Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway? Bearing in mind the increased amount of business which it is hoped will arise in those countries, does he agree that there is a real need, particularly for the Scandinavian airlines, for urgent action to be taken in that area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed we wish to see lower fares. If any of the EFTA countries makes a formal application that is accepted for entry into the European Community, they will have to comply with the third aviation package, although many do so at the present time.

Local Authority Staff: Pay Dispute
3.25 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will liaise with "UNISON—The Public Service Union", when it is in full operation after 1st July, to resolve the pay dispute involving local authority administrative, professional, technical and clerical (APT&C)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the pay of local authority administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff is entirely a matter for local government to resolve. The Government have no locus in these negotiations and no power to intervene.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that the organisations involved are the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Association of Local Government Officers and the National Union of Public Employees? Is he further aware that when they meet the local authorities, the local authorities always submit that they cannot move without some representation being made to the Government? I do not accept that and I hope the noble Lord will not do so. Will he accept that after 1st July there will be many more unions joining UNISON, and it will involve over 30 million of our fellow men and women in this country? If the problem has not been resolved by 1st July, will he be prepared to consider whether he might be able to receive representations from UNISON at that time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that at the moment it is not a pay dispute but a negotiation. Clearly, negotiations should take place between the employers and the employees. In this case the employers are the local authorities. It is for them to decide how best to negotiate with either half a dozen unions or one single union.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when UNISON comes into being on 1st July it will be the most powerful public employee trade union in Europe? Does he agree that, because of that power and the cause for which they fight and in which they believe, it would be in the best interests of the country for the Government themselves to say to the local authorities, "Try to resolve this dispute speedily"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, surely the history of the past 14 years indicates that it is the employers who must settle their pay decisions with their employees. Furthermore, if the new union UNISON is to be the most powerful union in the country, perhaps too it should also be the most responsible union.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Molloy, was the Minister saying that the 1.5 per cent. limit outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget has no force in law and that the Government do not themselves believe in it? Did he say that the discussions and the negotiations should take place between the trade unions and the employers, who may make what concessions they like?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we take the 1½ per cent. target very seriously. Indeed, 25 per cent. of the
1044
public sector has already settled within the Government's zero to 1½ per cent. range. The point on this issue is that time and again noble Lords opposite tell us that we should not interfere in matters that are quite properly those of the local authority. That is the way that we prefer to keep the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government do not interfere. Does he recall that in the 1992 Autumn Statement a 1.5 per cent. limit was put on public sector wage increases and that the revenue support grant to local authorities was fixed to that target? Is not that government interference? Does he further recall that the 1992 autumn statement was produced by the Chancellor of the day, Mr. Norman Lamont, who I understand is not in total favour with the Government at the moment? Will the new Chancellor be prepared to revise what is obviously quite an unrealistic revenue support grant to local authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, absolutely not. One-and-a-half per cent. is an important target. Indeed, inflation is now only 1.3 per cent. and a 1.5 per cent. pay increase is positively inflationary. It is an opportunity for employees throughout the country to show that they are serious about the economy, about being competitive and about being responsible. As I have already said, it is up to local authorities to come to an agreement with their unions.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree that the Government should not intervene in the pay negotiations? Can the Minister, therefore, give the House an absolute assurance that, if local authorities settle beyond the 1.5 per cent. limit announced in the Budget and that takes them beyond their spending limits, the Government will not cap them as a result?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance. Noble Lords opposite are continually talking about the Government cutting jobs and services in local authorities. If local authorities pay people too much then they will be responsible for the cuts in jobs and services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the point is this; and surely the Minister can understand it. What is infuriating the unions is that when they try to negotiate with local authorities, the local authorities say that some aspects of their case are a matter for government. All I am saying is that if by 1st July the matter is not resolved, UNISON does not want to start off its career with any form of strike. It believes that the problem can be resolved but wants the more sensible local authorities and the Government to listen to the case, weigh up the situation and make a decision from which they can embark upon further discussion.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly do not want to see a strike. I am sure that noble Lords opposite and local authorities do not want to see a strike. The best thing the unions can do is to accept a reasonable offer of 1.5 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister cannot have his cake and eat it.
A noble Lord: Why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that sums up the Tory philosophy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister eats a great deal of cake and I am sure that it does him a great deal of good. Either the Government are saying that 1.5 per cent. is the limit and that is all that they will tolerate, or they are saying that local authority employers can negotiate to whatever limit they think is right. The two propositions are inconsistent one with the other. Where do the Government stand?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, 1.5 per cent. is a guideline limit. If the local authorities choose to break it. then that is up to them. However, it will mean cuts in jobs and services which noble Lords opposite have always pledged themselves against.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is not good enough. On the one hand the Minister is saying that the Government do not believe in a wages policy; they believe in free collective bargaining in which they must not interfere. Yet on the other hand they say that if local authorities do not keep within their guidelines, the Government will cap their expenditure to ensure that they cannot pay the 1.5 per cent. That is what the Minister is saying and that is why my noble friend says that the Government wish to have their cake and eat as well. It cannot be done.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it can be done, and predict that it will be done. The point is that the Government have decided that there should be an overall limit of 1.5 per cent. Where the Government are not responsible for pay negotiations, such as on this issue, it is up to the employers—in this case the local authorities—to decide how much they should pay. We have given them a guideline of 1.5 per cent. If they break that guideline then there will be effects on jobs and services which, I repeat, noble Lords opposite have always set themselves against. The matter is really very simple.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if they break the guideline, will the Government cap them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that entirely depends on what happens, when it happens and what the overall restrictions are on government spending.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree, if I can make a non-controversial point, that the vigorous defence of the unions by the Opposition would carry even more weight if its party was not financially dependent upon them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that that was a helpful non-controversial point that will have been taken on board by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are recommending a similar guideline of 1.5 per cent. to the executive side of private industry as an example?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, for a long time we have been encouraging the private sector to reduce their pay settlements. I am delighted to say that there are many instances where pay settlements have been below 1.5 per cent., in some cases even zero. That helps us to be more competitive and to provide the long-term prosperity that we all want.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for around one hour and that during the adjournment the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order 1993 will be taken.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Unibank Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this moment to mention a matter which is causing concern on all sides of the House. To date, in total the Government have tabled 793 amendments to the Bill; 278 at the Committee stage in the other place; 78 at the Report stage in the other place; 256 at the Committee stage of this House; and 181 before the first day of the Report stage here today. The total to date is therefore 793, with 437 in this House.
I wish to point out that 80 amendments were published only yesterday, leaving insufficient time for serious consideration of their implications. I understand that yesterday evening and today they were still being tabled. At the Committee stage in this House, 51 amendments were published on 30th April for debate on 4th May, which meant that because 3rd May was a Bank Holiday there was not a single working day between their being tabled and being debated. There was no time for any kind of consultation with the many people involved in education throughout the country who were affected by the amendments.

1047
The inevitable conclusion that any neutral observer would draw is that the Government do not have the slightest interest in the observations of anyone else on their proposals. If Ministers claim that they do, then that would be extremely hard to justify given that not only do they table numerous amendments at the last minute—important ones as well as technical ones, and obviously we need to scrutinise both carefully to ensure that the technical ones are technical, which is not invariably the case—but also Ministers frequently fail to explain adequately the meaning of complicated amendments.
In our own Committee stage my noble friend Lord Peston complained of just such a problem, suggesting that this Chamber could hardly be regarded as debating seriously if 30-odd amendments were put forward at quarter-to one in the morning, without even a full speech to explain them. It is not a new problem. Over 1,000 amendments were made during the Lords' stages of the Education Reform Bill in 1988.
If the Government claim to be a listening government willing to respond to criticism, surely five years later some improvements in the length of notice and the quality of explanation can be expected. Letters bouncing on to the desks of noble Lords at the 11th hour-plus is just not good enough. Perhaps a charter for legislators is needed with targets for greater efficiency in dealing with future legislation. I hope that today we can have substantial reassurance from the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to the House for some of the amendments that have been tabled rather late. However, I find some of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said rather discourteous. I have spent many days between Committee and Report stages of this Bill personally writing to him and his colleagues and other Members of the House who have particular concerns. A large number of the amendments that we are to deal with today are a direct response to concerns of Members of this House. In addition, I personally saw the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and spoke about the amendments that would be coming forward. I categorised those that were purely technical, those that were consequential upon amendments passed at earlier stages in this House, those that fulfilled promises given in another place and those resulting from concerns in this House. I just wonder how much public consultation has taken place, for example on the numerous amendments that have been put down today to Clause 1. I have seen those amendments only in the past day or two. Very little public consultation on those has taken place, and I am not complaining about that.
I understand it to be the prime job of this House as a revising Chamber to consider legislation carefully and to make judgments. Even at Committee stage, when I was called to account by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and accepted that enough time had not been given, I withdrew the amendment to allow more time for consideration. I can only repeat the argument I have used before. With
1048
a Bill of this size it is inevitable that there will be significant numbers of government amendments. The vast majority are technical, drafting and tidying-up amendments that raise no issues of any substance. In addition, I have brought forward amendments in response to points made in Committee. I hope that we can now move on to the real business of the day, because there is much to do.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for responding in the way that she has. But I am sure that, fair-minded person that she is, she will recognise that there is genuine concern on all sides of the House. I make two points. First, amendments are not private matters between Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen; they are the concern of the whole House and should be available for scrutiny by the whole House. Secondly, it is not simply a matter of letters, which are appreciated; it is the substantive form of the amendments with which we must be concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that that is also discourteous. Referring to the large number of amendments touched upon by the noble Lord, he counted every single amendment that had been put down in another place. In respect of many of those amendments there were many days—in some cases weeks—in which to consider them. Some of the amendments referred to by the noble Lord today are put down for business next week and the week after. There are many Members of this House, not just Front Bench spokesmen, who have had personal meetings with me or have heard from me in writing concerning amendments tabled for this stage of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Although I have not been in this place for very long, I have never known a Bill where the Minister has taken so much trouble, exercised so much patience and indulged in such a degree of consultation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 1 [General duty of Secretary of State]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("including the provision by local education authorities of sufficient schools for their areas in accordance with their duties under the Education Acts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 39 which seeks to leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause:
"In exercising their duties under the Education Acts to secure the provision of sufficient schools for their area a local education authority shall have regard to the views of the funding authority, consulting it in such manner and on such time scale as may be specified by the Secretary of State".
The purpose of these amendments is to re-insert the general duty of local education authorities to provide education and give them a planning role in perpetuity.
This week there has been a good deal of debate about subsidiarity. I believe that the question many people are asking is where subsidiarity begins and

1049
ends. Is subsidiarity just a matter of Westminster versus Brussels or, in a rich democracy, is it something that goes beyond Westminster into the heart of our country; that is, local authorities democratically elected by identifiable communities? That was the strength of the Education Act 1944. It recognised the quality of our democracy, the interplay between the centre and local communities and the partnership in provision. That is what has been swept away by what the Government put before us.
At the Lords Committee stage of the Bill the issue was debated in great detail. In discussing an amendment to Clause 1 the Minister said that she readily acknowledged,
"the vital role carried out by the local education authorities." —[0fficial Report, 20/4/93; col. 1387.]
She went on to say that Clause 1 was designed to stand the test of time and therefore she did not think it appropriate to include all of the bodies with educational responsibilities. Am I wrong to deduce that arguably there is a suggestion in that comment that in future local education authorities will not have the vital role that she currently believes them to have? As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has pointed out, the reality is that local education authorities will be left with the bits that nobody wants.
In considering who should have the lead responsibility for the planning and provision of school places under Clause 10 of the Bill the Minister pointed out:
"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."—[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1503.]
She went on to say that because of the duty up to the 75 per cent. point, in that sense the local authority was the lead body with the prime responsibility to make sure that there were places for children in schools. However, she made a distinction between the duty to plan and the duty to provide places. She indicated that the duty to provide places would rest either with the grant-maintained schools sector, if that was appropriate, or with the local authority. Later in the debate, the Minister noted that if a local education authority was not carrying out its Section 8 responsibility it would be for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the local authority.
Since the Minister is indicating that up to the 75 per cent. level the local authority in effect has the lead planning role, in order to clarify the position surely it is helpful to put that wording on the face of the Bill where it belongs so there can be no doubt in anybody's mind. If that is the Government's understanding of the situation, why are they reluctant to clarify the position by putting this lead responsibility on the face of the Bill? What is their motivation in refusing to do it? The main purpose of these amendments is to re-insert the general duty of LEAs to provide education and to give them the main planning role in perpetuity.
In introducing these amendments, I do not believe that in any other part of the Bill the difference between the party opposite and those on this side of the House can he more clearly illustrated. On that side of the House there is a fatalistic surrender to the principles of
1050
the market on the basis of school against school and a vague relationship with the centre—a relationship that I suspect will become bureaucratic and sinister over a period of time.
On this side of the House—I believe between people sitting in different parts of this side of the House—there is a deep conviction about community, a conviction that nothing is more central to the community than the care and education of our children, a conviction that any education system to take us into the 21st century should be one that rests in the community with a sense of community responsibility for children and gives children and their teachers the opportunity to feel part of the community.
What I think this introduction to the Bill so sadly illustrates is the total lack of vision and the total lack of values and philosophy in the Government's approach. I believe that we need to put back that spirit of partnership which was central to the 1944 Act, which was brought about on a basis of real consensus with most of the country behind it, whatever the changes that followed, in terms of adaptation and modification, in the years afterwards.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment to which I have added my name. We on these Benches believe that the role of local authorities in education must be preserved, partly for the reasons already stated by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I expect the noble Baroness will tell us that she has no intention of further undermining the position of local authorities, but we need confirmation of that. The best confirmation we could have of it would be to have on the face of the Bill the assertion that the local authority's place is firmly there. Otherwise, the likelihood is that encouragement of more and more schools to opt out and the restriction of the role to be played by the local authority will mean that the local authority's contribution to local education and the democratic link between the electors and local authorities will disappear. Once that has disappeared it is very difficult to see what democratic link there will be in the development and control of education.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, these amendments are based on a recognition that a democratically elected local body, with years of experience of planning of all kinds, is best equipped to mastermind the provision of education in schools, whatever the proportion of places it may actually fund.
There was talk at Committee stage of putting the clock back. I thought that what we were doing was trying to preserve the best of the status quo—a classic conservative stance which it is strange to be defending in the face of a Conservative Government.
Local authorities are not yet dead. There has been no real debate about the greatly diminished role which this Government would like to see for them, and of the constitutional implications that flow from this. Until this happens I feel it is quite wrong to strike them out of Clause 1, so hastily done in another place, which sets the tone for the rest of the Bill, and which, as

1051
drafted, signals a major concentration of power at the political centre. This, my Lords, we have always regarded as a dangerous thing in this country. Maybe this Government will only come to understand why when their own long reign is broken and an opposing philosophy holds sway on the Government Benches. The fewer the checks and balances, the more freely the educational pendulum will swing from one extreme to the other.
My Lords, the arguments for having one lead body in the planning role for school places have already been rehearsed. I believe that it is for the long-term benefit of our children that that body should be the LEA, and I support these amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for once I am not able to understand the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I do not wish in any way to deal or trade in polemics or subsidiarity or in any political matter concerning an approach to local authorities. But this amendment is wholly inappropriate. Let us cut out the political aspect and look at it quite coldly. Clause 1(1) states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
The amendment states:
"including the provision by local education authorities of sufficient schools for their areas in accordance with their duties",
under other Acts. Where on earth have your Lordships ever seen in any legislation a measure of such order and body? Under our process of legislation, if duties exist in one Act, one does not bring in another Act to say that duties have to be enforced in accordance with that Act. It is not a conventional form of legislation. We have far too much legislation and far too many words in that legislation anyway.
I come to the next grouped amendment, Amendment No. 39, which suffers from the same fundamental drafting vice. It states that in exercising their duties under other Acts local authorities are, so to speak, exhorted under this Act to perform those duties. The third grouped amendment, which excises Schedule 2, is perhaps more relevant—I do not know quite why it has been grouped here—to the next amendment, Amendment No. 2, particularly as paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 is concerned with nursery schools. But whatever may be the effect of the last of these grouped amendments I hope your Lordships will not indulge in a wholly novel and otiose form of legislation which is a total departure from tradition.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made some serious points about the drafting and placing of this amendment. They are not, of course, any answer to the solid substance behind the amendment. If the Minister were willing to accept the solid substance behind the amendment, I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would be willing to be flexible about precisely where within the Bill it should be placed.
The specific point that the amendment directs us to is the provision of sufficient schools. That is more than all others in education a local function because it is not
1052
simply an educational function. To ensure the provision of sufficient schools one needs to know about the pattern of employment; one needs to know which firms are expanding and which are contracting; one needs to know where planning permission may be likely to be given for a new factory. Who can know that better than the body that would be responsible for giving it? One needs to know the pattern of transport. One needs to know which bus services may be expanded and which are likely to be cancelled. In fact, one needs to know the community. That is why a great many of us are really rather anxious about how far the funding authority will have the necessary knowledge to do this job.
In just one way I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, sold the amendment short. He said that those on the Benches opposite are hostile to it. Well, of course, not all of them are. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in 1988, interviewed by the Sunday Times, said that the Department of Education and Science simply could not make all the decisions with regard to schools because it would not know the circumstances. As the House knows, I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is always right. But I do not think that she is always wrong, either.
When I raised this point at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that there will be arrangements for notifying the funding authority about the closure or building of a factory or a housing estate. That is something. It is welcome as far as it goes. But what one needs when planning schools which may be working, one hopes, for 20 or 30 years or possibly even longer is some sense of the likely future development of the community. I do not see how a formal notification process can do that. One needs to know the local area. That is why we think that this has to be a job for a local authority.
4 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is quite right to draw our attention to the substance of the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, did not speak to its substance so much as to the spirit of the division, as he saw it, between these Benches and his own as regards the views of local authorities and their role in the education service. I believe that he is right in saying that this has become a very important issue, particularly in regard to the passage of this Bill.
I say to him that I do not believe that it is at all helpful to the debate about the provisions of this Bill to politicise it in this way and to politicise the issue of the relationship of local authorities to national government. When one considers the education systems of the world there is absolutely no correlation between the powers of central government and those of local government in respect of education and the political nature of those countries. For many decades in socialist Sweden and socialist France there was a wholly centralised system of education. There were centralised curricula and planning and centralisation even to the planning and design of school buildings. I have been told the favourite French joke by French officials themselves of the building put up in southern

1053
France. It was built for a hot climate when in fact it was situated about 3,000 feet above sea level and extremely cold and so forth. We all know stories like that about countries with centralised systems.
The noble Lord also spoke very strongly about the passionate belief which he has in the community. For myself and from these Benches I also have a passionate belief in the importance of the community in the education service. This Bill opens up the opportunity of the genuine community and its definition which relates to those who have an investment through the education of their own children in the quality of the school. I very much welcome a Bill which reduces the context of the community in the running of the schools to that genuinely local and interested party. I have absolutely no evidence that a local authority of the size, for example, of a huge county or of a very large metropolitan borough, is specifically and uniquely better placed to take the kind of decisions which are necessary about one school than the people who have, as I say, a personal investment in it through the education of their own children.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest three brief reasons why the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, should not be accepted. The first is because it is unnecessary. I am sure that he refreshed his memory of the Education Act 1944, especially as regards Section 8 which spells out the duty of local authorities most beautifully. For example, it states:
"the schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford all pupils opportunities for education offering such a 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 respected needs".
The noble Lord's amendment adds nothing whatever to that. We should not legislate on the basis of merely repeating what is already on the statute book and well understood and established. That is my first short reason.
My second reason is a drafting one. I know that the noble Lord is familiar with it because I have mentioned it before in his presence. I shall not quote the lawyers' Latin tag which sums it up. His amendment amplifying the duty of the Secretary of State to promote the education of people in England and Wales is not simplified or made more certain by adding the words,
"including the provision by local education authorities of sufficient schools",
and so on. There is a rule of interpretation of our law which I believe is generally understood and not only by lawyers. It is that if one expresses one example one is deemed to exclude others. The last thing we want to do is to exclude the various other duties which the Secretary of State for Education will have. So as a drafting matter that amendment is not sound.
I now come to my third quick point. We have had a chance to study the admirable amendments made to Clause 1 which were made under pressure from all sides of the House at Committee stage. Those amendments now make Clause 1 right. I suggest to the
1054
noble Lord that adding the words that he intends at the end of the first subsection do not fit in well with the government amendments which we shall consider next.
My only other point is one which I wish to make in favour of the noble Lord. In Amendment No. 39 he has tabled a beautifully succinct amendment of only four lines. That leaves out Clause 10 which runs to more than a page. It contains all kinds of opportunities for the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation without adequate scrutiny by your Lordships' House and the other place. As a matter of form and drafting I would favour his amendment, but when we consider its effect and that of leaving out Clause 10 and substituting his amendment, I fear that as a matter of principle it is best to leave the Bill as it is.
The same can be said of the massive Schedule 2 to the Bill. It is very long indeed. It would have been lovely to leave that out, but it is necessary in order to amplify and implement Clause 10. Therefore, although I would love to support the noble Lord just for the sake of shortening the Bill, I am sorry to say that in substance I do not believe that it is right to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, turning to the amendments to this clause I have a feeling of déjà vu. I can remember noble Lords opposite on both Benches saying much the same things when the polytechnics, the further education colleges and the sixth form colleges were given more autonomy. All the evidence we have is that they are flourishing under that real independence and devolution, and not centralisation, of local control.
This clause brings education legislation up to date; and beyond that, looks forward to a changing educational landscape. Much has been said in this House, and in another place, about the merits of the Education Act 1944. I fully recognise that that Act was a landmark in the history of publicly funded education in England and Wales. The framework it established served us well, and for some considerable time.
But we have clearly moved on. The education picture of the future will be characterised by the increasing prevalence of self-governing institutions, each with the ability to respond flexibly and effectively to the needs of the people they serve, a point made very well by my noble friend Lady Perry. That process is already well under way.
In the higher education sector, the former polytechnics (now universities) are enjoying and making positive use of the independence that universities have always enjoyed. In April, FE and sixth form colleges gained their independence from local authorities, and I have no doubt that their customers—students and employers alike—will reap the benefits of colleges' new freedoms.
Grant-maintained status represents the logical conclusion of the progress towards autonomy that virtually all our schools have now embarked upon via local management of schools.
Five hundred and seventy three schools have already attained grant-maintained status. I am

1055
entirely confident that the numbers will continue to grow as an increasing number of parents seek the positive advantages which self-government can bring for schools and their pupils. The number of affirmative ballots is now well over 800.
This clause reflects the changed and changing face of education in England and Wales. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote education in England and Wales. It recognises the vital roles to be played by a wide number of bodies in the provision and delivery of education, and it stresses the key educational objectives we are striving to achieve: improved standards, greater diversity and increased choice.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to secure a continuing and specific role for local authorities. But as I have already said, this is no longer appropriate. Local authorities will have a continuing important role to play. Perhaps I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that if he, like me, had been watching closely the work of the Local Government Commission for England, he would agree that the role of the local authorities is most certainly not dead. It is alive and kicking out there and is coming closer and closer to the communities which are served.
However, the nature of that role is changing, and will continue to change, and the number of schools for which LEAs have responsibility will decline as more schools become grant-maintained. Local education authorities will no longer have a pre-eminent role in the provision of education. It would be wrong, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, to single out the LEAs for mention in Clause I as opposed to any of the other organisations—for example, the FAS, the FEFC and the HEFC—which have important roles to play in the provision of education.
Local education authorities will retain important functions, and among these will be their responsibility under Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act. Your Lordships will realise that Amendment No. 39 would require the LEA when fulfilling this function to consult the funding authority. It appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the way the new arrangements will operate.
Local education authorities will not be able to bring forward proposals in respect of grant-maintained schools. If this amendment were to succeed, it would mean that the LEA could act to remedy a deficit of places in its area only by providing additional places in the LEA sector. If all the schools in the particular locality where the need for places arose were grant-maintained schools, the LEA would have to establish a new school, and this surely would not be an economical use of its resources. Neither would the LEA be able to take action to remove surplus provision in grant-maintained schools. The Secretary of State's powers are limited with regard to any overall planning, and it would be unrealistic to rely on the governors of individual grant-maintained schools to co-operate to bring forward proposals to remedy a deficit of places or to remove surplus places. The funding authority's powers to bring forward proposals in respect of grant-maintained schools are
1056
dependent on orders under Clause 10 being made. Without Clause 10 there can, therefore, be no effective overall planning of provision in the grant-maintained sector.
As I have said so many times during the previous debate on Clause 10, we see no difficulty with the LEA and the funding authority having a parallel duty at stage 2 to secure the provision of school places. Once an order has been made under paragraph 10(1) (a), responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient places will rest on both the LEA and the funding authority. Separate and distinct duties will be placed on each body. This will mean that each body will be separately accountable for whether it has fulfilled its responsibility. The LEAs 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 their area, but in addition a separate duty will be placed on the funding authority so that where the 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 schools. These two separate duties will ensure that where there is a shortage of places both the LEA and the funding authority will be prepared to act to remedy the position.
In practice, of course, at stage 2 both the LEA and the funding authority will have the power (as distinct from the duty) at any time to propose a significant enlargement of an existing school or the establishment of a new school.
As soon as a 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 LEA would, of course, be able to take account of the fact that a proposal had been approved in relation to the grant-maintained sector.
If there was a need for a new school and there were no proposals from the funding authority, the LEA would need to act to ensure that there were sufficient places. If the LEA failed to act and there became a shortage of places the LEA 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. This duty will not apply where for the funding authority to act would be inconsistent with the efficient use of resources. For example, where there were no grant-maintained schools in the area and the only cost-effective solution was to make a significant enlargement of an existing local authority maintained school.
It would, of course, clearly be desirable for the LEA and funding authority to discuss with each other which of them would be the more appropriate to act in a particular situation but if, following any such discussion, both bodies still wished to bring forward proposals then clearly the final decision about which type of school would be established will rest with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
When 75 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary or secondary schools in the area of an LEA are in

1057
grant-maintained schools, or earlier if the LEA requests, the Secretary of State may make an order giving the funding authority sole responsibility for securing the provision of sufficient school places. Local education authorities will no longer have a formal duty to provide school places. They will, however, continue to be responsible for managing schools which have chosen not to become grant-maintained. This will include the responsibility for bringing forward proposals for the alteration or closure of their schools. The funding authority will have no power over LEA schools. The only limitation on the LEAs' powers to reorganise school provision in the LEA sector at stage 3 will be that, unless directed by the Secretary of State, they will not be able to propose the establishment of a new school except where that school will provide education for pupils who were attending another school which the LEA is no longer required to maintain.
Local education authorities will at this stage continue to be required to keep their school provision under review and, using his powers in Clause 19, the Secretary of State will require them to submit annual reports on the supply of places in their sector as well as providing the funding authority with relevant demographic and related information to enable them to carry out their duties, particularly their duty in respect of the provision of school places. Even at stage 3 there will, therefore, continue to be a need for close consultation and co-operation between the funding authority and the LEAs on the matter of ensuring that there are sufficient school places available for children in the local authority area.
Amendment No. 286 proposes to remove Schedule 2. As noble Lords will realise, Schedule 2 is an essential part of the structure which will enable the LEAs and the funding authority to function side by side. Again, my noble friend Lord Renton made this point very well. The schedule, which is in four parts, sets out the distribution of functions between the LEA and the funding authority with respect to their duty to secure the provision of sufficient school places once the Secretary of State has made an order under Clause 10.
I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who was concerned about where power lay—about whether it was central or local. As I have said, I believe that devolution to schools is the best form of devolved operational control right down to the unit of management that makes most sense to local people. The noble Earl then went on to refer to something which my noble friend Lady Thatcher said in an article in The Times some years ago—I am not sure whether he was quoting. In the context in which she said what she did, I believe that my noble friend was absolutely right. The Department of Education and Science, as it was then, and the Department for Education, as it is now, cannot make all the decisions. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, the whole thrust of the Bill is that the decision-making for many of the day-to-day functions rests with schools, but the determination of whether a school should be closed or newly established lies, of course, with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That is the
1058
position at the moment and, indeed, as it would be under the amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite.
I have already explained why we consider this structure essential for the effective management of the school system, and I trust that noble Lords will therefore reject the amendments.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the House will have listened with great attention to the Minister's reply and, as always, she has endeavoured to be detailed. First of all perhaps I may say how very much I appreciated the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and how sad I was that he could not allow his goodwill towards style to carry him through to the substance.
I find myself perplexed—this is again for me equally an unusual occurrence—by the position of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Education Acts, as we have known them, are not taken in isolation. We do not ditch all the existing Education Acts and then have a completely new situation. There is an evolution. There is a relationship one to another. There are references in one to another, and so it is not a totally new situation. The basis of our position on this side of the House is that the Government are removing an explicit relationship, a partnership, that existed until now. We put a contrary thesis: that that should not be removed. That is our position. There is an honest distinction between us.
If that is the case, we believe that our position that education rests best upon a partnership between the centre and local communities should still be spelt out explicitly in the Bill. There have been all sorts of references to the interplay between the two Acts. But I come back, and it is inevitable that I do, to what the Minister said in Committee. I shall not repeat all that I have quoted. She emphasised, honestly, that local authorities would 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 the children in their areas. Later, as I pointed out, she said specifically and honestly that it would be for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the local authority if it were felt that the LEA was not carrying out its Section 8 responsibilities. If that is so, we are putting—I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say this—the local authority into a position of serfdom, where it is not in an honest partnership and dialogue with the centre. There is not a wholesome sharing of responsibilities. There are certain residual tasks which it is expected to carry out because that is convenient for the centre.
Not for the first time, the wise observations of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have underlined the position. His words provide the reassurance—if I needed any—about the stand that we are taking on the amendment, because, of course, society is complex. The United Kingdom does not have a monolithic society, and thank God for that. We are a highly diverse community, with many differing local circumstances. It is difficult to imagine, however professionally excellent they may be in performing their central strategic tasks and in approaching the big, broad strategic issues of the country, that there

1059
are many among officials of the DFE—officials of ability, standing and status—who would be so foolish as to pretend that they begin to have a detailed understanding of what makes a local community tick or of the interplay between different parts of local community services and the rest, to which the noble Earl referred. For that reason, and because there is an honest difference—we have to face it—we shall be pursuing the amendment to a vote.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Attlee, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Aylestone, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Milner of Leeds, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Molloy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monkswell, L..

Bonham-Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mulley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Eatwell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.].

Gallacher, L.

Scrota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tenby, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn. L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abiger, L.

Blatch, B.

Aldigton, L.

Blyth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boardman, L

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V

Brabazon of Tara, L

Alport, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Cadman, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E

Auckland, L.

Caldecote, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E

Carnock, L.

1060

Carrington, L.

Manchester, D.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mancroft, L.

Chelmer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Milverton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Donegall, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Downshire, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundonald, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Pike, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Porritt, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Shannon, E.

Hacking, L.

Sherfield, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Slim. V.

Harlech, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

[Teller.]

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ironside, L.

Swinton, E

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Terrington, L..

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thurlow, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

[Lord Chancellor.]

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B

Malmesbury, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("including nursery education provided by local education authorities in accordance with section (Nursery Education) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33 (which is a substantial amendment) and Amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
The purpose of the amendments is to place a duty on local education authorities to secure the provision of nursery education for all children whose parents want that for them. The local education authorities had that duty until 1980. The amendments also require the Secretary of State to ensure that both capital and revenue resources are available for the provision of nursery education, whether they come locally or nationally. In other words, if a local authority were capped so that it could not supply nursery places, it would fall to central government to provide the resources.
The amendments also seek to ensure that the funding authority does not take over the duty to secure the provision of nursery education. However, that is not to say that the grant-maintained schools may not contribute to the provision of nursery education as they do now in their nursery classes. The amendments seek only to ensure that the planning of nursery provision and the duty to secure it remain with the local education authority.
I shall be told that we have been through all this before, as indeed we have. I have been told in rough terms by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in dulcet tones, by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, that such provision cannot be afforded. I am perfectly aware, as we all are, of the financial hole in which the Government find themselves. Furthermore, from long experience I am aware of the extreme irritation that is caused by people who say, "I know that we need to economise —but not in my favourite area". No one who has had anything to do with a university or a college could be unaware of how angry that makes people, and generally quite rightly.
Nevertheless, I wish to make two points. First, we are told that things are really not so bad. We are told that 49 per cent. of all three and four year-olds are in nursery school, and that more than 90 per cent. of that age group receive pre-school education through playgroups or other means. Those figures are misleading. Many of that 49 per cent. of children in nursery school (including one of my grandchildren) go to school for no more than one half day per week because nothing more is available. Equally, among those who attend playgroups, most attend for similarly short periods—that is, a few hours every week. That is not enough.
That leads me to my second point. The difference which is made to a child, especially a child who is deprived, abused or neglected at home, by regular and structured pre-school education is inestimable. It is inestimable except in financial terms because we know that money spent at this end of the educational ladder will save vast sums currently expended at the other end. We know that potential problems and difficulties can be overcome at this stage of a child's development with relative ease—at any rate, with an ease totally unmatched by the later difficulty that that child will have in having his needs met and in overcoming his difficulties. Our awareness of these facts is growing all the time as a result of research carried out here and in the United States.
For that reason, I am not ashamed to reintroduce the amendment. I believe that it is the most important of all the commitments which your Lordships should consider to be necessary if education is to proceed properly in the future. It is one of the most important —if not the most important —matters for debate today and in the following days. Although I am not ashamed to reintroduce the amendment, I must confess to shame as I reflect that it is the Home Office rather than the Department for Education which is now taking seriously the research results on the consequences of nursery education. The Home Office is interesting itself in the high-scope project. Organisations such as Crime Concern and the Thames Valley Police believe in the efficacy of nursery education and are saying so increasingly loudly. It will be a truly disgraceful day if the opportunity is missed for a government commitment—even for the future —to nursery education, as the Bill goes through this House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the substance of what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said. In so far as it is reflected in the grouped amendments, Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and so on, which I have been through—I agree that one has to go through some of these rather quickly because they arrived rather late —at a later stage I should like to consider in further detail what is said on the substance of those amendments. However, I hope that your Lordships will not accept Amendment No. 2 because there are various simple reasons why it is unacceptable.
If the substance is in those subsequent amendments, it would be quite wrong to try to alter the drafting of Clause 1 to try to take in and improve the substance of those later amendments for various reasons. One of those reasons is that it would disturb the balance, effect and interpretation. We have had a great deal of trouble trying to get Clause 1 right, in which I have been involved, to some extent on the margin. Having got it right with Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and 17, which I gather are acceptable to all sides of the House, it would be a great pity to re-open the debate. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment to Clause 1.
Furthermore, strictly speaking, as a matter of drafting the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales".
Children who attend nursery schools are people and the greater, as a matter of the prime canon of construction, includes the lesser. Therefore, without wishing to be over-technical, there is no sound basis on which the amendment should be carried into the Bill. However, I want to hear much more about the substance of the following amendments, and until I do I am not in a position to speak to them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish strongly to support the amendment, or at any rate the intention behind it; namely, to ensure that nursery schools are available in this country. I remember what was said in Committee. This is in no way a criticism or attack on pre-school groups, which are doing a very good job.

1063
However, they are not appropriate or available for the whole range of children. We need to have genuine nursery education, with properly trained nursery teachers, dealing with the children for whom it is planned.
Of course, that is expensive but it is a case of taking a long-term rather than a short-term view. As the Government are being reminded constantly, short-termism does not get you anywhere very fast.
We are deeply concerned in this country—and I am sure this is true of all Members of your Lordships' House—about the educational and social failure of many groups in our society. Far too many people leave school with an inadequate education. Those people contribute to our economic and social problems. They are human problems in themselves. There is a great deal of evidence which shows that an early start with good nursery education gives the best opportunity to reduce the numbers of such people who enter into that group as non-achievers. For that reason, I urge the noble Baroness to strengthen provision of nursery education in this country and to accept this amendment, or some modification of it if the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, are accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I rise to support very warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As I have said before—and I hope that she will not be embarrassed if it becomes a refrain—there are few people who speak with more knowledge, sensitivity and experience of such issues than the noble Baroness. It is a joy to join with her in an amendment.
The value in being able to reconsider this issue is that in replying to the debate in Committee the Minister overlooked totally a key element in what we are proposing. We are proposing that nursery education of this kind should be available to the children of all parents or guardians who wish it for their children. That is terribly important.
In the Minister's response she said that the proposed amendment would mean that the pre-school playgroup movement would cease to exist. Reference has been made to that. However, that would be true only if parents no longer wished to make use of pre-school playgroups and asked instead for nursery education. In that instance only—and only in that instance—would 100 per cent. of children be provided with nursery education rather than pre-school playgroups. Therefore, if pre-school playgroups were to fade, that could only be because parents preferred nursery education.
Since the Government repeatedly put on record their position in favouring parents having choice, surely the Minister cannot object to parents being able to choose nursery education if they felt that that was more appropriate.
I hope that we do not distort reality in our debates. A big challenge in all this is to recognise the sterling work being carried out by countless committed and devoted childminders throughout the country and by many playgroups and to work with those involved in
1064
building up the best possible provision for our youngest children. The people involved in those other activities have a great deal of insight and experience to offer. It is not an either/or situation. It is the best possible mutually supportive system of services which we need.
That the local authority has a key role to play in that respect cannot be doubted. After all, it is the local authority which can bring together the various services which should be working together, not least care and transport. Flexibility will always be essential if nursery education is to be generally available for all those who seek it rather than only for those whose professions or family arrangements dovetail more easily with it.
In 1989 the House of Commons Education, Science and Arts Committee conducted an investigation into the education of young children. That report recommended, among other things, that day care should include elements of planned nursery education. As was pointed out in the earlier debate, in its report, Aspects of Primary Education: The Education of Children under Five, published in 1985, the inspectorate said that children under five in nursery schools and classes generally received a better balanced education than those admitted early to primary classes.
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister whether she is in touch with her colleagues in other departments. I am extremely interested to read that the Home Office Programme Development Unit is currently funding a three-year High/Scope nursery education project in four inner city areas—Liverpool, Manchester, North Tyneside and Lewisham. That is being done because the conclusions of a study comparing the experiences of 123 young African Americans from a deprived inner city area of Michigan who went through the High/Scope nursery programme in the 1960s with those of a similar group who did not. The conclusions were clear. Children born in poverty who participated in a high quality, active learning pre-school programme at ages three and four have fewer criminal arrests, higher earnings and property wealth and a more stable family life as adults.
Earlier results from the same programme indicate that pre-school participation can increase the proportion of young people who at the age of 19 are literate, employed and enrolled in post-secondary education. Results show also reductions in the proportion who dropped out of school, were labelled mentally retarded, had been arrested or were on welfare. Indeed, a cost benefit analysis of the programme and its long term effects at the age of 19 revealed returns of six dollars for every dollar invested in a one-year programme and three dollars for every one in a two-year programme. The latest research shows the returns to be even greater at age 27, yielding economic benefits to the public of quite considerable income for what has been invested.
As long ago as 1972, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher (then Mrs. Thatcher), pledged that there would be nursery places for every child aged three and four whose parents wanted it. In 1980, Chris Patten, the former chairman of the Conservative Party said:

1065
"It is a considerable pity—indeed it is a great deal more than that—that more children have not had the benefit of nursery education…I have seen how much my own children have gained from it".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/80; cols. 1296–97.]
Until 1980 legislation laid down that it should be the duty of the local education authority to provide nursery places for those children whose parents or guardians wanted it under Section 9(2) (b) of the Education Act 1944. Let us remember that that Act was introduced in the midst of a war, with all the inherent pressures on the economy. Those visionaries then saw the value of nursery education and what a sound investment it would be in the future of the country. The amendment would return to that position.
The second part of the amendment would require the Secretary of State annually to satisfy himself that sufficient resources were available to local education authorities to carry out that duty. Clearly it is important that local authorities are able to fulfil their duty and the funding to do so is a necessary part of it. I cannot think of any single act of policy which is a better investment in the future of our children than nursery education. That is why we on this side of the House are so deeply committed to its provision for all who desire it. That is also why we totally fail to understand the repeated shortsighted intransigence of Government Ministers opposite in not recognising a good investment when they see it.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I strongly support Amendment No. 33, but I rise to speak more specifically to Amendment No. 30 which is tabled in my name and which is a mere mouse of an amendment compared to the former. It is designed as a backdrop if the Government are unprepared to accept the much more ambitious targets of Amendment No. 33. What I am suggesting need not require any additional resources, although additional resources in the education and care of under-fives are undoubtedly needed. I am suggesting targeting of existing resources, plus a few more if the Government can see their way to providing them, upon the children and the families who have most need.
Nursery education and pre-school care is most essential for those children who have the least family support. It need not cost that much money. On Monday I visited a pre-school group in the primary school in my village of Northbourne. It has 15 children and is run by a trained nursery teacher. I must here give credit to the Government's policy of local management of schools because it was LMS which released the energy of the parents. They grouped together, raised funds and obtained money to set up the project. They also continue to raise funds so that those parents who can afford it pay £3 a day for three mornings a week, while those parents who cannot are subsidised by the fund-raising effort. That is possible in a relatively opulent rural area, but clearly would not necessarily be possible in some inner cities.
The real concern that a number of organisations have is that it is not entirely clear, as I understand it, how the withdrawal of funds from the local authorities to fund the funding authority for schools will work. The proposals on the common funding formula are
1066
apparently still out for consultation. Under the funding formula, it appears that full-time nursery education may be funded by the funding agency and those funds recovered from the local authorities. The fear of the caring organisations is that, in recovering those funds, the schools which are most likely to opt out are probably those with the more opulent parents. That is because those parents are more active, and so on. Therefore, the local authorities are likely to be left with the poorer schools in the deprived areas. The funding will be transferred to the funding authority from the local authorities' standard spending allowance, and the local authorities will be left with little or no money to fund nursery schools in the areas where they are really needed. That is the great fear.
If the Minister could give me comfort on that issue, I believe that it would help a great deal. I say that because this represents negative targeting; it actually represents targeting funds away from the areas of greatest need. That must be wrong and cannot be what we all want. Therefore, as I said, if the Minister could give me some comfort in that respect I should be most grateful. Alternatively, and better still, perhaps she will be able to accept my amendment or take it away and improve it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment No. 30. In an ideal world I would support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, because I believe that nursery education is ultimately absolutely essential; indeed, it would bring us into line with our colleagues in France and Germany who have nursery education by statute. But, having heard the previous debate, I know that the Government feel that they cannot accede to universal nursery education. I am frightened that if we do not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we may not achieve anything at all. I have the kind of feeling as in, "… one step enough for me". For goodness sake, let us take one step towards the ideal. Therefore, while I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, reality leads me to say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as a first step.
There are pre-school playgroups which are enormously well supported in the country. I believe that parents should have the right to choose. Therefore, because I believe in nursery education, and because reality tells me that we shall not get it universally at this stage, I support Amendment No. 30 in order to take the first step towards achieving that aim.
Lord Rix: My Lords, with such respected Members of your Lordships' House putting forward amendments, I feel that my voice in their support is somewhat surplus to requirements. However, I should like to put in a word for those children with special needs; that is, those with learning disabilities. As we are all aware, LEAs have a statutory duty to ensure that the identified special educational needs of children between the ages of two and five are met. It is difficult to see how they can ensure that without having knowledge and control of the nursery education system. I am sure that noble Lords are

1067
aware that early learning is even more vital for children with learning difficulties than it is, perhaps, for others.
If the amendment is accepted—indeed, if any of them are accepted—LEAs will be able to continue to offer a flexible, co-ordinated service to all young children, and children with learning disabilities will actually be able to have the service to which they are entitled. I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have no difficulty in accepting this straightforward amendment, which is supported outside the House by the Special Educational Consortium made up of no less than 140 organisations concerned with those with special needs.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I trust that the House will allow me to introduce my own amendments and then I shall reserve my right to reply at the end of the debate. I refer to Amendments Nos. 281 and 283. They are there to ensure that in relation to the provision of places for the under-fives the Funding Agency for Schools will be in the same position as local education authorities. In short, it will be under no obligation to provide such places at any stage. Of course, that is not to say that it will be precluded from proposing the provision of such places at grant maintained schools. The funding agency may make proposals to do so after the necessary consultation and in accordance with the statutory requirements governing proposals. The amendment makes clear that the duty to secure sufficient places applies at all stages to the compulsory age range only. Accordingly I ask noble Lords to accept these amendments. I shall respond to the general debate later.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is perfectly true that we debated nursery education in Committee but I can quite understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and others who have spoken in her support, wish to raise the matter again. I do not think there is anyone in your Lordships' House who does not believe, as a matter of principle, that nursery education, for those parents who want it for their children, is a good thing. Therefore, to argue against these amendments is to suggest that one does not agree with nursery education and one feels children should not receive it. That is not, of course, the view that we take, and the reasons for not supporting these amendments are somewhat different.
It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that we should have an opportunity to reconsider what was said in Committee. However, some of the difficulties have been pointed out. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to them on the first of these amendments. This is not a technical matter at all; it is an important matter of law. Leaving that aside, there are a number of arguments to be considered. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, say there was not a strong case for pre-school playgroups. Some parents prefer to send their children there rather than to a nursery school.
1068
There is no reason why they should not do so. I believe in variety, and I believe that both kinds of nursery provision should be supported.
However, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says on the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Most local authorities give priority to precisely those children who receive free school meals. I would be interested to know how many children who receive free school meals do not receive nursery education. I do not have the figures but I should be interested to know them. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also said that because schools have local management of resources, funds had been released for staffing nursery classes. I understand this is occurring in various parts of the country and it is a good development which is much to be welcomed. As regards opting out, the noble Lord said that it was not usually the poorest schools that opted out. I have been asked to become a patron of an inner city girls' school which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as a school where rich people send their children. A high proportion of the pupils receive free school meals and that school is considering opting out.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was making was that because the richer schools will opt out and will take money away from local authorities, local authorities will be left with less money to support the poorer schools.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue that argument. I do not agree with the noble Lord because at the moment we are discussing nursery education. Amendment No. 33 causes the difficulty. It is similar to the amendment that was tabled at a previous stage. The amendment commits the Government to an enormous increase in expenditure. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, felt I was hard on her on a previous occasion. However, as someone who has been a Minister I feel it is quite wrong for your Lordships' House to make these large commitments. I said on a previous occasion that such action was irresponsible and I do not renege on that statement.
That is not to say that I am not pleased that the numbers in nursery education are increasing. I understand that between 1983 and 1992 the number of under fives in maintained nursery schools and classes rose by a third. That seems to me a good record. Although I accept that some pupils spend only a small proportion of the week in a nursery school, that is much better than not being there at all. The overall figures for nursery provision are increasing year by year. I have no reason to believe that that will not be the case in the future. I am sure the whole House understands the point about nursery schools, but I feel it would be quite wrong, for a number of reasons I have given, for the Government to accept these amendments this afternoon.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hesitate to take part in this debate because it is 30 years since I had the privilege of being president of the Nursery School

1069
Association. I had to relinquish that post in 1964 when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he now is, decided I would be more usefully employed in the Colonial Office. However, I have retained a strong interest in the value of nursery school education since that time. The changes that have occurred in our social and family structures since that time have meant that the need for nursery education is greater than it has ever been.
The needs of small children remain the same but the need for nursery education is increasing. In certain favourable circumstances the need can certainly be met through pre-school playgroups. However, it is quite misleading to suggest, as I believe the Minister suggested in earlier debates on this Bill, that such favourable conditions generally prevail in our urban areas. I stood up for the pre-school playgroups in their early days but only in appropriate situations where the majority of children came from literate homes and where those who ran the groups usually included former teachers who were taking a break while bringing up their own children.
I enlisted, on the sole occasion in my political career, the personal help of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. We were concerned then with the extremely unsatisfactory position of pre-school children who lived in the towering blocks of flats which were then springing up in our cities and major industrial areas. When the committee that was studying the matter proposed supervised play in places where no nursery school was likely to be made available, the noble Baroness demurred that parents should look after their own children and that supervised play should be paid for. I am afraid she was in a minority of one for most of the time on our committee, although in other respects we greatly valued her help.
However the noble Baroness, Lady Blotch, clearly has something of the same outlook. She should not mislead herself by relying on her personal experience in East Anglia, as I believe she did in an earlier debate. The situation in East Anglia, after all, is a case of favourable circumstances. It is quite misleading to transfer that situation, which she quite properly described, to that which confronts so many young children in other parts of our society who have no such gifted person as the noble Baroness to inspire their pre-school playgroups. If the noble Baroness does not realise the limits of the pre-school playgroups and the need for much fuller professional teaching for many children in nursery schools, I am afraid a good many children will be shortchanged.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady White, as she mentioned the year when I began to think about nursery education. I remember asking the staff in the department where I worked why they considered education in a series of stages comprising primary, secondary, further and university education. I said that surely one person has one life. If public money is to be invested in this matter, we should find out at what stages in an individual's life it is most worth while investing that money. No one could answer my question. I also asked personnel in universities at what stage in an individual's life it was most worth while spending
1070
money on education according to what an individual could absorb at a particular age. The university personnel could not and would not help me.
Time has passed. I go to America a good deal. There they have done a great deal of research into the value of education before the age of five in relation to the rest of a child's life. So far as I can make out, that is a very high priority. We do not spend very much money on it here because we have not been used to spending money on it. We know what government departments are. They do not want ever to switch the budget from one item to another because somebody will he hurt.
I believe that we have reached the point when we must ask the Government whether they have any knowledge of the importance of spending taxpayers' money on children under the age of five. I believe that they will find it very difficult to get an answer. I believe that the answer will be that it is highly important and in many cases more important than spending money on some other stages of education.
Let us suppose that there is not enough money. My noble friend on the Front Bench said when I was here last some months ago that it was money which had prevented her from including nursery education in the Bill. She said that it was money which made playgroups more attractive because they were cheap. I suppose that parents like them because they want somewhere where they can get rid of the little dears for a few hours and a playgroup will do. However, that does not meet the educational need.
What do we do if there is not enough money to go round? We then have to consider whether the money spent on education is enough in relation to what the Government spend on other matters. We have to consider whether money should be transferred. One cannot always continue to provide the same shares for everybody. The world is advancing in many directions and those shares have to be changed. I do not believe that it is as important to spend money on keeping people alive at my age as it is to teach children under the age of five. I believe that we spend too much money on the end of life compared with what we ought to be spending on the beginning of life.
Ministers never think about those issues these days. If they did they would say so. All they do is give us brilliant Civil Service analyses of what is going on in one small section. It is the business of Parliament and of Ministers to look at life as a whole and to ask whether we are doing the right thing. I do not think that we are doing the right thing.
I do not like to vote against the Government, but I think that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, if he presses it to a vote. I believe that this question goes far wider than the amendments we have considered today.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before I ask the Minister a simple question perhaps I may refer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and say that there is all the world of difference between pre-school playgroups and nursery schools. I do not for one moment underrate what is being done at

1071
pre-school playgroups. When I was an education officer I used to fiddle equipment and other items for the pre-school playgroups. It is probably not wise to say that in your Lordships' House, but I say it to show my commitment to pre-school playgroups and the splendid work that they do. However, as my noble friend said, there is a great difference, in terms of qualified teachers and much better equipment. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness agrees with me at least to some extent. I hope that we shall not confuse the two because the nursery school question is very important.
I am glad that the noble Viscount intervened because my question is very much related to what he said. My question is this: is the only reason why the Government will not adopt the policies contained in these amendments one of money? There is a great deal of evidence about the value of nursery education. The filing cabinets of the Department for Education must be stuffed with all the reports which have been produced over the years about how good and valuable nursery education is. I do not believe that that is a matter for argument.
It was interesting that my noble friend Lord Judd raised the latest report from the United States. I mention it because, first, it is a wee bit different. It talks about the benefits—and I suppose that this is typically American—not just of a reduction in criminality but also in terms of job success, home ownership and car ownership. That is perhaps a new aspect to all the research that has been done.
I asked the Minister that question because one of the findings of the study is that every £1 spent on nursery education would save the taxpayer £7 by reducing criminality, unemployment and the need for handouts. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board in the attempts that I hope she will make to persuade the Government that the policies advocated in the amendments are worth while.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is offered a choice of ways forward in this group of amendments. There is a very wide option in Amendment No. 2, which would interfere with Clause 1 which, for reasons my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway explained, would be regrettable. There is the wide one in Amendment No. 33. In addition, there are two different methods of targeting. The first is in Amendment No. 30, which is tied to the school meals profile, and the second is contained in Amendment No. 13 which offers the ingenious route via parents.
I recognise that my noble friend the Minister is under tight financial constraints, but I hope that she will not take the advice of my noble friend Lord Eccles and reduce the amount of money spent on keeping people like him alive. There are two reasons for saying that: the first is that he is too valuable to lose, and the second is that the saving would be minimal because so far as I know there is nobody else like him anyway.
I can endorse the American research to which my noble friend referred, which is paralleled by that to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, referred. I ask my noble friend the Minister to have two points in mind. First, the education of children
1072
has one similarity to the maintenance of a house, in that the sooner one spends money on it the more damage one avoids and the better the value one receives for the money spent. Therefore, it is a question of virement of money between age groups. There ought to be weighted consideration.
Secondly, I ask my noble friend to look very carefully at the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in Amendment No. 30. With the greatest respect, I believe that my noble friend Lady Young may have slightly misunderstood that amendment—or I have. As I see it, it is not aimed at encouraging local authorities per se to spend more on disadvantaged children, but at ensuring a fair distribution between local authorities and other funding authorities when the children in an area are split between them and there is a disparity of need between them. The noble Lord has found an indicator —the provision of pre-school meals—which I believe is worth considering. As he pointed out, it will not cost a penny more in toto because he is suggesting that the money is distributed pro rata between the two according to the number of free school meals issued. I believe that that proposal is worth considering.
Finally—and briefly, because we have spent rather a long time on the amendment—I should like to refer to Amendment No. 13. That amendment suggests that it should be the duty of the Secretary of State:
"to ensure that local authorities and schools secure adequate support for parents in their role as a young child's first teacher".
I believe that there are two things wrong with it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, refers is in this group.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry. I assumed that it would be and misread the grouping. In that case I shall merely ask your Lordships to consider carefully what I have already said, and then I shall sit down.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may voice one or two reservations. While of course one must be in favour of nursery school provision—not to be in favour of it is not to be in favour of mother's milk—in particular one must be in favour of pre-school provision for children from families in areas of high deprivation. Having worked in the community as a nurse I have nothing but admiration and sympathy for mothers who have to bring up small children in high-rise flats in very congested and dangerous urban areas.
However, that having been said, I believe that there is a strong case for a mixed economy, mixed provision. I do not believe that the case has been entirely made for nursery school provision as compared with the different kinds of provision which currently prevail and which perhaps need to be encouraged. While I agree very much with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to try to ensure provision for pre-school activities and stimulus and support for areas of high social deprivation, there is a big question mark about the educational assumptions underpinning the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock.

1073
Research has been mentioned with regard to the American study. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any research available showing the significance of pre-school nursery provision in this country as compared with other kinds of provision. I have two queries and doubts about the educational assumptions underpinning the amendments. One is that research has shown again and again in the country that what matters in the educational attainment of our pupils is what goes on in the schools as they currently exist for the ages of five and upwards. There is, for example, the kind of teaching methods used for reading. The decline in reading standards and increase in illiteracy at the age of seven are associated much more with changes in the way in which reading is taught than with pre-school provision of education before the age of five.
In that context, I should be interested to see research studies examining the influence of schools and educational attainment in countries where, for example, formal education may not begin until the age of six or seven. That happens in some European countries where, compared with our country, they seem to achieve perfectly satisfactory educational standards by the end of their schooling. I suggest that we do not have sufficient research-based evidence on which to make hard claims for pre-school education before the age of five of the nursery school kind, compared with the provision of some pre-school opportunities for companionship, stimulus, respite for mothers with young children at home, which is provided by the present mixed economy provision.
Therefore, I believe that there are grave reservations about the amendment in terms of the educational assumptions on which it is premised. Given that, I must support noble Lords who have expressed reservations on the amendments on other grounds as well.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady White, my interest in the subject of nursery education goes back a long way, although not quite as far back as hers. I completed a PhD thesis on the subject in 1969, nearly 25 years ago, and I too have gone on taking an interest in policies towards nursery education ever since.
The short debate that we have had on the subject has been interesting because no one in your Lordships' House said anything other than that nursery education is a highly desirable form of educational provision and one that we ought to provide for our children. If that is our view, why are we not using the opportunity that this huge piece of educational legislation provides to make it available for all our children?
I was extremely interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said. We must consider, when we are legislating, what are our priorities and what it is worth spending money on. Of course, it must be worth spending money on something as important as allowing all three and four year-olds whose parents want it to have the opportunity of a good educational experience at that crucial stage in their lives.
Again, following what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, expenditure on
1074
education at this stage provides more in terms of value added than at any later stage. We know from countless pieces of research by educational psychologists and others that children learn faster at the ages of three and four than they do later. I say that as someone who works in the university sector. I would far rather that we invested more money in the provision of education for young children than in the provision of education at the university stage.
For the Government now to say that this is something they cannot afford I find extraordinary. We have just had a huge expansion in higher education; we could afford that. We are expanding provision for young people aged 16 to 19 which is highly desirable; we could afford that. But why is it that we are saying yet again that we cannot afford the expansion of provision for children at this crucial age?
I should like to pick up what my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lord Judd said. There are huge, long-term benefits from the provision of early childhood education and a great deal of research evidence to support that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that of course I accept that there will be costs in going down that route. But when we legislate, we constantly bring about new forms of provision right across the board, not just in education, which leads to increased costs. That does not mean it is not desirable to do so. There will be short-term costs, but there will be long-term benefits. I should like to remind your Lordships' House that yesterday the Prime Minister said that this was not a short-termist government. If that is true, then we should be willing to invest in nursery education for its long-term benefits.
Perhaps I may make two or three other points. While I accept that pre-school playgroups are valuable, it is nevertheless the case that most parents—not all—when offered the opportunity of sending their children to a good nursery class or to a good nursery school, will prefer that to the rather more limited provision that it is possible to make in a playgroup. Playgroups have in many ways filled the gap in those areas where there is inadequate pre-school provision.
Nursery education first came on to the statute books in 1918. The provision that was made then was reinforced in the 1944 Act. We then had the Plowden Report in 1967 which advocated a major expansion of pre-school provision so that all young children whose parents wanted it could benefit. That was then put into the 1972 White Paper, as I think has been mentioned.
However, the history of nursery education in this country has been very much stop-go. Would it not be right now, 75 years after the 1918 Act, if in the 1993 Act we should make it a requirement that local education authorities should provide nursery places for three and four year-old children whose parents want it? I believe that it would be an enormous benefit. It would make this piece of legislation one that thousands of parents would welcome, not just today's parents but future parents, because it would end the territorial injustice involved in a situation where those parents who happen to have the good fortune to live in the area of a local authority where nursery

1075
provision is made can send their children to it. Those parents who do not—and about half our children aged three and four do not have the opportunity—are unable to do so. That seems to me grossly inequitable and unfair. We owe it not just to those children whose parents' income makes them eligible for free school meals but to all our children to provide this important and significant educational opportunity.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a short question.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we are on Report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, we are indeed on Report but before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a short question.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No. She has sat down.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand from the Clerk that my noble friend is allowed to ask a question of the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is quite a serious matter. I am asking the noble Baroness for her help from her vast knowledge and experience. I have an open mind and I ask for her assistance. She has spoken about the cost. What is the order of that cost if we are to try to implement the view that she advocates? How is it in context with the cost allocated, for example, to further education? Can one remove an element attributable to further education? I do not know. What is it, and can one move it across to nursery education? What is involved?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give precise, up-to-date figures of the current cost per nursery place multiplied by the numbers of children who are eligible for nursery education. I can tell the noble Lord that the cost of nursery provision is hugely less than the cost of a place in a sixth form or the cost of one in a further education college. It is less, if only because the pay of nursery teachers is lower than the pay of those who work in post-school education and it is also less because the numbers of children in a nursery class will be considerably larger than the ratio of staff to students in post-school education.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we must be careful in trying to draw general conclusions from the very particular circumstances of the Perry pre-school study in the US which has been adduced by so many noble Lords today. To give noble Lords further figures from that study, the pre-school group experienced 126 arrests per 100 persons and the control group experienced 230. While that is an admirable improvement, those levels of criminality are vastly in excess of the average in this country and even of the averages in the United States.
The amount spent on the pupils in that pre-school experiment in 1960 was 5,000 dollars per person per
1076
year. That is vastly in excess of any likely expenditure on pre-school education in general in this country in the foreseeable future.
The right reaction to this study is surely that of the Home Office; namely, to have particular projects in areas of particular need where the expense can be justified. To take that sort of expense and make it national on the grounds of research which has no relevance to national conditions must surely be wrong.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may start by addressing the question that was put by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am advised that the cost is over £½ billion. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong. Nursery school teachers are paid as teachers. The staffing ratios are indeed higher at the nursery school level. I am talking about nursery school teachers—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not make a comparison between nursery school teachers and teachers further up in the school system. I was asked to make a comparison between what happens at the nursery stage in terms of costs and what happens in terms of post-school provision. That is a completely different point to the one that the Minister makes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was an out of order comment. This is Report stage. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that when she reads Hansard she will know that she made a comparison between the cost of nursery school teachers as opposed to the cost of teachers higher up in the system.
Baroness Blackstone: I mentioned post-school provision.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall read Hansard tomorrow.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for being somewhat baffled and for imagining that noble Lords opposite have never been in power since the early part of this century. The noble Baroness said how strongly she felt about nursery education all those years ago. The noble Baroness, Lady White, said exactly the same. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was wringing his hands about how anxious he was when he was an education officer because nursery education was so important. I can only say to the noble Lord that he was entirely free at that time to take a view —at the time higher education was very much in the hands of local government; so, too, was further education, sixth-form colleges and polytechnics—that money spent at that end of the spectrum would be better spent for nursery school children. It was possible to take the money from the police authority and spend it on nursery school children. It was also possible to take it from transportation.
I served in local authorities. One of the functions that we had as local authority members was that we could vire from one heading to another. We were given one sum of money from government, and with that sum we could determine priorities. Had we wanted to spend it on nursery school children at the

1077
expense of some other service within the local authority, then we were entirely free to do so. But what it—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, this is Report stage. Perhaps I may continue. It is a question of priorities. It is about saying that there is only one sum of money, and it is finite. It is a question of the proper application of that money. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the nursery education provision that comes before my department for consideration by the Secretary of State is indeed targeted. The policy is one of targeting areas of greatest need. That is true not only in the department. We believe that the local authority record is one of targeting the money they spend on nursery schooling on the areas of greatest need. I believe that that approach is right. But in the absence of being able to operate a blank cheque policy, is it not right that we should allow quality play-group provision to flourish?
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady White: yes, I was anecdotal for a moment at Committee stage when I used my East Anglian experience. But I have been all over the country, from Cornwall to the borders of Scotland. Up and down the country there are fine examples of the local community making its own provision. There are parents, sometimes retired teachers and mothers with great experience who are doing quality training. My own department has vastly increased the money that we allow the pre-school playgroup for training so the whole issue of quality is addressed. We must allow that to flourish unless we are going to support, as some of the amendments do, an absolute blank cheque policy to provide nursery education for all children.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in answer to his question that the issue is not only about money. Of course, it is predominantly about money. If we are to say, as Amendment No. 33 says, that any parent of any child in any part of the country can simply seek, on demand, a nursery school place, then local authorities must have available to them year on year, just in case that demand is made, resources to provide for education. It is not just a question of the £½ billion that I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in answer to that question. It is a matter of all the capital costs. What happens in regard to the three-teacher, three-classroom school, with just a hall and a few parents, in a few villages seeking nursery education? They will require capital costs as well as the current costs. That puts an enormous burden on local authorities and pre-empts their moneys, whether they like it or not. It does not give them powers to determine their own priorities. It is not only about money, especially when the additional cost of what is proposed (as we estimate) is over £500 million. It is also, we believe, wrong to take the view that pre-school provision should all be state funded, which is again a presumption in these amendments. There are genuine strengths in what my noble friend Lady Cox says and in what she has described as the mixed economy. There are some fine examples of private education.
1078
Nor should we be so very coy when we come to compare what happens in the United Kingdom with what happens on the Continent. My noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned a number of countries where nursery education is universally provided. Apart from the Netherlands, Britain is the only European country to begin compulsory education at the age of five. The starting point for statutory schooling is six, or in one case even seven. In France, Germany, Italy and Spain compulsory education begins at the age of six. In those countries pre-school provision is not all state funded. It is both privately and publicly funded. In Germany, for example, 71 per cent. of nursery education is privately funded. That has no place in the amendments before us. We say that nursery education shall be provided on demand for all children under the age of five, wherever they are; and it shall be funded, and pre-empt local authority moneys.
To my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Faithfull, speaking to Amendment No. 30, I say that we recognise that underpinning nursery education is very important. When the noble Lord spoke to his amendment I found myself in agreement with everything that he had to say. He described the small grouping of 15 children coming together with the nursery school teacher. That is not what these amendments are saying. They say something quite different.
The funding of both local education authority and self-governing schools currently is based on pupils already attending those schools, including pupils who are nursery pupils. So for a school in the LEA maintained system that has a nursery provision attached to it, whether it remains in the LEA maintained sector or moves into the grant-maintained sector, the funding moves with the children. The school does not take anything that it did not have when it was an LEA maintained school. To allocate by reference to free school meals would take nursery education away from many children who now have it. Following Amendment No. 30, if a school from the LEA maintained sector became a grant-maintained school and had a nursery provision attached to it, the provision would cease to apply if some of those children were not on free school meals. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord meant, but it is a consequence of the amendment.
As I said, pupils in disadvantaged circumstances, as represented broadly by those who are eligible for free school meals, have a priority claim to a nursery education and I am not able to answer my noble friend Lady Young about just what proportion of children with free school meals do attend pre-school provision. Having been a member of a social services committee and having served nationally both on that committee and on the education committee, I know that local authorities do their very best to meet the needs of the most needy families and that includes finding provision for the under fives. If I am permitted to be parochial, my own playgroup had a safety net system for those families who could not afford even playgroup provision so that it was provided. We worked together very well with social services, as indeed social services worked with playgroups and

1079
nursery schools across the country. So it should not be for central government, which is what these amendments advocate, to allocate funding precisely by reference to free school meals. It should be a matter for local authorities to develop their own policies.
On the particular issue of fair allocation between grant maintained and local education authority schools, I can give an assurance that money which transfers relates only to LEA overheads—no other money is taken from schools—in the relevant sector, primary or secondary. It should not draw on the nursery school budget of a local education authority. So there is no question of money being taken into the grant-maintained sector that would have been for nursery education in the LEA maintained sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was fairly scathing in his criticism of this Government. But his own party's government were in power for a very long time. That Government were in power when the 1944 Education Act was on the statute book. I do not remember an extension of nursery education then. My noble friend Lady Young gave the figures; namely, that since 1979 a third more children are in nursery education provision. I have no difficulty in adding myself to the number of those Members of this House who have spoken in favour of nursery education provision and indeed provision for the under fives. We are talking now about means to ends; about whether we have a blank cheque policy for on-demand nursery school provision.
I want to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who will speak again in a moment. I wonder whether he will answer one question. If he accepts that money is finite, would he take it from the higher education sector, the further education sector, the police, the social services, transportation or from where? I can recall the large number of issues and debates that I have witnessed in this House. I have heard many comments from the other side of the Dispatch Box, and I know that whatever the issue, the noble Lord advocates more spending on it.
This is a question of priorities. Nursery education and under-five provision are increasing. We want to encourage that to happen but to do it in a way that allows local determination by local education authorities—and, when it is up and running, the funding agency for schools—to do just that.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I should like to seek clarification on what she said on three specific points. First, she referred to the previous Labour Administration. Does she agree that all the records demonstrate that there was a steady growth in the provision of nursery education at the end of the Labour Government's period of office which was reversed when the Conservatives came to office? Secondly, she spoke several times now and on other occasions about our commitment to universal provision. But has she read Amendment No. 33? Amendment No. 33 says quite specifically:
"whose parents or guardians indicate that they desire such education to be provided".
1080
As I said earlier, it is not an either/or situation. It is about being able to provide genuine choice of the right mix. For the second time the Minister has failed to address that point.
She asked me what I would be prepared to do to pay for it. That is a very fair question. I do not dodge it at all. The question is absolutely right and basic to sound government. If one wills the ends one must will the means. But what the Minister fails to answer every time that she speaks on that matter is the question: how can we afford not to go on paying for ever if we know the future savings that can be made by providing nursery education now?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was a wholly inappropriate intervention, given that the noble Lord has spoken to his own amendment. They were not three straightforward questions. The growth in nursery provision was not reversed by this Government. I gave the figures. There is more nursery provision and under-five provision today than ever before. So the situation was not reversed.
The point I made about Amendment No. 33 was that the amendment is entirely open ended. It has potentially to provide nursery provision for every child in the land. It is on demand for any parent of any child, and according to the law the money has to be made available. I simply say that the money has to come from somewhere and the noble Lord has not said where it should come from.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I find myself somewhat confused at the moment about which amendment we are discussing. I started by introducing Amendment No. 2 which was preliminary to Amendment No. 33. I hope that every amendment to Clause I will not be met with the response that Clause 1 is perfect and absolute and set in tablets of stone. There are other amendments to Clause 1 which ought to be debated. The point of Amendment No. 2 was simply to pave the way for the substantial amendment which I shall introduce; namely, Amendment No. 33.
Amendment No. 33 certainly would give an obligation which is much wider than that sought by Amendment No. 30. Personally I should like to support Amendment No. 30, provided that the principle of nursery education had been lost, which would be the case if Amendment No. 33 were put to the vote and defeated.
I find it depressing that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords have said that we are all in favour of nursery education and there is nobody in this Chamber who does not believe that nursery education is a good thing. That treats nursery education as a kind of optional extra—lovely if one can afford it. It is like giving somebody who has everything a leather blotter from Harrods for Christmas —very nice if one can afford it, but not really necessary.
The centre of my argument is that nursery education is a necessity. It is a necessity for the reason I gave. But linked with that is the reason given by my

1081
noble friend Lord Rix; namely, that in the course of nursery education, numerous problems are picked up and many children who may have special educational needs in the future when they get to school can be picked out and given the help that they need, which often prevents their having any special education need when they reach school at the age of five. Things can be noticed and put right far more easily between the ages of three and five. Language can be introduced to children who have not been speaking at all up to the age of three, and by the time they reach school they are speaking children and can take their place in the classroom.
That is a feature of enormous importance. It is at that point we save money if we spend it early enough. The people who say that nursery education is very good but we cannot afford it, have failed to appreciate the point of the argument; that is, that nursery education saves money. If we failed to pay for music lessons—I choose that case advisedly because it is that about which I feel most passionately—I would willingly sacrifice those musical children for the universal provision of nursery education for those children whose parents want it or for children who need it, if it could be provided as a statutory right. I do not believe that anything except a statutory right would meet the case.
I do not want to repeat the arguments about pre-school playgroups. I am thankful for them when they occur where nursery education does not. But that is not the same as the field within which one can detect children's difficulties. The number of children who literally do not speak when they come to school is increasing all the time because of the number of single parents who live in situations where all they want to do is to get rid of their children, put them in front of the television and not speak to them. That social phenomena is on the increase and therefore the need for nursery education is far greater than it was in 1944 when it was part of the Education Act.
I cannot withdraw the amendment; this is a matter of principle and not something extra and lovely if we can have it. I know that it involves expense, but it is such an important principle that it would be a tremendous shame were we not to vote to show how we felt about it.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Desai, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Eatwell, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Eccles, V.

Boston of Faversham, L

Erroll, E.

Bottomley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brightman, L.

Falkland, V.

1082

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northbourne, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ogmore, L.

[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rix, L.

Hollick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howell, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scrota, B.

Judd, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Tordoff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Warnock, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Waverley, V.

Mayhew, L.

Westwood, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wharton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Elton, L.

Aldington, L.

Flather, B.

Astor, V.

Foley, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Geddes, L.

Barber, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Beloff, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hemphill, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bolton, L.

lronside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cadman, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E

Leigh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Chelmer, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Merrivale, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moyne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Munster, E.

Cranworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Cross, V.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Donegall, M.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Downshire, M.

Pike, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rees, L.

1083

Renton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

[Teller.]

Romney, E.

Sudeley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Swinfen, L.

Seccombe. B.

Swinton, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Ullswater, V.

Slim, V.

Wakeham, L.

Stewartby, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Young, B.

Strange, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("his") and insert ("The Secretary of State shall exercise").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 17 tabled in my name.
It was made clear both at Second Reading and during Committee consideration of this Bill that your Lordships were uneasy with the formulation of Clause 1. In particular, noble Lords were concerned that the clause in some way extended the power of the Secretary of State over institutions in the higher education sector beyond those powers he is already given in statute. I am afraid that my best efforts in reassuring your Lordships that that was not the case were in vain; and your Lordships were still concerned with the amendments I tabled at committee which were intended to put minds at rest. I promised to return at Report stage with a further redrafting. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with the amendments now tabled in my name. They make clear that the Secretary of State should have a general duty to promote the education of all people in England and Wales, regardless of whether that education is provided in schools, colleges or universities. I trust that your Lordships will agree that this is wholly desirable. This is set out in what will be the new Clause 1. The new clause is entirely free standing. New Clause 2 has no impact on higher education.
The amendments reflect the outcome of discussion with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I am enormously grateful to them for the help that they have given us over the past few weeks, and indeed to my officials who have worked painstakingly on this matter. They have also benefited from the drafting of parliamentary counsel. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Blake, Lord Beloff and Lord Butterworth who have withdrawn the amendments that they have tabled on this issue. It was their persistence that made sure that I went away and did some homework. I trust that the amendments in my name will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Question having been put, I am not sure that I am in order in raising a point before the noble Baroness sits down. Normally, the layout of a clause is a matter for the draftsman. But in this case the alteration and splitting
1084
of the clause is most important. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will read it out as it will be. I happen to know it because she has been good enough to write to me about it. It is almost impossible to follow it from the amendments on the Order Paper. If the noble Baroness cannot lay her hand upon it I have it here.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not so much a matter of laying my hands on it but in order to read it out I will have to take each of the amendments and displace some words and replace others. The new Clause 1 will simply say that the Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales. That will become Clause 1. I believe that simply to read out the amendments will not help. When I come to wind up at the end of the debate I will try to put it all in place and read what will then be Clause 2 in its entirety in a more fluid way than I am able to do at the Dispatch Box, interpreting each amendment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that I can assist the House in pre-empting debate. Universities will not be as fractious as nursery school children have proved themselves to be in the course of the past hour or so. I am authorised to say by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the universities are happy with the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled. On behalf of the university community I thank her for the extraordinary efforts that I gather have been necessary in order to make possible this happy outcome.
What we are left with is the first sentence that speaks about promoting education at all levels. I suppose that we can regard that as very much a matter of form, as though the Secretary of State for Defence has to promote the defence of the realm against foreign invaders, except perhaps if the invaders are based in Brussels. One may also say that it is so obvious that it does not really need saying, but if people insist on saying it the universities are happy about it. I should like to point out to the noble Baroness very respectfully that once again the House of Lords has been proved right. The warnings given in your Lordships' House about the clause have been accepted. That happened with the last Education Act when academic freedom was inserted by your Lordships' House. I say in a friendly way to the Minister that there are one or two other issues on which I expect the Government to come round to the views expressed in the House of Lords—higher education, the immediate question of a humanities research council and, in the not too distant future, perhaps the substitution for the Jackson loan scheme of a graduate tax.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness very warmly for the amendments. Through her, I should like to thank her officials and all those who have helped and who have been involved in highly skilled consultative work. The amendments are a fine achievement of draftsmanship. They reconcile objectives that at first I thought could not be reconciled, and I believe that they do so with complete success. Like Winnie the Pooh, I do not want to seem

1085
greedy but I hope I can be forgiven if I say that in proving the virtues of consultation perhaps they illustrate that on another occasion the time of the House may be saved if the consultation takes place before the publication of the Bill rather than after it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having been involved in this matter on the margin, perhaps I may associate myself with everything that has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; in particular what he said about the Minister, the Secretary of State, the department and the draftsman. I am wholly satisfied—I have taken an independent line—that the amendment wholly resolves the question of vulnerability on which I addressed your Lordships at Committee stage. In a sense it constitutes far more than that. It represents an expression of the good faith of the Minister and the Secretary of State, which was never in question, but we are grateful to have it on the face of the Bill.
We need to have the clause set out for the record in some form whether it be at the beginning of the Official Report or at the end because its presentation on the Marshalled List is very confusing.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as I took some part in the subject of academic freedom from interference by a government department both in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 of last Session and the earlier stages of this Bill, perhaps I may be associated with the gratitude to the noble Baroness. We should also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who, both in regard to the earlier Act and again on this Bill, has played a vital and strenuous part in what has been achieved.
In expressing gratitude we should be careful that now that the Baroness has let go of her end of a rope on which we have been tugging, we do not all fall on our backs. This is not the first time that academic freedom has been threatened. I reminded your Lordships at Second Reading that it started with the Education Reform Bill of 1988. In Committee on that Bill the essential safeguards were wrung from the Government with considerable difficulty. But the Department of Education then made its grant both to the universities and to the polytechnics subject to conditions. Those conditions had to be satisfied by the individual institutions. As they certified that they had satisfied the conditions the share of the withheld part of the grant was released to them. That was clearly in gross conflict with the amendments wrung from the Government in the 1988 Act.
The matter came before the court, which ruled against the department. But it went further, because the department put forward a general argument which would have completely nullified the concessions wrung from the Government. I mention that because I am going to ask the noble Baroness in due course to give certain assurances. The matter, however, did not even stop there. The department, having been defeated in the court, brought in the Further and Higher Education Bill reinstating the original provisions of the 1988 Act. There was then a fierce struggle in your Lordships' House, in which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, played a prominent part. Finally, at the very
1086
last stage of Third Reading, an amendment was carried against the Government on a Division and the safeguards were reinstated. So it is with very considerable alarm that the universities see Clause I as it now stands in this Bill.
The words at the end of subsection (3), on the face of them, permit the Secretary of State, for example, to stipulate that university A shall teach subject X; that university B shall cease to teach subject X; that university C shall take a certain class of intake of student; and that university D shall recruit staff of a certain character—in other words, all the things that were so feared and could have been done under the 1988 Bill and the 1992 Bill until they were amended, one in another place and the other in your Lordships' House.
The obvious course that should have been taken at the outset was to divide the clause into two. That has now been done. The new Clause 1 states a general duty on the Secretary of State as to the whole field of education. It sets out the new circumstances desired by the Government—in other words, without the same prominent role for the local education authorities that was contained in the 1944 Act which this clause supersedes. The new Clause 2 does not expressly state that it is not to apply to universities. That was desired at one time by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It also appeared in the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Campbell of Alloway. But so to stipulate would really have been to rub the department's nose in its own mess. And, after all, the universities have to live with the department. So that was dropped.
The only question that remains is whether there is a clear implication in the new Clause 2 that it is not to apply to universities. In my respectful opinion, that is a clear implication and it is not therefore necessary to deal with it expressly. That is the view, I know, of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is also the view of two academic lawyers of outstanding eminence, Sir David Williams, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, and Dr. Peter North, the Vice-Chancellor elect of Oxford.
For what it is worth, I would recommend your Lordships to accept the amendments as fulfilling what your Lordships sought to do at earlier stages. But in view of the history I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness to give certain assurances; first, that in her understanding the new Clause 2 does not apply to universities; secondly, that it will not be argued at any stage that it does—what I said about the case that was brought in the court demands that assurance as well—and, thirdly, in view of what has happened in the past, that there will be no further attempt at intrusion on the freedom of the universities to manage their own affairs.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the acceptance of this amendment but I do, however, suggest that it is markedly inferior to the amendment suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is inferior because, with respect to the first two lines of the clause, they have been left unaltered. Those first two lines empower and instruct the Secretary of State to promote the education of the

1087
people of England and Wales. That refers, as the Minister made clear in her introduction, to all levels of education, including universities. It sounds rather grand. But are we to suggest that as regards education in the universities the clause contains some hidden dangers? The very nature of teaching and research in a university is that some of it will be perceived at one time or another to be cranky, wrong and downright dangerous. It is the very essence of academic freedom that controversial and what are believed to be erroneous ideas are taught and researched and then often found to contain elements of truth. That process is vital to the development of knowledge.
As regards the sentence at the beginning of what has now become Clause 1, surely any self-respecting Secretary of State committed to the promotion of education would feel it to be his or her responsibility to eliminate the teaching of what was believed to be erroneous or wrong: the teaching of a Galileo, of a Lichtenstein, a Leavis or a Keynes. Those people should be fired because at times they taught things which were believed to be erroneous and even dangerous.
In any idea of promoting education there is no proper role for the Secretary of State to determine the content of university education. I realise that the Minister will declare that I am overstating the problem. But she must accept that, given the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon and Glaisdale, and the remorseless accumulation of powers seen in the continuous flow of Education Acts in the past 14 years, there is at least some substance for my feeling nervous.
Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the promotion of education will not under any circumstances imply a role for the Secretary of State either in the determination of a university curriculum, in the content of research or in the make-up of the personnel of a university.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to move on and to address some of the other amendments in this group. As an aside, perhaps I may say that I am sorry that the nursery schools lobby does not have as effective a voice in this House as the universities lobby. Perhaps I may first address Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 14. Despite the Bill being at an advanced stage in its progress towards enactment, the actual meaning of Clause 1(3) is still unclear. For instance, does choice and diversity within an institution mean either or both? Will the clause fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in considering proposals in favour of schools changing their character by introducing selection?
The amendment seeks to probe the meaning of subsection (3) by proposing to limit the scope of the subsection to those powers which are identified. No explanation of the effect of subsection (3) on the schools and further education colleges has yet been given by Ministers in either House. Precisely what are the powers which the Secretary of State intends to use for the purpose stated in subsection (3)?
1088
For schools it appears that his main power is to regulate the provision made in educational institutions arising from the Education Reform Act 1988, including particular powers over the national curriculum and those in respect of the local management of schools schemes. The 1988 powers referred to are in respect of two areas; school admission numbers and agreements on city technology colleges.
What are the other powers which the Secretary of State intends to apply? Specifically, will he use his powers to modify the instruments of government of grant-maintained schools for the purposes of Clause 1? For each of the main powers, can the Minister describe how its exercise is expected to be undertaken with a view to encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice?
For institutions in the FE sector, it appears that the Secretary of State's powers arise entirely from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Does the Secretary of State intend to modify instruments of government of further education corporations for the purposes of Clause 1? For the record, or possibly by writing to me at a later date, will the Minister list what relevant powers would be excluded by the terms of this amendment? For instance, I refer to the 1980 Act as regards the assisted places scheme.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 11, which is also tabled in my name. We believe that the reference to improving standards in subsection (3) is by itself inadequate and that the reference to choice and diversity is inappropriate in a leading statement of the Secretary of State's duties. Therefore, the amendment would delete,
"encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice"
and make clear that improving standards means improving the standards achieved by pupils and balance that statement about standards of achievement with a new statement about the quality of provision.
Ministers may believe that choice and diversity are somehow, through market mechanisms, sufficient guarantors of quality. We on our side do not believe that, and so we would much prefer to see a direct statement about the quality of education that should be provided in schools and colleges.
It may be that the drafting of subsection (3) is intended to convey that choice is only to be exercised between alternatives of a high standard. But that interpretation would require us to believe that "improving standards" refers mainly to standards of institutional provision rather than to the standards of pupils' achievements. I suggest that clearer language is desirable.
Last year the Government addressed quality and standards in clear language in the Education (Schools) Act 1992. Perhaps I may briefly quote from it.
"The Chief Inspector for England shall have the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about—(a) the quality of the education provided by schools in England; (b) the educational standards achieved in those schools".

1089
We firmly believe that quality and standards are more important than opportunities for choice within a publicly-funded system. Perhaps I may briefly quote the Minister in Committee when she said:
"We believe that as much choice as is practicable should be made available to parents. There will always be—this is not an absolute—a tension between the degree of choice which is allowable and the constraints of local authority expenditure".—[Official Report,4/5/93; col. 629.]
I notice that the Minister is nodding. We concur precisely. We are arguing that precisely the same tension affects the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers, and increasing opportunities for choice must be a subordinate consideration. As such we resist it being stated on the face of the Bill as an apparent priority above all others.
Perhaps I may finally allude to Amendment No. 13 which, I believe, is to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I believe that this amendment introduces a new aspect to the debate which we have not dealt with so far. I look forward to the debate. The amendment introduces the subject of parenting as something which might be taught and encouraged, and for which there should be sufficient support, because parenting has an overwhelming effect on the achievements of children.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, appears in this general amalgam which seems to be the most extraordinary hotchpotch. However, there it is and I suppose I have to comply with the arrangement. In the many years that I have stood here opposing government education Bills from 1979 until now, apart from two years when I was opposing local government Bills, I believe that the conduct of this Bill has been stranger and more peculiar than any other which I have opposed. That is partly because Ministers have given such immensely lengthy answers, presumably concocted by civil servants who want to get everything on the record. They have been read at such speed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it has been difficult to take in her answers. So I shall take my time in speaking to this amendment and shall not feel hurried—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel the same when she comes to respond to it—because I think that it is quite an important amendment and I should like it to be given due consideration.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State considers equal opportunity in promoting education. At present Clause 1 of the Bill—Clause 1 as it now stands—requires the Secretary of State to promote the education of the people of England and Wales, including improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice. No reference is made to equal opportunities. Ministers may argue that it is unnecessary to include such a reference on the face of the Bill, but I hope that what I am going to say will convince a number of noble Lords that it is perhaps important to have such a reference there.
In setting up certain of their initiatives, however, the Government have considered it to be important to
1090
refer specifically to equal opportunities. For example, in the early 1980s when the Government launched the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI), a specific reference was made to the importance of equal opportunity in preparing proposals for the scheme. Clearly the Government then considered that a specific reference to equal opportunities in the criteria was important.
The TVEI was seen by the Government as an important means of addressing equal opportunities, especially in relation to gender. In a speech by a former education Minister, Angela Rumbold, which was made to the Women's Education Conference in 1989, the TVEI was specifically mentioned as an initiative that had raised "awareness of the gender issue" and prompted local education authorities and schools to adopt new methods of addressing it. In this speech the Minister also made reference to a number of other initiatives that were intended to address the need to encourage girls into science and engineering, such as the initiative on Women into Science and Engineering (WISE), and local projects such as Girls into Science and Technology (GIST) and Girls and Technology Education (GATE)—if we are to use the acronyms. The Minister suggested that initiatives such as these had helped to encourage girls to opt into science and technology-related subjects. She also noted a small increase in the number of women in higher education on engineering courses. I repeat that it was a Conservative Minister speaking.
The introduction of the national curriculum was also seen by the Government as a means of ensuring that girls and boys studied the same curriculum and of helping to break down the gender stereotyping that tends to occur.
Despite these initiatives there clearly remains a gender gap in the subject choices made, as well as the kinds of occupations young people continue to enter. In a document about to be published by the AMA and the ACC, School Leavers' Destinations 1992, the statistics show continuing division according to sex in the kinds of occupations young people choose at 16. Administration and clerical, caring and hairdressing attract the highest number of young women; while construction, motor vehicle engineering and mechanical/production engineering attract the highest numbers of young men. These differences will not be changed by laws that prevent sex discrimination, such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, important though such legislation is. Positive initiatives are needed to change attitudes and reduce sex stereotyping, such as TVEI.
A similar positive approach is needed to the encouragement of equal opportunities for those from different ethnic backgrounds. It is not simply a question of saying that black pupils require additional help. Reports such as the AMA's analysis of how to present GCSE results have shown that the performance of different ethnic groups varies considerably—and their needs also vary.
The Children's Rights Development Unit, which was set up as a three-year independent unit to promote the fullest possible implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, states:

1091
"we live in a society in which racism and discrimination are widespread. Children are particularly vulnerable to its consequences and its presence can have a significant bearing on the opportunities children have to benefit from the education system".
The recent HMI report Education in England 1990#1991 observes that progress in schools on equal opportunities is patchy, with too wide a divide between policies and actual practice. It also observes that there was a,
"substantial underachievement by some groups of ethnic minority pupils …. Of particular concern was the lack of success of Black British (Caribbean) boys and pupils of Bangladeshi origin".
It was also concerned that many disabled children continue to be marginalised from access to mainstream education. Their opportunities for integration and participation offer them far from equal opportunities with those available to able-bodied children. The Audit Commission/HMI report, Getting in on the Act, identified obstacles to integrated placements for parents and children seeking them. The Special Educational Consortium, which consists of a wide range of organisations in the field of disability and special needs, has expressed concern that integration has not developed in line with the spirit and intent of the 1981 Act.
Clause 1 is concerned with the promotion of education and refers specifically to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice. Since the Government have set up initiatives that have at least in part been aimed at developing equal opportunities and since an education Minister devoted a whole speech to the importance of equal opportunities in education, it does not seem unreasonable in my view to suggest that a reference to equal opportunities might be placed in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to add my support to the amendments to which I have put my name which have already been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. Turning first to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, I definitely support the idea of greater integration to avoid sexism and racism. Where there is discrimination relating to race, there is often a cultural barrier and a lack of understanding about things such as different manner codes. That certainly needs looking at because it is simply a case of trying to integrate people into the way that others think and of trying to break down the barriers.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, did a very good job in explaining the arguments relating to tackling gender discrimination. That is an ongoing process which we have only just started to crack. I hope that we shall continue to make progress in that area.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, are very much in line with the Government's original thinking in this group of amendments. We are trying to define what is going on. As the noble Lord said, merely talking about diversity and choice is rather vague. Surely it would be better if we were to talk about the equality of provision for children and if we were then to talk about the various
1092
groups. Surely ensuring quality and then imposing choice is a better way of getting the best deal for children rather than tackling the problem the other way round.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find myself quite unable to support Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. As to Amendment No. 10, it seems quite unnecessary to introduce the idea of equal opportunity. Our teachers do their very best to give equal opportunity—frequently in the face of very great difficulties, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has tried to explain. In any event, Amendment No. 10 is unnecessary because the whole of our education system—certainly since the 1944 Act—has been carried out on the basis of providing equal opportunity.
As to Amendment No. 11, I am afraid that there is quite a serious flaw in it. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will look at paragraph (c), he will see that it refers to
"persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years".
It so happens that a good many people under 19 go to university, and if we were to introduce this amendment with that phrase in it it would cause confusion and would conflict with the principle that the Bill does not give power to the Secretary of State to interfere with higher education. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I gather that he thinks my amendment is unnecessary. However, does he agree that the evidence shows that there is still not equal opportunity, and so it is important that it should be mentioned in the Bill?
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect, I do not believe so. There are some things that have become so well established that they do not need to be the subject of legislation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, going to speak to her Amendment No. 13 which is in the present group of amendments?
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, before I speak to Amendment No. 13, I should like to say something in support of Amendment No. 11. It is sad that there is no reference to quality of education on the face of the Bill. I know that it is probably assumed that the raising of standards means a an improvement in quality, but the language of standards, diversity and choice is, I need not remind your Lordships, the language of the market.
I suspect that when the Bill becomes an Act and we look back upon it in many years' time it will be almost ludicrously a child of its time—the offspring of the market economy. In respect of education, I do not believe that the market economy has long to live, because most people realise that the quality of education cannot be dictated entirely by the market. So I should like to see a reference to quality and the omission of diversity and choice from Clause 1. However, I am sure that diversity and choice have gone so far into our heads through the White Paper that we are probably stuck with the words.

1093
Nevertheless, the intention in the amendment to mention quality rather than standards in the context of the market is a worthy intention.
I come now to Amendment No. 13. I should be happy if the Minister could assure me that something in the way of guidelines or a code of practice could be introduced to deal with the point. It is a matter of enormous importance for the kind of children about whom we have been speaking today: those who urgently need a nursery education; those who are neglected by their often single parent; those who are not necessarily deliberately abused but who are through ignorance neglected and subject to psychological or physical abuse. Such children have parents (one or two) who themselves are genuinely in need of support and education. Such parents need to be taught that school is an institution which is helpful and necessary for their children. They need themselves to learn respect for what it is that schools can do for their children. So they need to be given the opportunity, which schools are willing to give if parents are willing to take it, to act as partners in the process of educating their children.
For some of us who quite liked our children when they were small, it is difficult to imagine how much some small children are hated and disliked by their parents. They treat them with extraordinary callousness, want them out of their sight as soon as possible and never, never talk to them. Those parents are often nearly illiterate themselves. They do not have the wonderful repertoire of nursery rhymes that is part of the mythology of the family. But that repertoire of nursery rhymes and conversation makes an enormous difference to a child. It may make the difference between the child being educable and not educable and between its being able to learn to read and unable to learn to read. It is parents who must be taught how they can make up for the kind of deficiencies that most of us here have to exercise imagination to realise just how terrible they are.
It should somehow be made a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are propped up in the good work that an enormous number of them now do in supporting parents. If the Minister could assure us that that could be the subject of guidelines, and not necessarily on the face of the Bill, I for one should be happy.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said everything that needed to be said from these Benches in support of the principal group of amendments moved by my noble friend. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, regretted that it was inferior to an alternative and doubted the effects of the first two lines of the clause, as amended. I merely ask your Lordships to recall the legal opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and those he quoted, because I believe that they would prevail in that consideration.
On Amendment No. 13, which I find in this group and which I attempted to address more appropriately I thought at an earlier stage, I want to detain your Lordships for a moment only. I was relieved to hear
1094
the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, say that she would not expect it to be the instrument by which what she wanted would be attained. I believe it would be wholly inappropriate, and I have reservations about the language itself.
If my noble friend is going to respond to the request for some sort of indication of government policy in that area, it is worth recalling that there is an increasing number of inadequate parents. When I conducted the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, we were disturbed to find how many children were already parents themselves while they were at school. They had had no instruction or experience of proper parenting from their parents, and there was no way in which they were able to transmit to their children the basic knowledge, articulacy, fairy stories and so on which form the basis upon which the child normally comes into school. That means that their delinquency was heritable. We were looking anxiously for a means of breaking what is otherwise an inevitable spiral of deprivation unless the child parent marries a more capable parent or the child itself is adopted by one. Of those, one is improbable and the other is far from the most desirable solution.
There should be provision in the education system for such children. When it was first suggested, it seemed to me to be an absurd idea, but I was rapidly converted by what I saw in the field into believing that there is a need to teach children in the later years of schooling how to be better parents and to carry that on after they leave school, because many of them leave school very early. I do not for a moment suggest that it should be done by the Bill. I am not even certain that it can be done by regulation, but I should like to take this rare opportunity to impress upon your Lordships that there exists a real and horrible problem which needs to be addressed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 10 spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Of course it is the law of the land that there should be equal opportunities; of course in a great many schools equal opportunities are practised; but equally there is a minority in which it is not. Legislation so often has to deal with the problems of the minority which do not subscribe to good practice. It is for them that we have to have legislation. There can be no doubt from the studies that have been done that there are still cases in which girls and members of ethnic minorities do not receive equal treatment in places of education. It can do no harm to put it on the face of the Bill, and it could well do good.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, while I recognise that Amendment No. 13 is a probing amendment which seeks a response from the Government, I support one element of it and ask the Government to consider another element of it with a little more detachment. The whole subject of parents as their child's first teacher is important. The way in which we interpret that and work with it is also important.
Perhaps I may use as an example the teaching of reading. Parents come in various different forms. Some parents cannot read, others have no access to books and to quiet space and others have no energy to

1095
help their children. Some parents may be well educated and a small proportion will have a professional ability as educators. Perhaps we may also consider the children. Some may learn to read on their own. Recently I was told by a head teacher of great experience that she knew a little boy who had taught himself to read with no more than a telephone directory. He had no support and no other books.
Some children will learn to read with the minimal amount of assistance that a reasonably literate parent can provide. Other children require the facilities of a qualified teacher. A small number of children need the resources of specialist assistants as well as the services of ordinary teachers. The chances of those different categories of children fitting in with the different categories of parents to achieve a situation in which the parents can teach the children to read are infinitesimally small. We must recognise that there is a need to support parents in their role as young children's first teachers. However, I have a reservation about the use of the word "school". The Bill states:
"the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities and schools".
The duty must lie with the Secretary of State and the local education authorities.
Perhaps I may explain the experience of a school in Manchester. Its head teacher took it upon herself to believe rigorously in the concept of parents being partners in their children's education to the extent that the parents were virtually expected to provide the support necessary to teach their children to read. The result was that some children did not learn to read adequately. All kinds of problems of failure were blamed on the parents, which was intensely distressing. The problem was resolved by the LEA, which inevitably removed the head teacher; she was promoted out of her job.
However, the LEA can provide a positive aspect and in explaining I again draw on my experience of Manchester. As part of the adult education service under the LEA we have a system of parental education tutors. I must admit that there is only a small number of such tutors as a result of lack of finance caused by government restrictions. They provide invaluable support to parents by enabling them to be assisted in their role as educators of children.
I recognise that this is a probing amendment. It is the first time during our deliberations on the Bill that we have considered this subject. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and that my remarks will be taken on board.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, after so much debate about young people I am reluctant to take up the time of the House. I believe that this is a most important amendment, although I agree that it is unlikely to appear on the face of the Bill in its present form. The amendment was suggested by the Parents Network. It emphasises the point that parenting is not peripheral to education; it is absolutely central to education. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that each person has one life and asked at what stage expenditure will be most effective.
1096
Home background is a major factor in influencing performance and ability to cope at school. Research for the Plowden Report of 1967 showed that home influences far outweigh those of the school in the child's education. The report shows, for example, that the chances of an unskilled manual worker's child being a poor reader are six times greater than those of a professional worker's child. The chances of being a non-reader are even greater. In 1976 the researchers Rutter and Madge showed that for almost all measures of scholastic attainment differences between schools accounted for far less than features in the family and home.
Most parents want to be good parents. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, sadly today many parents have not themselves had the experience of being well parented. They have no role model on which to base their performance as parents. They do not know what a young child needs, nor do they understand the child's need for support, love, encouragement and the definition of "boundaries of acceptable behaviour". So their child, if he or she and the parents are not helped, will arrive at primary school already condemned to failure.
What can the Secretary of State do? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, we must provide in schools effective education for parenting. Secondly, we must ensure that young parents have available to them support and guidance. Whether that should come from the local authority or the social services, from education or the schools I do not know. I believe that at present there is not overlap but "underlap". Once the health visitor has left the young, perhaps single mother in her box-like apartment at the top of a tower block she is alone. There are organisations which offer help and Home Start is notable among them. Its representatives work on that problem and visit young parents at home in order to help them to learn the art of parenting. There is a great need to support such organisations.
Under the Children Act local authorities have a duty to care for children in need. However, many local authorities are so stretched that they are unable to appoint social workers to all the children on the "at risk" register. How on earth can they cope with children who are merely a little in need of better parenting? The Secretary of State should enable and encourage voluntary organisations which are working in this area to prepare the children who will soon be in his schools. The argument for laying the duty squarely on the Secretary of State is that if, when those children go to school, they are not civilised and socialised he will be the one to suffer. He will have to pay for their special education and care.
We have already debated playgroups and nursery schools and I shall say no more about them. I suggest that within the Government there is a desperate need for a single Secretary of State, a single ministry, to be responsible for children and families. I believe that that is the direction in which we should all be working. I suggest that the responsibility should be laid on the Secretary of State for Education, because the

1097
upbringing of young children is a fundamental part of education. It is the future education of those children which is at stake.
7 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, at the risk of delaying the House for a few more minutes I should like to remind your Lordships that the biggest provision of parent education has been through the education service, largely in further education colleges and in adult institutions linked to the provision of training courses for those who contribute to the pre-school playgroups' movement. As I well know, having been involved in those courses for many years, that has been the most important form of parent education because the mothers—and they are all mothers—of the children who are in the playgroups attend the courses to learn not only about themselves and their relationships with their children, but also about how they can genuinely contribute to their children's growth and learning. We should reflect on how much the education service has done for literally thousands of mainly mothers, but sometimes fathers, through that provision.
The second point that I wish to make about Amendment No. 13 is in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said. Although all of us in this House have enormous respect for her work concerning the needs of young people, I believe that we should not accept the extremely stereotyped image which she presented in which she suggested that all children who are deprived of parental love have parents who are themselves ignorant and illiterate. I am afraid that education is no guarantee of good parenting. There are many children of highly educated parents who are still greatly deprived of parental love. Conversely, there are many parents who are ill-educated and ignorant in the educational sense who are warm and loving parents, even though they do not have the fluency of language which some more educated people may have in which to express that love.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the principle behind Amendment No. 13 although I feel that "ensure" is rather a harsh and commanding word. I should be happier with the word "encourage". I should also be nervous about the word "adequate" which is an expansive word which can mean anything that anyone wants it to mean.
I speak as a mother. I have always felt that it was my joy and privilege to teach my children about all the things which are important in this world. It is important that their minds should be supplied with the essential oils of kindness, goodness, joy, love and affection and all the beautiful things which exist in this world, so that in future they will be protected from the sad contagion of the world's sloth state. That is what parents can and should give their children. I should welcome words to that effect on the face of the Bill.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 13. It is extremely well put and there is a very strong case for it.
1098
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned the Plowden Report in the 1960s. As a member of that committee I was partly responsible for the research to which he referred, which showed very convincingly how important the home is as an influence on children's educational achievement. As the noble Lord pointed out, it seemed to be a much more important factor—more important even than the school.
I conducted a piece of research for the Plowden Committee which was published in the report, which showed that teachers could achieve remarkable results if they spent time teaching parents how to teach their children. In terms of achievement, both in reading and arithmetic, the results were remarkable.
It should be pointed out also that since that time—we did not have the advantage of the research which was to be done later—several studies, notably those made by Professor Rutter and his colleagues, have shown that even when parenting is not as one would like it to be and children do not have the kind of support from their parents which they deserve, schools can do a great deal to compensate for what the children lack. Those results have been remarkable. If children who come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds go to a school which is in many ways a good school led by a good head, they can pick up a great deal later on. Children who have the misfortune of a double disadvantage, both in their homes and schools, can be gravely set back. One must bear that in mind, to be balanced about one's attitude to the influence of school and the parents. Despite that, I support warmly the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I deal first with the second amendment standing in my name. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me whether I could give a categorical assurance that the new clause does not apply to universities. I can give that assurance to the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that Clause 1 reflects the current duties of the Secretary of State and, as under the Education Reform Act 1988, which amended Section 1 of the 1944 Act in that regard, it gives absolutely no additional powers to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has only those powers which are contained within statute. Clause 1 of the Bill adds absolutely nothing to that. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord indulged in some rather fanciful thinking in the course of speaking to the amendment. I can give him the assurance which he seeks. The amendment does not impact in the way in which he believes that it may do.
I promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I would read fully the amendment as it would read were the amendments to be accepted by the House. Clause 1 will read as follows:

"1. The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales.

"2.—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers in respect of those bodies in receipt of public funds which—

(a) carry responsibility for securing that the required provision for primary, secondary or further

1099
education is made in schools, or institutions within the further education sector, in, or in any area of, England or Wales or

(b) conduct schools or institutions within the further education sector in England and Wales for the purposes of promoting primary, secondary and further education in England and Wales.

(2) He shall, in the case of his powers to regulate the provision made in schools and institutions within the further education sector in England and Wales, exercise his powers with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice".
Therefore, I repeat that I can give the assurances that it cannot be argued that that impacts on higher education at all. I can say that there will be no further attempt in this Bill by the Government to do anything which would impact on higher education as regards the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is Report stage. We have been speaking for one hour and six minutes on this group of amendments and there is still a great deal more to debate on Clause 1. We are still on Clause 1 of a Bill which has about 270 clauses and we must get on. I believe that almost everything that can be said on this group of amendments has been said.
Perhaps I may respond now to Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 and 13 and 14. As regards Amendment No. 11, our amendments to Clause 1 made clear that there will be no extension of the Secretary of State's existing power to regulate provision in the higher education sector. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied on that point. Beyond that, the amendment would achieve nothing else except to remove from the objectives that the Secretary of State should seek to achieve in the exercise of his powers those of encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice. I very much hope that noble Lords will join with me in rejecting what I believe is a retreat to dull uniformity.
I am afraid that I cannot offer the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, any better comfort in respect of the other amendments tabled in his name. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 14 would limit the powers that the Secretary of State may use in seeking to improve standards, encourage diversity and increase opportunities for choice. I cannot pretend to have an exhaustive knowledge of every power given in statute to the Secretary of State. I would have to bow to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, if he possesses such knowledge. I cannot believe that the only powers that the Secretary of State should use in seeking to achieve the objectives set out in the clause are those listed here. They would be very limited indeed.
There is no need to fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in such a way. For the only powers available to the current holder of that post—and any future holder—are those granted to him by statute. As I have already said, the clause in itself gives the Secretary of State no additional powers. There can be no place for a list of that nature in the clause. I must, therefore, ask noble Lords to reject the amendment.
1100
I have considerable sympathy with the intentions behind Amendment No. 13 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Seear. The Government do recognise that parents can—and most, but regrettably not all, do—make a vital contribution to their children's education, using that word in its widest possible sense. We have taken action in a number of areas which seeks to encourage more parents to take a positive and active role in their children's education.
Perhaps I may quote a few examples. In the department's 1993–94 programme of grants for education support and training to local education authorities, support was offered to inner-city LEAs for projects including, among other things, parental involvement. Those projects were specifically encouraged in recognition of the crucial role parents have in supporting inner-city schools in raising standards of achievement. Support was also offered to local authorities running projects aimed at reducing truancy, including funding aimed at improving home-school liaison, for example through the appointment of additional school-based educational welfare officers.
The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has a role in parent education, and is part-funded by my department. The institute will this year be publishing a discussion document on guidance on parent education in its General Good Practice Guide. Experimental work is being carried out in the field by various non-governmental bodies, and my department has also part-financed a Parents as Co-educators project which involved the development of materials intended to support schools and teachers in their work with parents using an approach that values and builds on the role that parents play in their child's education.
Aspects of family-life education are covered in the national curriculum, mainly through the science curriculum. The National Curriculum Council has recommended that family life education should be a key component of schools' programmes of personal and social education. National curriculum guidance documents on health education and education for citizenship have been issued to all maintained schools in England. Both give significant consideration to the content of family-life education and ways of integrating it into the curriculum.
Local education authorities have a duty to provide education for adults that is responsive to specific local concerns. It is a duty which goes very wide. It covers general educational and recreational interests. But also, courses can be put on which help adults fulfil particular roles, such as school governorship; or which prepare people for particular events in their lives, such as, for example, parenthood. Local government funding takes account of LEAs' duty to provide education of that kind.
In addition to those means of supporting parental involvement, recent legislation has also given parents far more influence over how their children's schools are run. Parents have greater choice over which school their child will attend; there are guaranteed places for

1101
parents—elected by fellow parents—on governing bodies of schools and those governing bodies have enhanced responsibilities; parents can vote for their schools to become self-governing; and parents can receive regular information about how well their children—and their children's schools—are performing.
Those measures and reforms—which are by no means exhaustive—are significant and substantive. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I cannot support the amendment. I am not clear that it would build meaningfully on the range of measures that we have already taken, and on the framework of parents' rights and responsibilities which we have established and which this Bill develops further. I am also concerned that the amendment is so open-ended. How do we define precisely what the role of "first teacher" is for the purposes of the amendment? Where would it legitimately start and end? What activities would require to be supported? What would constitute "adequate support"? The resource implications for local authorities and schools could be limitless.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to the teaching of reading. I absolutely agree with him. The national curriculum has gone a very long way to ensure that all children from the earliest possible age are taught to read and that proper and full monitoring is involved. However, I have to make a point in that respect. I hope that some of the higher educational institutions are taking an interest in the debate. I say that because I meet too many young teachers coming out of teacher training who say to me, "They didn't teach me to teach reading". That is not acceptable for teachers of very young children.
The other element that makes an enormous difference so far as concerns teachers is leading by example. I have in mind the little boy who taught himself to read from a telephone directory. For the purposes of the story, I have to assume that he was over the age of five, because a child teaching himself to read from a telephone directory below that age would be quite an extraordinary story. Nevertheless, if he was over the age of five, what were his teachers doing? Why was it that that child had to teach himself to read in such a way?
The point I take for the purpose of what has been said in the debate is one which I know to be of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I refer to vulnerable children who are not supported at home. For them school is the only anchor in their lives; indeed, for many children there is no other anchor. The only rules that operate for some of those children are those of the street corner. I bear that point in mind. In the 1988 Act—and it is still part of statute—we emphasised the moral, the spiritual, the cultural, the academic, the mental and the physical elements and aspects of education, with all of them coming together to be concerned about the wholesome nature of the education of young children.
However, if school is the only anchor in the lives of young children and the only place where they will receive any ground rules or codes of behaviour or parameters within which to grow and develop, I have to say again that we must take courage in saying what
1102
we believe is right and what we believe is wrong; what we believe is desirable and undesirable behaviour; and what we believe is moral, immoral or even amoral. Perhaps we could promote more fulsomely the nuclear family when educating young children.
I hope that I have made clear the importance that the Government attach to the role that parents can play in the education of their children and have demonstrated that that commitment is, and will continue to be, supported by firm action. Therefore, I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Seear, will feel able to withdraw their amendments. However, if they do not, I must ask the House to reject them.
I turn now to Amendment No. 10. The Government's policy is to seek improvements in the quality of education provided to all people. That will remain the Government's policy. We are committed to making available the very best possible educational provision for all young people, whatever their sex, race, religion, or learning difficulty.
However, that does not mean that there will be no diversity in provision. Our aim is to secure flexibility that will allow institutions to meet the particular needs of individual pupils and students. We will continue to target measures where they seem appropriate; as just one example, action to help with the language difficulties of children from ethnic minorities. But it is our commitment to excellence for all, as exemplified most clearly by Sections 1 and 2 of the Education Reform Act, which provides the guarantee of a broad and balanced curriculum, including the national curriculum, for all pupils. That remains the key.
Nevertheless, I can give a further assurance. It should also be noted that bodies such as local educational authorities, further education funding councils and the funding authority will be required to exercise their functions without discrimination on the grounds of sex. Perhaps I may reinforce a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is not words on paper in either this or any other statute that will make the difference; what will make the difference is what actually happens on the ground in the institutions and schools and by people implementing the policy. I hope that my amendments will receive approval from the House. I ask noble Lords to reject the other amendments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to seek clarification on one point. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Eatwell asked for assurances regarding the Government's ability to interfere in higher education as a result of the Bill. The Minister has given those assurances, but will she confirm that those assurances are valid only as long as she remains in office, and that courts that would have to adjudicate on this matter cannot take the proceedings of Parliament into account but can only take into account what is written on the face of the Bill? The implication of that is that, if her assurances are to be worth anything at all, something to the effect that this Bill does not affect higher education would have to be written on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that I gave an absolutely unequivocal assurance that the measure does not impact on higher education. I also said in the course of speaking to the amendment that the Secretary of State cannot exceed his existing powers. His existing powers reside in different pieces of legislation but nothing in Clause 1 adds to those powers. If the Secretary of State abuses his powers, that is of course a matter for challenge.
On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("education is made in") and insert ("primary, secondary or further education is made in schools, or institutions within the further education sector, in").
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("educational institutions") and insert ("schools or institutions within the further education sector").
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("for the purpose of promoting primary, secondary and further education in England and Wales").
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("educational") and insert ("schools and institutions within the further education sector").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 20 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order 1993
7.21 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the Agriculture Bill, which received its Third Reading in this House on 2nd February, seeks to terminate the wool guarantee. When the Bill was being considered by noble Lords earlier this year, it was drafted on the assumption that it would be enacted by 30th April 1993, and that the provisions on wool would take effect from this date. This date is significant because it represents the last day of the 1992 wool clip year. The intention was therefore that the guarantee should come to an end at the most appropriate and convenient point in the year for the industry and for the British Wool Marketing Board, which is responsible for administering the guarantee. Ending the guarantee on 30th April would ensure that the 1992 guarantee applied in respect of all wool collected during that clip year, while providing a clean break in respect of wool collected thereafter—from the beginning of the 1993 clip year.
The pressure of business in another place meant that enactment of the Agriculture Bill by 30th April was not achieved. To avoid what would have become
1104
a retrospective provision within the Bill, the clause which repeals the legal basis for the wool guarantee was amended in Committee in another place so that it will now have effect from the date of enactment of the Bill, not 30th April. It would, however, have been neither prudent nor responsible to have left matters at that. To have done so would have meant that —in theory—Ministers would have been required to fix a wool guarantee for the interim period between 1st May and subsequent enactment of the Bill. Although this course may, on the face of it, have seemed desirable to some, its attractions would have been superficial. The lack of clarity in the run-up to 30th April as to whether a guarantee would need to operate would itself have created uncertainty. This would have been disruptive and disadvantageous to the industry precisely at a time when it is seeking to take important steps in response to the ending of the guarantee.
In addition, the task of operating a guarantee during this interim period would have risked creating confusion, as well as introducing inequity and imposing excessive bureaucracy on the industry. It would, in short, have been damaging to the orderly marketing of wool. Let me seek to illustrate this point. What would have been the result had Ministers been required to fix a guarantee for the period between 1st May and enactment of the Agriculture Bill? The first point to note is that any guarantee required to be fixed for the 1993 clip would have remained in force only during this interim period. Thus while wool delivered to the board during this period would have been subject to the guarantee, wool delivered subsequently would not. There would inevitably have been confusion as both producers and the British Wool Marketing Board sought to operate within a deadline which was not—and could not be—clearly fixed. Producers would undoubtedly have sought to deliver their wool to the board before the guarantee was likely to expire. Given that this expiry date could not have been known, this process could have disrupted the collection of wool.
There would, moreover, have been a risk that producers would be tempted to shear their sheep earlier than usual in order to ensure that the wool was delivered to the board in time to qualify for the guarantee. The prospect of producers adjusting the timing of their shearing simply on the basis of the likely progress of the Agriculture Bill through its various parliamentary stages is one which neither the Government nor the industry should have welcomed.
Of course, not all producers would have found it possible or desirable to bring forward their shearing in this way. And not all of those who did so could have been sure that they had acted in time to qualify for the guarantee. There is therefore a real risk that operating a guarantee in the interim period would have led to some inequity between producers. This would not only have resulted from the fact that those producers who delivered their wool before the deadline would have received the guarantee, while those who delivered their wool after would not. The risk of inequity would have extended further than that. To operate a guarantee for the interim period only, the board would almost certainly have been required to establish

1105
difficult and bureaucratic procedures to distinguish wool delivered before and after the deadline. Any such procedures would undoubtedly have been costly and these costs would have fallen on all producers. Thus those who delivered their wool after the deadline could have been doubly disadvantaged. While they might not themselves have been eligible for a 1993 guarantee, they—along with the industry as a whole—would have had to bear the additional costs incurred in administering this guarantee.
In addition to all of these difficulties, retention of the guarantee for merely part of a clip year would not in any case have been consistent with the objective of the mechanism. The wool guarantee was set up to stabilise—over time—the sheep producer's income from his wool. Deficits on the guarantee in some years have been balanced by surpluses in others. This has been achieved by ensuring that when the market price has fallen below the guarantee level, the Government have made cash advances to the board; and when market prices have been above the guarantee price the board has been required to make repayments to the Government. A guarantee applying only for a few weeks or months of the 1993 clip year could not in any way be said to operate as a stabilisation mechanism.
For all these reasons, it would have been neither sensible nor appropriate for the Government to have fixed a guarantee for the period beginning on 1st May 1993. That is why in February and March of this year Ministers indicated their intention to lay an order to remove the requirement on Ministers to fix a guarantee for this interim period. This order was laid on 30th April and came into effect on 1st May. It may be helpful if I seek to explain its precise effect. Under the powers available to Ministers in the Agriculture Act 1957, it revokes the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1955 (as amended). Article 4 of the 1955 order placed a requirement on agriculture Ministers—in each year while the order remained in force—to fix a guarantee price for wool. Revocation of this provision removed this requirement, and with it the basis for operating a guarantee in respect of the interim period between 1st May and enactment of the Agriculture Bill. I can assure noble Lords that the order does not seek to override the need for primary legislation to terminate definitively the operation of the wool guarantee. This remains the function of what is now Clause 50 of the Agriculture Bill. This, as I have already indicated, removes the legal basis for the guarantee in primary legislation.
To sum up, the Government were concerned to end any uncertainty in the run-up to 30th April as to whether a guarantee would need to be fixed, and how long it would apply. Neither that uncertainty nor the operation of the guarantee for that interim period would have been in the interests of producers or the board. The order ensures that termination of the guarantee takes place with the minimum disruption to and maximum certainty for the industry as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 30th April be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the background to the order and its purpose so lucidly. On this occasion I can say with truth that the explanation was quite unnecessary. He will recall our debates on the Agriculture Bill at Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading on this very question. I had the pleasure and privilege of going three two-minute rounds with the noble Earl on those occasions. While I would not say that he did not manage to lay a glove on me, at least I am here this evening standing upright and ready yet again to oppose the thinking behind the order and its timing.
As the Minister rightly said, the present order was announced in another place on 30th April (at col. 595 of Hansard) by the then Minister of Agriculture. It was laid before the House the following day. The order was debated in that place on 25th May. The debate generated considerable heat even by the standards of that other place. At one minute to midnight on that day the House of Commons divided by 189 votes to 150 votes in support of the order.
That allows me to say that our opposition on these Benches to the principle of terminating the wool guarantee in present world conditions still holds good, although, in accordance with the conventions of this place, it is not our intention to divide the House tonight. We certainly could not guarantee a vote of 189 to 150.
As the noble Earl said, the Wool Marketing Board's duties are to continue even after the Agriculture Bill is enacted. We still wonder, in all seriousness, how it will fare as a hoard without the guaranteed price system. Present world market conditions are against it and reserves held by the board from past success—and, as the Minister said, it has had some substantial successes—are not unlimited.
The Government justify their withdrawal of the guarantee on the basis that United Kingdom sheep farmers are interested in meat not wool. They also argue that the common agricultural policy and support from the Government ensure a fair deal for sheep farmers.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask how wise it is for those farmers to regard wool as a by-product, which is what the Minister had to say in his defence in another place. Does that mean, for instance, that the United Kingdom will import more wool for Britain's textile needs? In any case, common agricultural policy assistance is variable, especially for sheepmeat. Rules change. In our opinion the United Kingdom is a potential loser from any change of rule regarding the sheepmeat regime. Already the variable premium has gone, ewe premia are subject to headage limits, and hill and livestock compensatory allowances have been reduced by Her Majesty's Government. In those circumstances can sheep farmers be assured of continued financial support?
In the United Kingdom market New Zealand competition is much with us, including chilled lamb which equals the home product in quality, while white meat represents a real price threat to all red meat. United Kingdom lamb is expensive. The gap in price

1107
between farm gate and consumer becomes even wider as supermarket dominance increases. Exports to France and elsewhere are subject to force majeure, as we well know. Noises are already being made to the effect that the newly proposed European Community cohesion fund should be financed from reductions in the cost of the common agricultural policy. If so, where will those economies be made?
The case against the order and the tidying up arrangement which the noble Earl described at this time is that world prices for wool are artificially depressed, it is hoped temporarily. Even the Australian Government recognise that. In their High Commission news published in London for the week ending 30th April 1993 a 50 million Australian dollar package (£22.5 million) was announced to assist their farmers hit by drought and the collapse of wool prices to be financed by the federal government. There is also to be a three-month review of the wool industry structure and operational arrangements chaired by a professor of economics at their national university.
Contrast that with what is proposed in the order now before us. The date of execution has been advanced in the interests of administrative tidiness, saving even more money in the process. The final paragraph of a Written Answer at col. 596 of Hansard for another place for 30th April, to which I have already referred, saw the decision to terminate the wool guarantee as the start of a new era for sheep farmers and the textile industry. We beg to differ. Even for an order made on 29th April which came into force on 1st May, we would urge early reconsideration of the whole question in the light of the impact of withdrawing the guarantee under present market conditions.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in his speech. First, he raised the anxiety that the British Wool Marketing Board might be adversely affected by the ending of the guarantee. I believe that that claim is unduly pessimistic. Indeed, the decision to end the guarantee has produced benefits for the industry which should not be underestimated.
The board has been forced by the prospect of greater exposure to market forces to improve its effectiveness and to seize financial responsibility for its own affairs. The positive steps which the board has taken and which it seeks to take are in the interests of the industry as a whole. Those steps include: the current financial agreement between Government and board which has facilitated the creation of a substantial reserve fund to underpin the board's future operations; a reduction in marketing costs achieved by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of wool collection; the development of a more effective organisational structure, the development of new financial and managerial information systems; and improvements in the quality of the clip, for example through the development of fleece assessment programmes, research into better breeding and producer education on clip care. It is those steps and
1108
not retention of the guarantee which are in the long-term interests of the board, producers and the industry.
The noble Lord also suggested that abolition of the guarantee will mean a shortage of low-value wools for the processing industry. The basis of his anxiety is not entirely clear to me. The British Wool Marketing Board has itself estimated that ending the guarantee will have only a minimal impact on the volume of wool collected. That implies that imports of wool should not automatically rise as a result of the ending of the guarantee, although I accept that imported wool is used predominantly for clothing as opposed to carpets and other purposes. If, however, the processing industry nevertheless genuinely believes that the supply of wool will be threatened by the ending of the guarantee and that that supply is crucial to the well-being of the industry, then it is surely for the industry itself to ensure that the market responds in such a way that the product continues to be collected and marketed. I do not believe that government subsidy is the solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also cast doubt upon the permanence or sustainability of sheep support under the CAP schemes. I can only say that total payments to UK sheep farmers in respect of the annual ewe premium, the less-favoured area supplement to that premium, hill livestock compensatory allowances and, prior to its termination at the end of 1991, the sheep variable premium, have increased from £156 million in respect of 1981 to £283 million in respect of 1987, and to £495 million in respect of 1992. This substantial increase, bringing total support to nearly £500 million in respect of 1992, I believe demonstrates the Government's clear and continuing commitment to the UK sheep industry.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to support arrangements provided by some of our major competitors in the southern hemisphere. Australia and New Zealand, which are the world's largest producers, accounting together for nearly 50 per cent. of world wool production, withdrew their own price support arrangements in 1991. I shall study the remarks made by the noble Lord, but I do not feel that his arguments affect the basic points that I sought to bring out in my original speech which I think validate the basis of the order. I again commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.20 p.m.]

Education Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 19, after ("standards,") insert ("assisting in the development of coherent and systematic curriculum and assessment policies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the curriculum and testing. Between them the amendments make explicit the Secretary of State's duty with regard to curriculum and assessment policies; make clear the consultative remit for an ongoing review of the curriculum by the independent School Curriculum and Assessment Authority; specify the purposes of assessment; and fundamentally take away the draconian powers that the Secretary of State is taking upon himself to override the review process and undermine the professional judgment of teachers.
Recent events have shown the need for coherent and systematic curriculum and assessment policies. The Secretary of State has achieved the impossible. At every twist and turn of policy he has alienated those people who are at the very heart of education. He has brought together a solid alliance of teachers, parents, governors, and educationists. He has shown contempt for the professional judgment of teachers. He has outraged parents, calling such respected organisations as the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations "neanderthal". He has tried to bully heads and governors to impose his flawed tests on children in schools. He has lost key advisers from the National Curriculum Council who are disgusted with policy disarray. He has even managed to alienate his own party activists. The Financial Times described his reception at last week's Conservative Women's Conference as "chilly". It went on to say:
"a teacher in a London comprehensive school won a warm reception as she told Mr. Patten, 'You have driven me to support union action, and it breaks my heart'";.
Another delegate said:
"It is nothing short of a disgrace to see millions of pounds wasted on national curriculum bureaucracy and paperwork at the expense of desperately needed staff, books and equipment in our schools".
I understand that one delegate called on the Secretary of State to "end this bonfire of bureaucratic vanities now".
All six teachers' unions, with the support of the independent school sector organisations have produced a framework for the review of the curriculum. That provides for coherent curriculum and assessment policies in contrast to the policy débâcle of the Government.
The controversy over testing in schools this summer is part of a failure on the part of the Government to listen to teachers and parents about the kinds of tests that are needed for the national curriculum. The Government failed to provide coherent curriculum and assessment policies. The curriculum has been subject to constant change and overload. Testing and assessment policies seemingly have no principled base. The amendments set out the framework to correct those fundamental flaws in government policy. Late in the day the Government did set up the most welcome review under Sir Ron Dearing. In reply to John Patten's remit for the review, Sir Ron said:
"I am accountable not only to the Secretary of State, but also to the whole community of teachers, parents and school children".
Further, in his first speech to the Regional Review Conferences he said:
1110
"I came to the task with no preconceptions about solutions. The agenda is on the table; the questions raise fundamentals and we shall he studying everything that is said in reply".
Yet the Secretary of State pre-empted that review with his rushed Statement to Parliament on llth May, and has potentially compromised the findings of that review. The Government seem interested only in misleading league tables based on these unfair tests.
But indeed, as the Guardian newspaper editorial made clear on 7th June:
"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Enemy.
The current tables are far too crude. They do not compare like with like because they only use raw data. Clever intakes inevitably produce clever results".
Teachers, parents and governors believe in assessment for diagnostic purposes. The Government have conceded such a model for Scotland, having consulted there. Inexplicably, they intransigently refused to discuss a diagnostic model for England and Wales. So dogmatic are the Government in pursuing their flawed curriculum and assessment policies that the Secretary of State is taking on board extensive powers to impose his wishes upon schools. Clause 229, as it stands, is a fundamental assault on the professional judgment of teachers, governors and local authorities in education.
I come specifically to Amendment No. 12:
"Page I, line 19, after ("standards,") insert ("assisting in the development of coherent and systematic curriculum and assessment policies,")".
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the indisputable fact that the development of the current national curriculum and its assessment arrangements are in a mess. Initially, the Government chose to construct a curriculum based on subjects, and then overloaded those subjects. They then initiated an assessment system which teachers believe does not work. It takes up too much time and detracts from teaching; and it uses assessment results as crude and unfair performance indicators. In addition, since 1988 the development of the national curriculum and assessment has been characterised by piecemeal, politically driven change. For example, at a very late stage in consultation on history, Kenneth Clarke decided that history stopped 20 years ago and after that transformed itself into social studies. Mathematics and science were revised by an anonymous group without reference to the particular problems facing teachers in regard to the rest of the curriculum and each of the key stages. English is being revised, despite the vast majority of the profession believing the existing subject orders to be a success. Technology is being revised without the Secretary of State asking what the role of information technology should be or whether schools can afford to make it available to all children.
These developments illustrate the culpability of successive governments in not having coherent and systematic assessment policies. Above all, the Government should take responsibility for those policies.
The amendments place a particular responsibility upon the present Government and future governments to develop curriculum and assessment policies which are systematic and coherent and therefore

1111
understandable. In that respect, it is interesting that the six teacher organisations, with the support of all the organisations representing independent schools, have already produced a framework. In their document, A framework for reviewing the National Curriculum they outline a sensible plan for the development of the national curriculum based on systematic and coherent implementation, monitoring and revision which does not overload and confuse schools. I have that document with me. It is jointly drafted by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers; the National Association of Head Teachers; the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers; the National Union of Teachers; the Professional Association of Teachers; and the Secondary Heads Association. Indeed, it is endorsed by the Girls' Schools Association; the Headmasters' Conference; the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools; the Independent Schools Association Incorporated; the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education; and the Society of Headmasters and Headmistresses in Independent Schools.
If we had the United States' system here, I would strongly recommend that this be read into the record. As we do not have that system, I would be tempted to quote from it at length. But obviously the House would become incredibly impatient. Therefore I shall take just one quotation from it as indicative of the strength of feeling of those bodies:
"The teacher organisations have repeatedly drawn attention to the problems of both excessive prescription and content overload over the last three years. They have made the point that the original NC proposals and subsequent parliamentary debate confirmed that it was never the intention that more than between 75 per cent. and 85 per cent. of time should be devoted to the foundation subjects. The teacher organisations have also reflected the view that stability is so desirable that unpredictable change should be kept to a minimum".
It goes on to say that:
"the paper sets out proposals for reviewing the NC which would:

(a) enable the problems of both excessive prescription and content overload to be overcome;

(b) ensure that the process of change would be phased and manageable;

(c) provide effective mechanisms for professional input;

(d) guarantee that the provisions should be based on a wide range of publicly available evidence;

(e) avoid the danger of an ad hoc subject by subject revision which would inevitably lead to a lack of coherence and possibly further overload".

In moving this amendment, I hope that in her characteristic way the Minister will feel able to comment in some substance on what those responsible bodies, which carry on their shoulders so much of the education of our children, have to say. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having watched "Newsnight", I am tempted to think that we have now reached Götterdämmerung. I hasten to assure the House that I have thrown away my notes. At this stage of the day I shall not make the speech that I would
1112
otherwise have made. But I should like to draw attention to one or two points that arise from these amendments.
The specific and most useful point about Amendment No. 12 is that in addition to the power that was given to the Secretary of State in 1988, the amendment also imposes a duty upon him. That could be extremely valuable towards parliamentary accountability. It is one of the difficulties that we have had many times with the pattern of educational legislation since 1988 that a whole succession of quangos and councils are created. They are accountable to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. So if something is done by one of those councils to which perhaps some of us may wish to take objection—or even occasionally passionate objection —it is very difficult to do so. Ministers tell us that it is a matter for the funding council or the curriculum council or whatever council it may be. I hope that this imposition of a duty on the Secretary of State will make it rather more easy as a matter of parliamentary procedure to hold the Secretary of State directly accountable to Parliament for the discharge of the duty.
Among other things, those duties cover review. I do not know whether the noble Baroness remembers the statutory instrument which brought in the national curriculum in history. Both the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I strongly made the point that it is necessary, if this is not to ossify, that it should be subject to regular review as a matter of routine. In fact, we have given notice to the House of our intention to divide it in April 1998 if no review has taken place by then. If the Government could lay down a regular procedure for rolling review before the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I have to act, it might save us some trouble.
Amendment No. 16 draws attention again to the question of raw and weighed data. That is particularly important to the question of failing schools, with which a large part of this Bill deals. Some noble Lords may have read recently in the papers about a failing school in Hartlepool. In Hartlepool there is deep trouble throughout the community as a whole. There is unemployment, poverty and crime—three things that we may learn to think of as "Mandelson's Trio".
I cannot believe that those factors completely fail to affect the character of the school. So we cannot adequately assess the failing school unless we know something of the social background in which that school operates. When I say that, I do not mean to say that it has a determining effect; only that it is one of the factors which may have an influence.
With regard to testing, I do not want to make a partisan speech. However, we might all, from whichever quarter of the House we come, agree that if in a year's time we are in the kind of mess that we are in now, it cannot be in anybody's interest. In order to bring that about, we must recognise that any successful tests will have to be compiled, as my noble friend Lady Seear said when the whole issue was introduced in 1988, in conjunction with the teachers. After all, they are the people who will have to do the

1113
work. That remains true whether one believes that the teachers' educational values are right or wrong. They are the people who are involved.
One cannot expect teachers to teach against their own conscience. It is not useful to create a situation in which they find it as much against their political conscience to teach in Mr. Major's schools as they would to serve in his Cabinet. Today we have heard complaints about politicisation. Sometimes compromise is necessary to avoid it.
I shall make one final point about the publication of league tables. When the Education Reform Bill was before us on 5th May 1988, that point arose. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said:
"It is not true to say that the results would be given wide publication. It is certainly not intended to have a league table".
I should like to know what happened to that assurance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a brief question about testing and in particular the relationship of this amendment to the tests which were supposed to be conducted recently.
The Minister will recall that when she repeated in this House the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State, I asked her what would happen in view of the fact that the three biggest teachers' unions had refused to have anything to do with the testing. I asked her what would happen in those circumstances. She may recall that her reply was that it was the responsibility of the head teacher and the governors to see that the tests were carried out.
We know now that very few schools indeed undertook the tests, for what many thought were obvious reasons. It seemed as though only the Government were burying their collective head in the sand and insisting that they would take place when in fact everybody knew that they would not take place. In view of those circumstances, are the Government contemplating a change in the legislation to face reality and make changes in an issue which could easily recur?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that this is not an appropriate use of this part of the Bill. To single out one activity, albeit a very important, essential and substantial one, in the field of education, to build into Clause 1 just arrangements for curriculum and assessment and testing leaves out other important factors. Are we to be inclusive of all educational activity in Clause 1, in order to give equal status to all of them; or are we simply to single this one out and thereby give it a special status over and above all other educational activity in the field of school and further education?
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the Statement that I repeated in this House which was made in another place by my right honourable friend pre-empted almost unilaterally the review of Sir Ron Dearing. The noble Lord needs to go back to that Statement and read it again. It was on advice from Sir Ron Dearing that that Statement was made and the conclusions from it were drawn. The review will be thorough. Sir Ron needs to take his time over it before he reports to the Secretary of State. There needs to be
1114
follow-up action. Clearly my amendments to lift the constraints on Sections 20 and 21 of the Education Reform Act 1988 will help. Nevertheless, it will take time.
In order to allow the schools time to think about 1994 it was necessary to have plans on the table. It was not acceptable and would not have been acceptable—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would have been one of the people saying, "What are you going to do in 1994?"—for a Statement not to have been made. Therefore it was appropriate that a Statement should be made in regard to 1994.
When I made that Statement I was asked a question by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I stand by the response I gave. It is the responsibility of the head teachers and governors to administer the tests and then record and report the results. The tests are not yet complete. I do not intend to speculate at the Dispatch Box on whether or not they have been taken. We shall find out in good time. I am also not prepared to speculate or pre-empt at the Dispatch Box whether or not there is to be legislation. It would be wholly inappropriate for me to do so.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that we do not have a coherent policy for assessment and testing. But nor did his party prior to 1988. They never had a coherent policy for a national curriculum framework or assessment or testing. I was sitting on the Back-Benches at that time and in 1988 his colleagues on those Benches opposed the national curriculum when my noble friend Lady Hooper was putting it to the House.
Baroness David: My Lords, we did not oppose all aspects of the national curriculum. We opposed the amount that was put into it. We never objected to the three main subjects which were to be part of the national curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there was at times opposition to the national curriculum; there was opposition to specific subjects; there was opposition in regard to too much prescription. There was then a great deal of argument and an interesting debate ensued in the House regarding subjects that ought to be but were not in the national curriculum. I know that my noble friend had great difficulty taking that Bill through the House. It was contested at almost every stage of its progress.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have been re-reading that material this afternoon. There was great difficulty because many aspects of the Government's policy were not clear. Can the noble Baroness tell us of one moment when we opposed the whole principle of the national curriculum?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not mention the noble Earl and his colleagues on those Benches. I mentioned the Labour Party. The Labour Party certainly did oppose the national curriculum, assessment and testing.
Perhaps I can move on to the issue of regular reviews. I am confident that the noble Earl will not have to come together with my noble friend Lord Beloff to press for regular reviews. Education is a

1115
dynamic. It is important that there is a continuing, rolling review of the subject orders, and that is precisely what has happened. A review is taking place at the present time and I do not want to labour these amendments by taking them in detail. I do not believe that the House should pre-empt the outcome of the Sir Ron Dearing review. He should be allowed to continue the good work he is carrying out with and for teachers and for the future of education.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to Hartlepool. I have some intimate knowledge of that area because I am the inner cities Minister for Hartlepool, Stockton, Middlesborough and that part of the Teesside and Cleveland area. I have a great feeling and affection for that part of the country and have come to know the area and its people well.
The noble Earl is right to say that there are issues of unemployment, low income families and high crime rates in the area. But information in regard to crime is public information. Every police authority produces detailed and complete breakdowns of information regarding crime rates, so they are known in the local area. Unemployment figures also are known in relation to men and women, young people and older people; so too is the sex of the intake of the schools; so too is the ethnic background of the young people in the schools, though that is not so much an issue in that part of the world.
The inspectorate, as it will operate under the 1992 inspection rules, will describe the nature of the intake of young people when they go into schools and also of the local community from which they draw their children. That is important. And that information is known in the local area. It is in the local area where that kind of information matters.
When it comes to making league tables or producing any kind of public information containing value factors, I find it patronising to put a disadvantage factor on some of those issues when we know already from the information that we have that even with some of those disadvantages schools can perform well. We also know that schools that serve leafy glades with advantaged families, with no problems and relatively supportive homes, do not always perform well. It is therefore difficult to be wholly objective in putting measurements on it. However, that there should be valued-added factors at some stage contained in published results is something to which we do aspire. I know that Sir Ron Dearing takes that seriously.
We do not produce league tables. Newspapers and other people produce league tables; even parents are interested in league tables. In fact, the interest in league tables last year was incredibly high. It proved that the sort of information that parents wanted was the kind of information that was produced.
The department produced a booklet which applies to each local area with schools in alphabetical order, containing the size of the intake, the names of the schools and whether or not they had children with special needs statements in them. Those are the kinds of things that we produced; league tables are produced by others.
1116
I shall not continue taking the amendments in detail. I do not believe that they belong in this part of the Bill. As a House we should wish Sir Ron Dearing well. He is responding, as commissioned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to the anxieties of teachers—some of them spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I wish him well. I hope that the House will also, but that they will reject the amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has been so unyielding on this matter. In this area it is not impossible to close the gap between the two sides of the House and to find a constructive solution, not so much in the interests of some abstract system—bureaucratic or administrative—but in the interests of our children throughout the country.
We are arguing—I believe that there is a great consensus in different parts of this side of the House on the matter—that if the legislation is to be a success, it must be based on ownership. People must feel confident in it. They must feel that it is relevant to them as players within the educational world. It must meet the priorities which they, from their professional or parental positions, see to be essential.
The point we are making is that the Bill's strength will rest in consensus and consultation. On a previous occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, emphasised that education in this country should, wherever possible, rest on consensus if it is to be successful. I applaud his wisdom in saying that. We are talking of how we build consensus behind the system.
The other point is that it is important that whatever information is available is meaningful. It is a bit disingenuous of the Minister to protest that the Government do not produce league tables. That takes some swallowing, if she will forgive me saying so. She was not born yesterday and knows how the media operate. Obviously this was all the raw material and meat for the media to produce league tables. We are saying that those league tables misled parents because they did not give the meaningful information that was necessary.
It is a late hour and there is a lot for us to tackle tonight. Perhaps I can therefore concentrate briefly on Amendments Nos. 16 and 232. I am sorry that the Minister did not say more about them in her reply. I find it interesting that at the Lords Report stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill in 1992 the Government moved an amendment on the information that the Secretary of State might require the governing body of any institution within the further education sector to publish in order to show, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said in moving the amendment,
"the value added—in terms of student qualifications—by the institution".—[Official Report, 16/1/92; col. 434.]
Unfortunately, the Government were not prepared to make a similar amendment to the Education (Schools) Bill, even though they had not rejected the benefit of a value added approach to the presentation of exam results.

1117
There is a general consensus that raw results alone are an inadequate indicator of the effectiveness of a school. Indeed, there is a danger that they could lead to complacency. Schools with an intake of high achievers can cover up poor performance because they have good results. Schools with poor examination results may justify poor performance because they have an intake of low achievers. Only through comparing the achievements of pupils with their achievements on entry to the school can the performance of the school be effectively measured. I believe that to be fundamental logic, and I do not understand why the Government do not move on it. Various studies have been published in support of that approach. The AMA has been carrying out a study of GCSE results. Its first report was published in 1992. The Audit Commission has published a report on post-16 examinations, entitled Two Bs or Not two Bs. Sir Claus Moser's National Commission on Education has published a paper dealing with the measurement of added value in schools. The Government appear to have accepted that showing added value, rather than simply raw results, is important. My argument is that, surely, Ministers should be willing to accept the principles behind the amendments, even though they may not accept the precise way in which they are written. If they do that, we will be delighted.
However, I fear that Ministers are unlikely to accept the principle of including information about the background of pupils, including socio-economic factors such as gender. Yet studies such as those I have referred to reveal that those factors are significant. Girls tend to out-perform boys. If that is not taken into account a girls' school will appear to out-perform a similar boys' school. If parents are to benefit from the information being provided, the information must contain useful data. Raw results alone cannot do it. I believe that these amendments will help to improve significantly the quality of information provided.
I am very disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity tonight to begin building some kind of consensus on what is an important issue. As she has not done so, I fear that as the debate goes on, perhaps in increasingly tough terms, the casualties of the process will be the children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities and schools secure adequate support for parents in their role as a young child's first teacher.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move the amendment to enable my noble friend to speak.
I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am told that I am in order in speaking to this amendment, although it was grouped earlier. I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding. I could not speak to it with the whole group because I had already spoken to Amendment No. 10.
1118
I have received a letter from a representative of Parent Network, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred. That representative says:
"I work with the charity, Parent Network, which is one of the groups lobbying for the parents' amendment. Parent Network runs a unique parent-led programme helping parents to relate better with their children and to be more effective at supporting their learning. I feel that the addition of the clause making it a duty of the schools and authorities 'to ensure adequate support for parents as their child's first teacher' will recognise our importance as parents and make it easier for all kinds of schemes to increase parental involvement in their children's education to flourish".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford will remember that when we were considering the Further and Higher Education Bill we were both very anxious to make it easier for adults to be with their children in primary schools, to learn with them and to help them. That helps parents to encourage their children at home. I support the amendment. I do not suppose that there will be another response to it, but I hope that the Government may feel more inclined to be sympathetic to it next time around.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 15 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 17:
Divide Clause 1 into two clauses, the first (General duty of Secretary of State) to consist of subsection (1) and the second (Duty in the case of primary, secondary and further education) to consist of subsections (2) and (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Public enquiry into schools in Wale.s.
—(1) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State shall establish an enquiry into the future development and direction of education in schools in Wales.
(2) No order may be made under section 3(1) below to make provision for the establishment of the Schools Funding Council for Wales, or otherwise in connection thereto, before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament the report of the enquiry established under this section.
(3) In particular such an enquiry shall consider—

(a) the standards of education provided by schools in Wales;

(b) the position of Welsh language education in schools in Wales; and

(c) the position of the Welsh Language Board and other institutions concerned with education in Wales.

(4) The Secretary of State shall appoint to chair the enquiry an independent person who has experience of, or who has shown capacity in, schools in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been tabled in response to a number of letters received from people in Wales whose judgment in education matters I respect. Moreover, I believe that its main thrust will be acceptable to the Welsh Joint Education Committee which has served Welsh education well for over 40 years. There is strong awareness in educational circles in Wales that, as a result of major changes introduced by Education Acts since 1988 and other legislation, including this hugely

1119
important Bill, if implemented, and the Welsh Language Bill, if implemented, and the likely outcome of the proposal to reorganise Welsh local government 1994–95, the education system is entering a critical phase of its history. There have been gains and losses since 1988 on which one could particularise if time were available. But of all the measures of the past eight years it is this important Bill, with its provisions for a schools funding council, that potentially poses the greatest single threat to the Welsh education system as we have known it and to the democratic accountability of its institutions.
It is only too glaringly obvious from the speeches of Welsh Office Ministers and their actions that they are determined to create a climate in Wales that will encourage enough schools to opt out of LEA control to justify the setting up of an unelected Welsh schools funding council at an early stage. As a result, the role of local education authorities, who, after all, are the representative voice of a community, will be diminished and eventually possibly silenced.
Welsh Office Ministers speak of opting out with a sense almost of inevitability. In their speeches they admit to no doubts and see no problems. But educationalists in Wales fear that Ministers may be blind to the wider picture and the possibly damaging implications for the Welsh educational system and for democratic accountability. The decision as to when the Welsh schools funding council is to be established has not yet been taken, but we are strongly persuaded that before the decision is taken many questions will need to be objectively examined and answered.
We have not had this debate in Wales. The questions that come to mind—some of them are referred to in the amendment—are these. What are the needs of Welsh education during the next decade and the early part of the next century? What are the alleged defects of the Welsh LEAs, Welsh schools and the standards of Welsh education? What would be the relationship between the school and the community which it serves?
The proposed schools funding council is an unelected quango answerable to Ministers and civil servants, whereas the elected LEAs are answerable to their own electorates as well as, eventually, to Ministers. But how, where and upon what terms are these very different bodies to co-operate constructively in Wales? Then there is the role of the Welsh Language Board. Ministers have addressed us with some eloquence about what they describe as the key role of the board in education. But there is not a single reference to the Welsh Language Board in the Bill. We should like to know what in practice will be the relationship between the Welsh Language Board, the LEAs and the funding councils. In addition, what will be the role of the pragmatic WJEC following Welsh local government reorganisation in 1994–95? We also question whether the Welsh Office is right to dismantle the Welsh Education Development Committee, which has its origins in the WJEC.
The answers to those questions are far from clear and no doubt there are many other unanswered questions which call for an objective examination
1120
before the Schools Funding Council for Wales is ever set up. I ask the noble Viscount whether it would not be prudent for the Welsh Office to set up an independent inquiry to reach a view on how matters stand and to assess the implications of these proposals, the proposals in the Welsh Language Bill and the local government reorganisation proposals. Would that not be a sensible approach? Such an inquiry would reduce the scope for conflict later and there could be no justification for criticising the legislators for having rushed into this legislation. I hope very much that the broad concept embodied in the amendment is acceptable.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 31. I have referred to the role of the Welsh Language Board in the field of education although, as of now, it is imprecise. We are told by Ministers that the Welsh Language Board will have a shared responsibility with the educational bodies for the position of the Welsh language in the education system. If this Bill is implemented as it stands, one of the most important institutional differences henceforth between the systems in England and in Wales will be the board's overview of the position of the Welsh language in the schools of Wales and in the education system generally and the board's right to require all schools and educational bodies to produce a language plan for its approval.
We have been told by Ministers that there will be a close working relationship between the board, the funding councils and the curriculum authority. I am almost certain that this was confirmed by the noble Viscount in Committee. But, surely, this relationship should merit a mention in this hugely important Education Bill. I suggest that the least we can expect is a statutory duty on the educational bodies to provide information if it is needed and requested by the Welsh Language Board. After all, an educational body might be out of sympathy with the board and might be tempted to ignore its request for information. It is to be hoped that that would be rare, but it could happen. As it is foreseeable, we suggest that it would be helpful if the duty was spelt out in the Bill as the board would not be able to rely on a non-existent duty.
I am conscious that here I am returning to a point which we made in the course of debate in Committee on the Welsh Language Bill. I hope, however, that the noble Viscount will see that Amendment No. 31 addresses an important omission from this Bill and from the Welsh Language Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I very much support both these amendments. I wish that there had been a separate Education Bill for Wales. If there is one subject in Wales that enjoys more interest than any other it is education. It is much more important in the Welsh people's view than devolution or anything else.
So often we have heard in Wales that it is our education system that has been the passport from poverty to opportunity. It is right to say that in 1889 we had the Welsh Intermediate Education Act that went through both Houses. It was moved by a predecessor of mine as Liberal MP for Montgomery, a man called Stuart Rendel, thereafter a Member of

1121
this House, and, incidentally, a great-uncle of the man who recently won the Newbury by-election. That introduced into Wales a system of education at the intermediate level before the English had such a system. As the noble Viscount knows, Welsh society is extremely egalitarian. There has been a much greater consensus about education in Wales than there has been in England. I remember being able to say, when I was a Member of another place in 1963, that my county had, proportionately, a higher entry of university undergraduates than any other county in England and Wales. I exclude Scotland, of course.
In my experience all parties have co-operated extremely well. Education was the top priority. I believe it is true that whatever it achieved in housing and in other directions, the greatest achievement of Welsh local government was in the sphere of education. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has emphasised the importance of consensus in education. As the noble Viscount knows, there is a great deal of consensus in Wales among Members of all parties; his own, as well as mine, the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru as to what is necessary in education. One should not throw over lightly the contribution of the Welsh education authorities.
With two particular Acts affecting education in Wales which do not affect England, it is this particular Bill that affects both countries. The Welsh Language Bill has already gone through this House and the reform of local government in Wales is proposed for next year. They are going to have a profound influence on our education system. Therefore, there is a very considerable case for an inquiry at this stage to look at the achievements of Welsh education in the past and at the enthusiasm or lack of it for opt-outs.
As the noble Viscount knows, there are very few private schools in Wales. There is no enthusiasm for opting out. Wales is very much a classless society. People of all backgrounds send their children to state schools. They have a common interest in ensuring that those state schools are of the highest possible quality. At this stage for Wales I believe that it is very important to have an inquiry which need not take very long. It can determine which is the best way forward and observe the distinctions between Welsh and English society.
Apart from England, Wales is the oldest part of the United Kingdom. It has a different cultural background; it is a bilingual society and there are many differences from England. By and large in Wales we have the right balance between education for livelihood and education for life. We should not throw that over very easily.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, since I have been mentioned, perhaps I may say that I very much admired the education system in Wales in my time. I thought that on the whole the local authorities were better at it than those in England. However, I ask the two noble Lords who have just spoken: can they put their hands on their hearts and say that the time taken teaching Welsh children the Welsh language really is in their interests in the kind of world in which they have to earn their living?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked a question, and presumably before I sat down. I answer absolutely in the affirmative. To have a bilingual and bi-cultural background is an immense advantage in the modern world. It does not in any way prevent people from being good Europeans or good internationalists. It gets people used to the idea that there is more than one culture in the world. The rivulet of Welsh culture as a part of the European river is very important. It enriches the background of life.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, does not one have to go to Patagonia to find anyone else who speaks Welsh?
Baroness White: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is a little out of date as regards his knowledge of Welsh. Unfortunately he was unable to be with us when we were discussing the Welsh Language Bill. I suggest that he studies some of the discussions which took place in connection with that legislation which has now passed to the other place.
I do not wish to make a real speech this evening out of consideration for the business of the House and the slow pace at which we are proceeding through this monstrous Bill. I am talking of its physical characteristics. I wish sincerely to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. We shall he put out very much indeed if adequate consideration were not given to the needs of Wales if we are going to have the Welsh Funding Council as proposed in the Bill, but without adequate previous investigation, consideration and consultation.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, let me begin by saying that this Government fully recognise the distinctive educational culture in Wales and have a good record in demonstrating their willingness, and indeed eagerness, to preserve that culture and identity. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has argued for a public inquiry into the future development and direction of education in schools in Wales.
Perhaps I may turn to the first area to which this proposed inquiry is to give particular consideration; the standards of education provided by schools in Wales. No one can challenge this Government's commitment to raise standards in our schools and to ensure that we have measures in place to monitor those standards.
It might be helpful to the noble Lord if I remind him of the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 which transformed arrangements for the inspection of schools. In future, all maintained schools will have a full inspection every five years by a team of registered independent inspectors, leading to a published report not only on the educational standards at the school, but also the quality of education, the spiritual, moral, cultural and social developments of pupils at the school, and also the financial management of the school.
The new inspection system will be overseen and organised by the new and independent office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales (HMCI for short). The chief inspector has a general duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about the quality

1123
of education provided by schools in Wales and the educational standards achieved in those schools, and is also required to make an annual report on these matters to the Secretary of State, who in turn is obliged to lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament. The office of the Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales is an independent department and the chief inspector exercises his functions in an impartial manner.
So, the Government have already gone much further than the one-off inquiry into educational standards proposed by this new clause: we have made provision for an on-going cycle of independent inspection of every school in Wales, and for an annual report to Parliament by the independent Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales on the quality of education and standards achieved by schools in Wales.
I come now to the question of Welsh language education. There is no doubt about the position of Welsh language education in schools in Wales. It is now a central part of our education system. Welsh has a place in the statutory curriculum for all pupils in Wales between the ages of five and 16 (with only a very few exceptions). But the curriculum in Wales does not only rely on the Welsh language to reflect our distinctive culture and heritage. Half of the subjects studied as part of the national curriculum now come within separate orders which are specific to Wales. All of the national curriculum (with the exception of English) can, of course, be studied and assessed through the medium of Welsh.
Recent years have seen a significant expansion of Welsh medium education in Wales. Welsh is used as the main medium of instruction in some 19 per cent. of secondary schools and over 25 per cent. of primary schools in Wales. The Government have been greatly encouraged by this growth in Welsh medium education and are keen to see it continue.
This Bill also provides for the establishment of the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales—to be known by its Welsh acronym, ACAC—and which will have the central role in advising the Secretary of State on all aspects of the curriculum in Wales.
The Welsh language will have a very important place at the heart of the new organisation. ACAC will not only be responsible for advising on Welsh in the national curriculum and the assessment of Welsh at all key stages and at A-level, but it will also have a specialist Welsh department. This new department will build on the excellent work undertaken by the Welsh Joint Education Committee and others in ensuring an adequate range of classroom materials for Welsh medium schools. it will strengthen the position of the language in the classroom and ensure resources are employed efficiently and effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the role of the LEAs. Their role has been changing over a number of years, principally through the introduction of local management of schools. This Education Bill does not weaken or abolish LEAs, although clearly the role of the LEAs in Wales will evolve as more and more schools decide to leave their control and become
1124
grant-maintained. We should remember that it is the votes of parents that will determine how the grant-maintained sector develops in Wales. So it is parental ballots that will be the driving force behind any further change to the role of the LEAs, and not the provisions in the Bill to establish the Schools Funding Council for Wales. If the SFCW is established, we expect it to work alongside the LEA-maintained sector in co-operation and collaboration with the LEAs to secure the best education in the interests of pupils. Welsh language education can only benefit from these developments and that is very good news for pupils, parents and teachers.
Let us look now at the position of the Welsh Language Board. It was not so long ago that your Lordships considered the Welsh Language Bill and in particular the statutory functions of the Welsh Language Board in respect of education. I recall that there was fairly extensive debate on that issue and I believed that the position of the board had been made clear in that context.
The Welsh Language Board will have a particularly key role with regard to the provision of Welsh medium education in future.
Welsh medium education will be one of the matters to be included in Welsh language schemes which public bodies will be required to prepare and submit to the board for approval. The duty to prepare Welsh language schemes covering Welsh medium schools will fall to individual LEAs. A similar duty will be placed upon the Schools Funding Council for Wales, if it is established. All such schemes will have to have regard to the board's guidelines and the board will have, as one of its strategic priorities, the development of expertise and guidance on educational matters.
The Welsh Language Board will also have an advisory role in respect of education. The board will take on responsibility currently exercised by the Welsh Language Education Development Committee to take a broad overview of the Welsh language in all phases of education.
That will not be achieved overnight. The Welsh Language Board has a significant task before it. I am sure that, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, it is a task that the board will tackle with relish and enthusiasm. The board will require considerable assistance and co-operation. But I am sure that it will not require a public inquiry to establish its position. That will be done in the context of the Welsh Language Bill and the success of its actions.
The new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, calls for a public inquiry which would not further the cause of education in Wales and would generate words rather than action. Such a public inquiry is unnecessary. We have clearly set the agenda for schools in Wales. It is an agenda which will improve standards and enhance still further the reputation of the education system in Wales. We now want to get on and deliver that agenda. I hope that your Lordships will agree and reject the new clause.
I shall deal now with the noble Lord's other amendment in relation to Wales, Amendment No. 31. Education is at the heart of the Government's Welsh

1125
language policy. The Secretary of State for Wales has therefore made it clear that education will feature prominently among the board's responsibilities. It will be essential for the board to have close working relationships with the other bodies involved in the education service in Wales. This will certainly involve any schools funding council for Wales, but the board will need also to work closely with LEAs and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales.
The responsibilities of the Welsh Language Board are not, however, restricted to education. The provision of information to the board is therefore a matter to be considered in relation to the board's dealings with all public sector bodies. That wider question is of course a matter to be considered in the context of the Welsh Language Bill which is now being considered in another place. That was also a matter that we discussed when that Bill came before this House.
In our discussions in Committee on 4th February (Hansard col. 363) I explained that the Secretary of State would be able to stand behind the board in support of any request it makes for information. That will be the position in relation to education just as it will in all the other areas in which the board will be active.
The provisions of Clause 6 and the duty to provide information concentrate in any case upon those organisations which will have statutory responsibility for the provision of education. The Welsh Language Board will have an important contribution to make but will not carry that direct responsibility. That does not mean that the board will not be able to obtain the information it will require to carry out its remit effectively, but the Bill does not need to be amended in order that it may do so.
It is not necessary to place bodies under a duty to provide information to the board. The Secretary of State will, in particular, be able to make clear in his policy guidance to each of those bodies that he expects them to co-operate closely and to exchange information as appropriate. The need to ensure the close working relationship between the bodies involved in the delivery of education can, therefore, be achieved without amending the Bill in that way.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister the question that I asked in Committee. How many schools in Wales have opted out and how many are eligible to opt out? That, with great respect, is not an idle question. The whole of the Minister's speech is based on the Government's assumption that opting out is the best way of progressing. The Government are entitled to that view. We are entitled to know how successful that has been in Wales. If it has not been successful—and the Minister may remember the figures that he gave on the previous occasion—it will be wise for the Government to have second thoughts about what they are doing in Wales.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, there are seven GM schools in operation out of an eligible 2,000. As I said tonight and in Committee, all that the Bill does is to give the right to parents to establish grant-maintained
1126
schools if they so wish. I also said that the Government respect and acknowledge the distinct difference in the educational culture in Wales and in England. It may well be that the number does not rise significantly. We believe that it will, but we are going to give parents that choice. We do not believe that parents in Wales should have any less choice in this matter than parents in England. The relationship between the LEAs, schools and parents in Wales is different compared to the relationship in England. I have reiterated that point several times. We believe in that difference, but we also believe that parents in Wales must have the same right as parents in England.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his response. His reply to my noble friend speaks for itself. Obviously the Minister's response must be studied with some care—and it will be studied in the Principality.
I am sure that we were right to raise the need for an inquiry into the state of Welsh education. I deeply regret that the Government have not taken heed of the amendment; but then it is not fashionable for the Welsh Office to accept amendments from Wales. However, I am sure that in due course the Welsh education authorities will bring pressure to bear on the Government to establish an independent inquiry.
The Minister dealt in detail with subsection (3) of the amendment. We are not convinced that to privatise the schools inspectorate in Wales is in the interests of Wales. The Minister will know that there was in Wales a strong feeling that, as the inspectorate had an unmatched record of service to Wales, we should not have followed the lead of the Department for Education but should have retained the inspectorate. It had a record of maintaining Welsh educational standards, which were second to none.
As regards subsection (3) (c) the Minister missed the point. His emphasis throughout has been that the board has a special role to play in the field of Welsh education. I could quote from speeches but I shall not do so. I say merely that it is all very well for Ministers to use high-sounding language to describe the relationship between the board and the educational bodies, but to rely on a language scheme alone to resolve the difficulties which are identifiable is in our view mistaken.
I also regret that the Minister was unable even to offer that the department will further consider Amendment No. 31.
We believe that there is a gap in the Welsh Language Bill which should be addressed. We urge the noble Viscount to convey that message to Ministers at the Welsh Office. I do not believe that I can take the matter further except to say in reply to the noble Viscount that parents in Wales are demanding that their children should have access to the Welsh language and the culture which is associated with it. That is partly in order to give children a sense of identity and also because parents are concerned that the children should have access to the inheritance which they as parents were often denied.
I cannot take the matter further. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me on both amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Funding Agency for Schools]:
9.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert:
('( ) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 26. When I reply to the debate, I shall respond to other noble Lords on the amendments which will be taken in this group. As noble Lords will recognise, the amendments deal primarily with representation on the Funding Agency for Schools.
In Committee I made clear—and I can only repeat —that members will be appointed by the Secretary of State for their individual skills, talents and expertise. We want to retain maximum flexibility and rule nobody out. But there is one exception and that is in respect of the voluntary sector—the Churches. The Churches retain a direct interest in schools that become grant-maintained because of their role in appointing governors to those schools. I hope the House will welcome two amendments in this group which represent the Government's response to the debate during Committee stage as prompted by the right reverend Prelate on the issue of representation on the Funding Agency for Schools. It might be helpful if I set out briefly the background for each.
As regards Amendment No. 19, the right reverend Prelate tabled an amendment at Committee stage which would have required the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including on the Funding Agency for Schools a person or persons with experience of the voluntary sector. I accepted in principle that amendment and agreed to bring an amendment before this House which gave effect to the spirit of the right reverend Prelate's concerns. I trust that he, and the rest of the House, will agree that Amendment No. 19 does just that. It might be wise for me just to stress that this does not amount to a right on the part of the voluntary sector to nominate to a place on the funding authority.
During Committee, the right reverend Prelate also made clear that he saw it as essential that the voluntary sector should be consulted on the membership of the Funding Agency for Schools. I said that we would be bringing forward an amendment which would make clear that the Secretary of State would have to consult bodies representative of those who appoint foundation governors—both of LEA-maintained voluntary schools and of ex-voluntary GM schools.
We have considered very seriously representation from those who wanted us to name the two principal bodies—the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service—on the face of the Bill. But we felt it wiser to go further
1128
than that and make provision for any successor body, or even just a change of name, of either of those 1 have just named. Hence Amendment No. 21 is in the form in which it appears on the Marshalled List. I should make absolutely clear to the House and give an assurance that in our view the body which fits the definition in subsection (a) is the Church of England General Synod Board of Education; and the body which fits the definition in subsection (b) is the Catholic Education Service.
The other two government amendments, Nos. 21 and 26, in this group concern SEN. I can assure the House that these amendments do not change the sense of the amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady David, on which the House divided during Committee, which I am sure the noble Baroness will remember. These government amendments remove the phrase "special educational needs" for the simple reason that it is not a defined expression within the context of the Bill, except to the extent that it relates to the needs of a particular child. That is an all-embracing definition which I hope the House will be content to accept. I also hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurance that we are in no way trying to change the sense or the meaning of the original amendment that she moved in Committee. As I said, I shall deal with the other amendments tabled in the names of other noble Lords at the end of the debate. But, in the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before dealing with the amendments tabled in my name, perhaps I may briefly address some of the Minister's comments. I turn first to Amendment No. 19. I should like to be absolutely clear on the matter. Presumably it means that every time the Secretary of State needs to appoint a member to the Funding Agency for Schools he will consult the Churches. However, can we have the position made absolutely clear in the Minister's summing-up? Secondly, on behalf of my noble friend Lady David, I should like to say that Amendments Nos. 21 and 26 are welcome. On my reading, they do indeed accept the consequences of the Government's defeat in Committee.
I should like now to address my remarks to Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 which are tabled in may name. Their purpose is to ensure representation on the funding authorities for those with experience of local education authorities. There are good reasons for ensuring that, in addition to the qualifications laid down in the Bill, the funding authorities have local authority representatives on them. Such people will have understanding not just of the strategic issues of funding schools and providing sufficient school places, but also of the local issues to which elected members must necessarily address themselves when schools are open, closed or have significant changes to their character.
Under the Bill, local education authorities will continue making provision for grant-maintained schools for many years to come. At the very least, they will be providing transport and welfare benefits as well as statementing pupils with special educational needs. In those circumstances, it seems only reasonable that there is a link between the funding authorities and the

1129
local education authorities. That can best be provided by a member of the funding authority who has experience of local authority provision as a serving member of an LEA. The funding authorities are currently seen as arms of the Secretary of State. The appointment to them of people who have served in an elected capacity in a similar role can only improve the funding authorities' limited, democratic legitimacy.
Perhaps I may turn now to Amendments Nos. 23 and 27 which are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Lockwood. Their purpose is to put a duty on funding authorities to promote equal opportunities in the exercise of. their functions. In exercising their duty to provide sufficient school places, funding authorities must have regard to the promotion of equal opportunities good practice. With schools attaining grant-maintained status in order to enlarge their intakes and to avoid re-organisation plans, they have to take into account equal opportunity provision for boys and girls in the different types of schools.
In a recent judgment in the case of Regina v. Birmingham City Council ex parte, the Equal Opportunities Commission illustrates the problem that can arise in such circumstances. In that case, Lord Justice Neill ruled that the Birmingham local education authority had to take into account grant-maintained grammar school places when ensuring that there was equal access for boys and girls to grammar school places. Presumably the funding authority will have to take account of similar considerations. Such considerations should be borne in mind regarding the racial make-up of catchment areas and equal opportunity considerations for children of all racial backgrounds.
A particular example of that is a small urban local education authority where one secondary school, a Church of England mixed school, has opted out. There is a rising Bangladeshi population in that authority which wishes to have single-sex education for its children, but not in a Church of England or Roman Catholic school. But, because it is a small LEA, the Secretary of State has already made an order under Clause 10(1) (a) that enables the funding authority to share with the local education authority the responsibility for securing sufficient school places.
The power of the funding authority is limited to that of opening a new school—that might not be justified given that the neighbouring local education authority maintained county schools could increase their rolls—or of persuading the Church of England school to increase its size. The latter solution would not have the support of the Bangladeshi Moslem parent. Resolving such issues will require the wisdom of Solomon from the funding authority and it would help if the authority had members with particular expertise and experience of such equal opportunities issues. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I wish briefly to underscore what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said about Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 which are also in my name. These are amendments that make practical sense. They are not a proposal for an overwhelming LEA presence in the funding agency: merely for a strengthening of the expertise in areas
1130
every bit as relevant as those at present on the face of the Bill. Without it one of the key players in school planning may be deficient in knowledge of how much of that planning actually works on the ground. There is a tendency to undervalue skills in all these areas of education and local government. They are not all straightforward and it does help to know how the other partner in the enterprise works. In any case the Secretary of State has only to have "regard to the desirability" of including one or more such people. I hope the Government will accept the merit of these amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to speak first on Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 which are drafted in a very broad and rather vague way and do not really convey the intention that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has expressed. As I understood him, he wants to include people who have had service on local education authorities. The noble Earl said he wanted to include people with expertise in relation to those authorities. These amendments of course go much wider and would refer to, for example, all Members of Parliament who have had experience of local authorities. They cannot avoid that. Most clergy have had such experience. Most parents have had such experience. With great respect to the noble Lord and the noble Earl, I must tell them that their amendment does not convey what they want and is much too wide, I suggest, to be put in the Bill as it is.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 23 and 27 dealing with equal opportunities, we have already discussed the principle of that on Amendment No. 10. We have been debating for four and a half hours and we are still only about one-eighth of the way through the amendments. We have 100 more amendments on the groupings list for tonight and I make a plea to noble Lords opposite to confine themselves to the issues that they really feel should be decided. Above all, let us try to keep our speeches short.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for reopening subjects, I wish primarily to direct my remarks to the two amendments to which my name is added. Before I discuss those amendments I must say I welcome the fact that the Government have tidied up provisions that were accepted in Committee on the subject of special educational needs. That is an important area. I am glad that the Government have accepted there is a need in that area that should be met. I congratulate the Government on their acceptance of that need. That is a positive move.
The amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is reasonable. I believe the drafting of it may be suspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, but there must be a strong case for appointing someone with the kind of experience that has been mentioned. Time and time again the Government have stated that that part of the educational system will exist for the foreseeable future and probably for all time. Therefore it makes sense to appoint people with the kind of expertise that has been referred to.

1131
We may have discussed previously the amendments to which I have added my name, but this issue should be covered by the Bill somewhere. Equal opportunities cover such a wide range of areas and requires a wide range of expertise. Surely it should be a duty to include such expertise for the effective functioning of those bodies. I shall not reiterate the arguments that have been made previously. However, there may be cases where the needs of ethnic minorities are not understood. Expertise must be brought in. If we include provision on the face of the Bill, we guarantee that.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he said about Amendment No. 21. I understand that it is purely a tidying up exercise and that the principle that was discussed at Committee stage has been accepted.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to make three points. First, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I want to celebrate the fact that we have now reached Clause 2. In the five hours that we have been discussing Clause 1—I am a little slow at arithmetic—I have calculated if we continue at this rate and reach Clause 78 before we rise, we shall be sitting for 16 days, night and day. As it is 10th June today, I ought to give notice that I have an engagement on 26th June and may therefore have to leave before the end.
Secondly, I should like to express my warm gratitude to the Government for their Amendments Nos. 19 and 22, which fulfil the undertaking which the noble Lord gave at Committee stage. They entirely meet the point that we pressed. There has been a historic partnership between Church and state in the provision of education. We do not wish for a privileged position, but we wish that partnership to continue. The amendments give expression in structural terms to that continuing working together.
Thirdly, the fact that the Government have accepted the amendments to which I spoke at Committee stage does not mean that I do not support other amendments dealing with the same clause. I hope that the Government will accept if not the words at least the spirit of Amendment No. 20. Because the Church and state have been in partnership, I hope that such partnership will continue, with local government and national authorities as well as with the Church.
For those reasons, I wish to support at least the spirit behind Amendment No. 20. It is not that I am against Amendment No. 23 and other amendments in the group, but they raise other principles which would take us into different territory.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his intervention and particularly for his advice to the whole House that we try to speed up our proceedings this evening. I take his particular point about the wording of Amendment No. 20. Perhaps I may give a personal example. I
1132
certainly have experience of local education authorities, having served on one; but whether I have expertise in local education authorities is entirely another matter.
I shall deal first with the various questions raised in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. In answer to his first question as to whether we would consult the Churches every time, the answer is yes. I hope that he is satisfied with that assurance.
Turning then to the noble Lord's queries relating to his own amendments, Amendments Nos. 23 and 27, on promoting equal opportunities, the funding authorities will not be able to act in a way which constitutes sex discrimination. First, as employers the funding authorities would in any event be subject to the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which prohibits sex discrimination against applicants for employment or employees. Secondly, Schedule 18 provides for it to be unlawful for the funding authorities in carrying out their functions under the Education Act to do anything which constitutes sex discrimination. We feel that that should be quite sufficient and that the noble Lord's amendments are therefore not necessary and not appropriate at this point in the Bill.
Turning to representation, particularly appointing those with expertise, experience, or whatever, of local authorities, as I think we all agree, these arguments have been well trodden paths at Committee stage. I have no doubt that any noble Lords in the House could suggest any number of individuals who would fit the criteria suggested by two of the amendments, either who have experience of LEAs or who would make a valued and valid contribution to the work of either of the funding authorities.
I have to say that we, or rather the Department of Education and my right honourable friend, would be more than happy to take delivery of those suggestions at any time. But let us remember what the funding authority's main function will be: that is, the calculation and payment of grants to grantmaintained schools. Obviously—and I wish to add this—it will always be open to the funding authorities to establish committees to look at certain discrete functions that seem appropriate. In doing so, they will be able to have on those committees any individuals with expertise as necessary, including experience of LEAs, if the matter under consideration warrants it. I certainly suspect that if each of us here made up a potential list of members, each list would be different, and each one would have a variety of different priorities.
I should just like to confirm that we believe that the provisions, as we have them, give my right honourable friend the necessary scope to appoint members with all the relevant experience in all pertinent areas and to appoint a group of individuals who will be able to take on this important task with vigour, enthusiasm and with the relevant experience and knowledge. I therefore do not consider these amendments necessary and I hope that when we come to them in due course the noble Lord will not therefore feel it necessary to press them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("provision to meet") and insert ("providing for children with").
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Before appointing any member of the agency the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) a body appearing to him to be representative of the Church of England, and

(b) a body appearing to him to be representative of the Roman Catholic Church,

in matters relating to the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Within a year of an order being made under section 10(1) (b) below the agency shall ensure that the local education authority area named in the order is covered by a regional committee established under paragraph 8A of Schedule I to this Act after consultation with such persons and organisations as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment again deals with the question of the need to have in positions of control people with some degree of local knowledge. The amendment refers to the situation which could develop where there are 75 per cent. opted out or 75 per cent. grant-maintained schools. It seems rational to say that no central body will have the detailed local knowledge necessary to deal with those schools in large numbers in opted out areas. What is needed is some kind of regional committee. It is for that reason that we put the amendment forward. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, we agree with the thrust of the amendment. We too think that it is entirely reasonable that there should be some local and regional knowledge available and therefore we support these amendments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am amazed by the brevity of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in moving the amendment. Perhaps I may briefly respond. I think we made it clear in the White Paper that we did not want to tie ourselves and the funding authorities down to any particular model for a regional network—that is certainly reflected in the Bill. We must have flexibility over when, where—and indeed if—a regional presence is needed.
I should just like to spell out exactly what we mean by a regional presence. Much will depend on where and at what rate the grant-maintained sector expands. There is certainly no question of there being a permanent FAS office in every LEA, or even in every stage 2 LEA or even in every stage 3 LEA. We do not believe that we need to replicate LEAs, grant-maintained schools do not need the same bureaucratic structure—they are autonomous self-governing schools and that is what they voted for.
But I think the House would agree that it might sometimes be appropriate—and I am sure the noble Baroness would agree—for an element of the FAS to be on hand locally. For instance, annual statistical
1134
returns might reveal either a shortage or a surplus of school places in a specific LEA area or more generally in an area including several LEAs. Statistical returns are not always enough to make a decision about a proposed course of action to deal with an apparent problem; options have to be weighed up and compared, disadvantages considered, cost implications balanced, and so on. In that sort of situation it would be practical for the FAS to have a local presence for say six months or even longer—even working from an office in County Hall. That is certainly the sort of arrangement I would envisage happening for stage 2 LEAs.
The approach to stage 3 LEAs would probably be slightly different. At stage 3 the LEA has no duty to secure the supply of sufficient school places; that rests solely with the FAS. The FAS also takes on a number of pupil specific functions which might—again I have to stress the word "might"—require a slightly more permanent office in any given area. But again I should say that there is no intention to have to have a local FAS officer in every particular LEA, even in every stage 3 LEA. We should like to continue to stress the need for flexibility, and would therefore prefer to say that we consider the amendments of the noble Baroness to be not only unnecessary but undesirable. I hope that the assurance that I have been able to give to the noble Baroness will be sufficient to allow her to withdraw them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the reply, which I do not find entirely satisfactory. (I am sure that he did not expect that I would.) I certainly have no intention of dividing the House. I simply emphasise again that it is highly desirable that, whoever has ultimate control—I recognise that the schools are independent but there is further control from the Secretary of State—such control should be exercised by people who genuinely understand the local issues and the local area in which they work. Having said that, however, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Schools Funding Council for Wales]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("provision to meet") and insert ("providing for children with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The funding authorities]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 176, line 16, after (" 46") insert (" 47").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the moment local authorities have compulsory purchase powers which can help them acquire land to establish or extend voluntary aided schools as well as county schools. The FAS's compulsory purchase powers, as set out in the Bill as presently drafted, are confined to schools that the FAS established itself or to the alteration of existing grant-maintained schools and do not extend to sites for new schools established by promoters. We have listened to representations from the Churches on this issue and have brought forward

1135
this government amendment which will extend the compulsory purchase powers of the FAS to acquire or enlarge sites of new grant-maintained schools established by promoters to parallel the LEA power. I should stress that any CPA served under this extended power would be subject to approval in the usual way by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as compulsory purchase powers in this Bill already are. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify this point. He said that this came about after consultation with the Churches. How far was that consultation with the Churches and how far was it with promoters of independent Christian schools? The second point is, how many schools are likely to come forward in this context, and where will the money come from?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the second question, obviously I cannot speculate. On the first question from the noble Lord, my understanding is that it has been representatives from the Churches themselves. If I am not right on that point I shall certainly write to the noble Lord to let him know whether other bodies have made representations. My understanding was that it was what we refer to as the two Churches, namely, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, that have made representations on this matter.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that he cannot speculate. But earlier today the noble Baroness the Minister was specific that we must be very clear where money is to come from for any new initiative. I would hope that the House would be informed as to where this money will come from.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot speculate on how many will come forward. As I said, in each case we need the approval of the Secretary of State. If no money is available, obviously it will not be possible. By this amendment I am not creating an open-ended commitment on the Treasury's coffers. I would be the last person to suggest doing such a thing, and the noble Lord is possibly being a little malicious. I am glad to see that possibly, at last, fiscal responsibility has finally sunk into the head of the noble Lord. I hope that such an attitude of fiscal responsibility will continue.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Funding al nursery education
The Secretary of State shall allocate resources for the funding of nursery education and the school playgroups in any area between the local authority of that area and the funding authority in proportion to the numbers of children in the area who qualify for free school meals funded by those authorities respectively.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not entirely clear whether the noble Baroness gave me the answer
1136
for which I was hoping in response to this amendment. It gave rise to some confusion because it was grouped with other amendments. Therefore I should like to ask for the opportunity to discuss this matter with the noble Baroness and officials and reserve the right to bring the amendment back at Third Reading. On that basis I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Clause 6 [Provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Responsibility for providing sufficient school places]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("10") and insert ("25").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what we are basically concerned with here, as we argued in Committee, is that 10 per cent. is a very low threshold. In fact it would not take very much for one school in a certain area to opt out and to cross the 10 per cent. threshold. It might also be that in a particular local education authority area there was one part of that area that was opt-out orientated whereas the rest of the area was not. The whole situation could be swung on that basis. Therefore we believe that 25 per cent. would be a much more appropriate and sensible ratio if this policy is to be pursued. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking to the whole grouping: Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 57, 58, 165, 166, 167, 172, 173 and 278. His was a very cursory introduction. As your Lordships will have realised, Amendment No. 37 seeks to defer the point at which the funding authority will assume some responsibility for securing the provision of school places by changing from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. the percentage of pupils required to he in grant-maintained schools before an order could be made under Clause 10.
I accept that it would be possible to choose a different percentage, but we consider that 10 per cent. is about the right point for the funding authority to assume a role in securing the provision of school places. The reason for that is that once there is a reasonable number of pupils in grant-maintained schools, it is important that mechanisms are in place to enable the system to be managed effectively. An order under Clause 10 giving joint responsibility for that task to the funding authority is not so much about taking power away from LEAs, since they retain the fundamental duty under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 to secure the provision of sufficient school places for their area, but about giving powers to the funding authority and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in relation to the management of the grant-maintained sector.
Since the LEA does not lose the Section 8 duty at the 10 per cent. trigger point, setting the trigger point at that level does not cause any problems for it. But it does put the management of the grant-maintained sector on a surer footing, which I am sure noble Lords

1137
would agree should be efficient and effective. The existing powers of the Secretary of State are limited with regard to any overall planning and are not sufficient to cope with a rapidly expanding GM sector.
There are no guarantees that the governors of individual GM schools will co-operate to bring forward proposals to provide additional places or to remove the surplus provision where that is necessary. Indeed, in many instances it may be difficult for such co-operation to take place in the absence of an over-arching body. We cannot allow LEAs to exercise that function in respect of GM schools when parents have taken a democratic decision to remove the schools from the jurisdiction of the local education authority. Therefore nothing is gained by raising the trigger point from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. In fact, it would only continue to disadvantage the LEA-maintained sector since it would defer the introduction of the funding authority's powers for the overall planning of the GM sector and the activation of the Secretary of State's powers to direct the funding authority to remove surplus provision in the grant-maintained sector. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Judd, not to press the amendment or, if he should, that it should be rejected.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe that history will be on our side and will demonstrate the wisdom of the amendment, but I do not see that there is much point in pursuing it tonight. I believe the Minister is wrong; I believe that we are right. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Responsibility for providing sufficient school places]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Primacy of child's welfare
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, and the governing bodies of grant maintained and voluntary schools in the exercise of 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 Lords, this is an amendment which we would like to have included on the face of the Bill simply to stress what must seem obvious to most Members of this House; that is, a determination to assert that the welfare of the child shall always be the primary consideration and that it will not be unnecessarily restricted by financial considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it may surprise your Lordships to hear me say that this is an amendment which deserves some consideration from the Government. I have been looking at the Education Act 1944 and I cannot see anything equivalent to Amendment No. 40 in that Act. I do not have all the education Acts with which we have dealt during the
1138
past 14 years since I became a Member of your Lordships' House, but I do not remember that matter being specifically stated.
The measure needs to be stated and no harm can be done by doing so. It may be slightly over-zealous. However, it would not be a bad thing for the Secretary of State and others mentioned in the amendment to be reminded that the welfare of the child shall be "a primary consideration"; it is "a" factor, not necessarily the dominant one in every case. The collective welfare of all the children in a school may be important, but something on the lines of the amendment may not be a bad thing. I await with interest what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to say that I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I rise to say that in the child support Act we spent a long time discussing a similar amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor finally generously agreed to include it. It has made that Act more acceptable than it would otherwise have been.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly address Amendment No. 116A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 40. It is a probing amendment for local education and child protection resources.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, gave an assurance at an earlier stage of the Bill that grant-maintained schools would have to comply with the relevant sections of the Children Act he dealt with only one side of our concern. There are cases in which local education authorities contend that they have no responsibility in respect of grant-maintained schools. One example is Birmingham, which has withdrawn from this sector the services of its educational welfare officer—a most retrograde step in the field of child protection that I fear may become part of a broader national trend. Though it is a probing amendment, we seek reassurance, and preferably guidance, on measures that may be taken to deal with this issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the education system aims to provide for the educational needs of all children. It is not appropriate for the Bill to extend the role of the education system to embrace all aspects of children's welfare. Children's welfare is already fully covered by the provisions of the Children Act which deals with parental responsibility, care orders, fostering etc. The education service, and the current Bill, is predominantly concerned with meeting children's educational needs. The Education Bill includes provisions to ensure that parents play an active part in choices about children's education. This autumn the department will be issuing a revised and updated Parent's Charter setting out the many ways in which parents can work as active partners with schools to get the best education for their children. In that sense we are very concerned about meeting children's needs.
The Government are committed to ensuring that parents have all the information they want and need about their children's education. This includes the

1139
right to choose the appropriate school and, beyond 16, to choose the best course of education or training at school or college. Where a child has special educational needs the child has a right to education to meet those needs, and the current Bill contains important changes which will benefit such children and their parents. Improvements are being made in the way appeals are made. Appeal committees on admission and expulsion cases will include independent members as well as those chosen by the local council or governors. This will ensure that parents get a fair and independent hearing of their child's case. Parents also have the right to complain if they believe that their child is not being taught the national curriculum as required. They can ask for the school's support in querying examination results which seem not to do justice to their child's ability. These rights all centre on the best interests of the child.
Given what is already in place, I believe that these amendments are inappropriate. I hope therefore that in due course the noble Baronesses will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to turn briefly to Amendment No. 116A. In moving it, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that it was a probing amendment. We also believe this amendment to be unnecessary. Heads of grant-maintained schools have already been notified that the Secretary of State intends by order to make grant-maintained schools subject to the provisions of Sections 27 and 47 of the Children Act. These sections require other agencies, including local education authorities, to co-operate with local authorities in the exercise of their child protection functions. When the order is made we shall write again to heads of GM schools. Detailed guidance on the implementation of child protection procedures is given in Working Together under the Children Act 1989 and DFE Circular 4/88 Working together for the protection of children from abuse: procedures within the education service of July 1988. We shall remind heads that this guidance is available when we write to them.
I hope that that assurance and explanation will persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I should like to press for the inclusion in the Bill of a reference to the welfare of the child.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble Baroness that we are at Report stage. The general convention at this stage is that no one other than the mover of the amendment should speak after the Minister has responded unless someone wishes to ask a question for elucidation.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I apologise. I was about to ask a question but I came to it in a rather convoluted way. I shall sit down.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I believe he has slightly misunderstood what the amendment is about. It is not a matter of looking at the welfare of the child in all its aspects; it is the welfare of the child in relation
1140
to educational decisions. As I read it, it means that no administrative or other consideration shall stand in the way of a decision being made in the best interests of the child. Certainly, it would be out of place to have here anything dealing with the social security side of it. The educational decisions should be made in a way which reflects first and foremost what is good for the child. Other considerations should not come into it.
In view of the fact that there has been, rather to my surprise, support all round the House for the amendment, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would enable us between now and Third Reading to have a word about this and then the abortive question of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, could be raised. If that were possible, I would be glad to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend always leaves her door open and is always prepared to meet whomsoever chooses to come to see her on these matters. I am sure that my noble friend would be quite prepared to talk to the noble Baroness. But obviously I can give no guarantees about the result of any such talks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithful!Baroness Faithful! moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion from school
The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) specify conditions to ensure that no pupil is permanently excluded from school except as a last resort.

(b) establish a tribunal, independent of the school governing body and local education authority, to which any pupil or his parent can appeal against a permanent exclusion.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I seek information in the particularly difficult and sensitive area of exclusions from school. This new clause seeks to empower the Secretary of State to regulate exclusions from school with a view to limiting the number excluded. It allows him to set criteria for an exclusion. At present, and under the new arrangements in the Bill, no grounds are specified in law which have to be satisfied before a pupil can be excluded. That is clearly unsatisfactory.
An exclusion is a very serious blot on an educational career and pupils should be entitled to the protection of statutory criteria. Moreover, there is now evidence from the Department for Education and others to show that the numbers of exclusions have recently increased. Some have suggested that the dual pressures of school managed budgets and league tables have made schools reluctant to keep a child who is identified as a troublemaker since he is likely to be expensive and under-achieving.
I find the whole question of exclusion from school very difficult. Perhaps I may give a brief example. A student teacher walking down the corridor of a school heard the most terrible noise coming from a classroom. He walked in to find bottles of ink and books flying across the room. He strode to the front and yelled. There was then perfect silence. He asked where the teacher was. The teacher was so frightened

1141
that she was hidden in a cupboard. Who is at fault—the teacher or the child? In this case one would think that it was the teacher. In fact she was a very good teacher but something went wrong.
What exactly are the conditions of an exclusion. They vary from child to child and from teacher to teacher. Who will decide what are to be the conditions of exclusions. Some guidance should be given. I also believe that there should be an appeal to a tribunal, particularly involving the parents if a child is excluded. If we are to place so much emphasis on non-exclusion from school, we must define exactly the grounds for excluding a child from school. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, I think it is a dangerous suggestion because one would have to have a comprehensive list. The little horrors who threw the ink-pots would quickly think of something else to do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is very difficult to catch the tide. One needs to be very careful of introducing mitigation into the classroom. This proposal is a recipe for that.
I recognise that my noble friend has a serious concern. Had your Lordships not changed tempo so remarkably after dinner from previously I would have been able to propose, as regards Amendment No. 34, an amendment which would have done something to avoid this difficulty by ensuring that the views of pupils and parents on these occasions were properly heard. I shall inquire later whether I am allowed to bring that to your Lordships at Third Reading. In the meantime I merely leave the echo and the thought in your Lordships' minds.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot hide behind the Dispatch Box if my noble friend wishes to throw ink at me at this stage; but I hope that I can respond to her in a manner which she finds satisfactory.
The Government's position on exclusions is well known. Exclusion of a pupil, either temporarily or permanently, is a very serious step for any school to take. It is a disciplinary measure which should be used sparingly and always as a last resort. We said so in our discussion paper on exclusions issued last November. To that extent I certainly concur with the motives which lie behind the first part of the noble Baroness's amendment. I appreciate that her amendment is very much a drafting amendment.
I presume that we are speaking to Amendment No. 41. I appreciate that in the group there are both Amendments Nos. 41 and 41A. I can see only one distinction between the two and that is the word "and" joining the two subsections (a) and (b) in Amendment No. 41A. It is not there in Amendment No. 41. I presume that that does not make any difference.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, no, it is just Amendment No. 41.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I understand, therefore, that we are speaking just to Amendment No. 41. As I said, the exclusion of a pupil is one of the most difficult
1142
decisions facing a head. He must on the one hand consider the needs—and sometimes even the physical safety of other pupils—and on the other, have some regard for the consequences of his action on the excluded pupil, not least in terms of that pupil's continuity of learning.
I believe we should tread carefully here. Head teachers will not find it helpful to have their hands tied when confronting challenges to their authority. It is one thing to point out—as we have already done and will do again in future guidance—that exclusion should be used sparingly and always as a last resort. It is quite another to lay down rigid rules as to the precise circumstances in which a head can exclude a child. We cannot possibly hope to cover every eventuality, nor reflect the particular dimensions which each individual case will have.
We must at the end of the day leave the responsibility with head teachers in the knowledge that their decisions are subject to review by their governing bodies. That will be the LEAs in county-controlled and maintained special schools and for all schools with separately constituted appeals committees.
We shall also be considering whether there are ways in which existing appeals procedures can be made more accessible to parents. We would obviously want to speed up those procedures so that the arrangements to secure a suitable education of a pupil, whether by reinstatement, admission to another school or the provision of education otherwise, can be made as soon as possible. To that end we have already announced our intention to set limits to the exclusion process generally and to offer further guidance on the conduct and procedures for appeal against exclusions. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment on the understanding that as regards her concerns on future guidance, we shall be responding to them for the LEAs and for the individual schools.
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity at this stage of setting the record straight on behalf of my noble friend. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, in debate on 4th May, my noble friend made reference to this year's comparative tables of school performance. The tables for the first time did include details of the rates of unauthorised absence at individual schools. However, they will not include exclusion data. We did raise the possibility of publishing exclusion rates in future tables in our discussion paper on exclusions issued last November.
The position is, however, far from clear-cut. As the discussion paper indicated, there are valid arguments for and against publication. On the one hand, a low number of exclusions could be seen as evidence that behaviour and discipline are good. On the other hand, publication could lead to an increase in instances where parents are encouraged voluntarily to withdraw their children from school rather than going through the formal exclusion processes. Publication of exclusion data may also serve to inhibit teachers from recommending exclusion where it is, in fact, an appropriate response to a particular individual disciplinary problem.

1143
We are still considering responses on these points and I apologise for any confusion that may have been caused by my noble friend's remarks in Committee. Although the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is not in the Chamber at present, I hope that it will have been of some use to have stated that and to have set the record straight. I hope that those points will be drawn to the attention of the noble Lord in due course.
I hope that my earlier explanation to my noble friend will be sufficient and that she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the question of exclusions from schools presents a difficulty, particularly in the light of Amendment No. 40 which states that,
"the welfare of the child shall be a primary consideration".
A particular child's needs having been assessed, it may well be that he or she could be excluded from school so long as there was an alternative programme. In the case of another child, however, it might be better for the welfare of that child if he or she were to remain in school. This is a sensitive and difficult area. I should like to discuss the matter with my noble friend the Minister before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41A not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Direction to admit child to specified school]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 22, after ("section") insert:
("(a) if requested to do so by a school subject to that authority: or
(b)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 51 and 52. The amendments affect Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill which deal with the procedure to be followed by an appropriate authority when a child has been either expelled from, or refused admission to, every school providing suitable education within a reasonable distance of his home, and the authority nevertheless wishes the child to receive education in that area at a school rather than receiving education otherwise than in school, which could perhaps more speedily be called EOTIS.
Clause 11 enables the appropriate authority to direct a school that does provide such an education and that has not excluded the child permanently to grant him admission, contrary to its wishes. Clause 12 provides the process of consultation which must precede the making of a direction and an appeal against it to the Secretary of State. Parents are included in the consultation, but excluded from the appeal process.
The purpose of the amendments is twofold. First, it is to assist schools faced with a direction to admit pupils they do not feel able to cope with—or did not feel able to cope with before they received the direction—and, secondly, to fill the gap left by the
1144
welcome end of indefinite exclusions by providing something tougher than an ordinary temporary exclusion but stopping short of permanent exclusion.
The second amendment in the group, Amendment No. 43, creates an opportunity—not a duty, but an opportunity—for the authority to include in a direction the terms of an agreement or undertakings formulated under a new clause after Clause 12 set out in Amendment No. 52. The new clause would permit by subsection (1) a governing body, during the consultative process provided in Clause 12, to propose that admission under a direction should be made conditional on an agreement or conditions undertaken by the child and/or his parents.
The clause provides in subsection (2) that such a proposal must be framed after consultation with the head teacher, the pupil and the pupil's parents. Subsection (3) (a) provides that the school, and not just the parents or pupil, is bound by its part in an agreement or undertaking.
Subsection (3) (b) and (c) provide that failure by the parent to honour the agreement or fulfil the conditions is made sufficient reason to refuse admission or, if the child has already been admitted, to exclude permanently. The latter step could be taken only after an interval for discussions between the school and the parent.
Subsection (3) (d) provides that on the first two occasions upon which a pupil is in breach of an agreement or undertaking the school may exclude him for not more than a week. If the pupil fails to remedy the situation within that time, or commits a third offence of a like nature, that will result automatically in permanent exclusion.
Those provisions may be highly desirable where the school's reason for an earlier refusal to admit arose not from pressure of numbers, which was the example given in Committee by my noble friend, but from the known reasons for his expulsion from another or other schools, which may be horrendous. The hope must be that they might suffice to reconcile a school to the admission. Without such a reconciliation, the direction is almost bound to fail, at great cost to the school and the pupil and probably the parents as well. The Bill as drafted appears to contain nothing to try to achieve that reconciliation.
The process that I have so far described would be triggered only by the authority's consultation on a proposal to make a direction. That would, in turn, arise only when a child would otherwise be barred from every suitable school within reach. That, one hopes, will be rare.
This group of amendments addresses also a much more familiar problem. I bring your Lordships back now to the first amendment in the group (Amendment No. 42). It would provide, in addition, an opportunity for a school to request that an order be made in regard to a child already registered as one of its pupils, not under a direction under the Bill but in the ordinary way. That opportunity would be available to a school which had exhausted its disciplinary resources without success and which would otherwise have to resort to permanent exclusion, which is what we want to avoid.
Your Lordships may think that these proposals are too formal for the sort of harum-scarum ne'er-do-well likely to have exhausted the patience of his teachers. But I ask your Lordships to think again. The very formality itself has an advantage. First, the involvement of the authority, sitting as it does above the whole panoply of the school's own disciplinary system, underlines to the pupil and—I emphasise—to the parent the gravity of the situation.
Secondly, the issuing of the direction—a formal instrument—containing details of the conditions upon which alone the pupil will be able to stay at his school not only further emphasises the gravity of the situation; it also provides a clear statement of what has to be done to rescue a desperate situation and states the consequences that would follow automatically a failure to honour the undertaking.
The third advantage would be the automatic nature of the permanent exclusion, which we used to call expulsion, as the result of a third offence disposing, as it would, of the all too common expectation of all pupils and some parents, that, "It'll never happen to me".
The two remaining amendments in the group (Amendments Nos. 44 and 51) affect Clause 12. They are necessary, first, to ensure that directions made at the request of schools and relating to pupils already registered there are not subject to the same elaborate rounds of warning and consultation appropriate to directions initiated by the authority; and, secondly, to ensure that where a direction is made at the request of a school, the parents receive a copy, without which it is largely pointless.
The first of the amendments (Amendment No. 44) therefore has the effect of restricting the application of the main provisions of Clause 12. There is a workable scheme that fills two holes in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the principle of the amendments, because I believe that one of the only successful methods of dealing with very difficult children often proves to be the principle of contract: that they enter into a clear, simple and well understood contract with benefits and burdens. I think that I need say no more.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wish to deal first with the amendments with which my noble friend dealt last —Nos. 42, 44 and 51—but I am not entirely clear about what my noble friend wishes to achieve through them. As I understand the amendments, he would like a school to be able to request the LEA or the FAS as appropriate to direct another school to admit a child. There would be no need for a school to request a direction to be served on itself.
But in my view this would be a recipe for division at a local level. The terms of the amendments would appear to enable, at stage 2 for example, an LEA-maintained school to request its LEA to direct a neighbouring GM school to admit a pupil without consulting it beforehand. There would be no need for the pupil in question to have been excluded from or refused admission to all schools in the area.
We cannot accept these amendments. We want to hold to the principle that the appropriate authority is
1146
best placed to decide when a direction may be necessary; and that before deciding which school to direct it should be required to consult the parents of the child in question and the governors of the school it initially has in mind to direct.
In turning to Amendments Nos. 43 and 52 I should like to make the Government's position clear at the outset. The Government support the notion of non-binding agreements between schools and parents. But we do not want these to become an integral part of admission or exclusion procedures. That is why I wish to resist these amendments, which would allow schools to set conditions before they agreed to admit a child under a Clause 11 direction.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we expect such directions to be very rare. The directing authority will he required to consult the school and the parents before issuing one. Moreover, a school which had been directed to admit a child would subsequently be able to exclude that child if his or her behaviour warranted such a drastic step. Permanent exclusion of a pupil is a serious matter. Detailed procedures have been laid down in law to ensure that permanent exclusions are used only as a last resort when absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I may explain the Government's policy on home-school agreements to help the House to understand why I intend to resist these amendments. The Government are keen to see schools actively involving parents and seeking their understanding and support for school policies. This helps to create the conditions under which schools can run efficiently, teachers can teach and pupils can receive a good education. There are many ways schools can involve parents in supporting their policies; ideas can be set out in a prospectus, presented in meetings of groups of parents or discussed with individuals. When schools choose to share information with parents, all benefit from better mutual understanding.
Informal home-school agreements are one method which some schools have tried for gaining parental support for their policies and some have sought to link this with their admissions policies. We do not feel that the contractual approach is the right one. It carries too many risks of confrontation and allows schools too much scope to exclude pupils. This could be self-defeating, making relations between parents and staff stiff and adversarial rather than promoting constructive partnership. Voluntary partnerships entered into with commitment on all sides are preferable to compulsory contracts entered into because they are required.
An approach which discusses parents' responsibilities to their children as much as to their children's school is preferred to compulsory contracts. The concept of partnership will be emphasised in the revised Parent's Charter, which we intend to re launch in the autumn.
Partnership between parents and schools need not be as formalised as a contract implies. What is important is that schools establish an effective two-way communication relating both to individual pupils and their families and to the school as a whole; that the school is made to appear accessible to

1147
parents; that teachers identify and encourage ways in which pupils can support their children's learning; and that the staff of the school create a sense of identity, shared purpose and belonging through a range of opportunities to become involved in the life and work of the school. There is no one possible format for achieving this kind of partnership. It will vary with local circumstances, the character of the school and the ages of the children. Schools and parents will wish to find the best ways of achieving this in their own communities. This is, as it should be, a matter for individual schools to decide; certainly it is not a matter for legislation. I hope that for those reasons my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his support and for reminding me that the centre of this matter is aptly described as a contract. I am increasingly inclined to address the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as my noble friend, despite where he sits, because of his identity of view on these issues.
I do not understand my noble friend's response to the first amendments to which he replied. He said that he did not understand what it was that I was after. Given that I sent him not only a copy of the amendments but also every word that I uttered to your Lordships a few moments ago, I should have thought that the meaning was fairly clear because your Lordships were not looking puzzled.
It may well be—and it usually is the case—that my drafting has not achieved the intended effect. However, I was hoping that my noble friend would address the intention rather than the effect. I gather from what he said thereafter that he is opposed to the whole caboodle. While I dissent from nothing that my noble friend said about voluntary contracts, partnerships and parents, children and staff co-operating to produce an effective school, all of which could have come straight from the report that I signed four years ago, I must repeat that I believe there is a lacuna. When the voluntary process has been exhausted and one is faced with the possibility of expulsion, there should be an alternative. That alternative should be short of litigation but it should be sufficiently formal to attract the attention and respect of the people subject to it.
The Bill does not offer that. In fact, it offers a breakdown of trust at a stage where a school says, "We cannot cope with this pupil. He must not come again." The appropriate authority then tries to persuade the school to accept him. The school still refuses, because if it did not there would be no need for a direction. Having refused, the school then receives a piece of paper which says that the school must accept that pupil. However, my noble friend tells us that the school can sack the pupil as soon as he misbehaves. I think that that is strange and not as good a process as that which I proposed. However, I shall not drag on the discussion further. I should like to take time to think again about the matter before the last stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Procedure for giving direction]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 47, 48 and 50. These are straightforward technical amendments which I hope will not detain us long.
Amendments Nos. 45, 47 and 50 will require an LEA which proposes to direct a GM school to admit a child to consult and inform the FAS at every stage of the process, even if the GM school is located in an area which is at Stage 1. We believe that this would be sensible given that the FAS will be responsible for funding every GM school.
Amendment No. 48 clarifies an important point. Clause 12 gives the governors of a school, and its maintaining authority, the right to refer a proposed direction to the Secretary of State. We want to make it absolutely clear in the legislation that where the matter is referred to the Secretary of State the directing authority may not proceed with the direction until the Secretary of State has made a decision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 26, after ("body") insert ("and head teacher of the school")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 233, 238 and 241 to 244. These amendments give effect to our promise in Committee to consider further the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke to ensure that head teachers receive separate, independent notification of various decisions or reports. We have great sympathy with her proposals and, in the light of commitments made then, we now propose to amend the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 50:
Page 6, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 28.
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("and shall not give the direction until the period for referring the matter to the Secretary of State has expired and, if it is so referred, the Secretary of State has made his determination").
Page 6, line 39, after ("the") insert ("governing body and head teacher of the").
Page 6, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Procedure for preparing agreed syllabus of religious education]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("has been made in respect or) and insert ("applies to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53 I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 195, 195A and 196. The above five amendments are purely technical. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill clarify that separate representation of grant-maintained schools on local religious education bodies will not apply until the date when an order transferring responsibility to the Funding Agency for Schools comes into effect.
Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 remove references to changes in the religious character of schools being adopted under Clause 96. That recognises that clauses 94 to 96 together make clear that changes of religious character, with which Clause 136 is concerned, can only be made by the approval of the Secretary of State, and not by adoption by the funding agency.
Amendment No. 195A corrects an omission in Clause 136. It ensures that any grant-maintained school which changes its character to become a denominational school, but which is providing religious education according to the local agreed syllabus for some pupils at the request of parents, should inform the local Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education of that fact. This brings such schools into line with other denominational grant-maintained schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("has been made in respect of') and insert ("applies to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Guidelines for school meals
The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines to education authorities and governors of grant-maintained schools on nationally agreed nutritional standards for school meals.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are three purposes for tabling the amendment. First, I do so in support of the arguments that I put forward, which were supported by other noble Lords, in an amendment during Committee stage. I pointed out then the need for guidelines for school meals throughout the country. A recent report produced by the Henley Centre (details of which were published in The Times on 3rd June) set out what were termed "children's favourite food" which ended up being entitled, "A Nation of Snack-eaters". I think that that points to the fact that some kind of guideline is necessary for school meals as schools are the one place where state responsibility can in fact be implemented.
In that list, interestingly enough, the first three favourites of children were chocolate, chicken and pizzas, which apparently amounted in sales value to somewhere near £1 billion a year. However, fruit which is considered one of the better nutritional elements for children was way down the list in seventh place. That, too, supports the need for some kind of guideline.
Secondly, at the end of Committee when debating the subject of the amendment, my noble friend Lord Henley said that there was the possibility of looking
1150
into whether or not there should be guidelines. I should just like to express my gratitude to my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Cumberlege who took considerable trouble in answering correspondence on the matter.
I understand from correspondence with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege that the Government have a responsibility under the White Paper The Health of the Nation to set out under the work of the nutritional task force guidelines for all catering outlets, which includes schools. Although I quite understand that there is an obligation on the Government, I have never known that a White Paper in fact imposes a strict legal obligation on any department to produce what it says it will do in such a document. I have a certain anxiety there.
A further aspect of this point is that the task force will set out ways to disseminate the information and also ways to monitor the guidelines which the nutritional task force may produce. But the fact of the matter is that from the point of view of someone pressing this amendment it is not entirely satisfactory when one does not know how the information is to be disseminated or whether it will definitely be made available to all LEAs and to governing bodies of grant-maintained schools and how the guidelines will be implemented and monitored. The point of tabling this amendment is to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there can be some assurance that the Department for Education will at least keep in constant touch with the Department of Health in this regard and will make every effort to encourage head teachers of all types of schools coming within the aegis of the department to make these guidelines available; to monitor them and to implement them.
I return to my point about the Henley Centre report. The report clearly states that what children are eating outside schools does not provide a sound basis for good health in later life. While children attend school it is surely incumbent upon government and local authorities to ensure that children not only receive suitable moral and intellectual education but also to look after their physical interests. I consider that school meals come within that aegis. I beg to move
Earl Russell: My Lords, a year ago 21 per cent. of children in England and 23 per cent. of children in Scotland were dependent on income support. I believe this year's figures have just been published. I am not yet up to date with them but I doubt whether they have decreased. In these circumstances school meals are quite an important part of the diet of a large number of children.
I was not intending—since my noble kinsman is not at present in the Chamber I cannot do so anyway—to enter into a debate about income support which I am sure both of us now can conduct in our sleep. However, I think my noble kinsman would agree that maintaining an adequate diet on income support is not easy. In these circumstances school meals need attention and there has to be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, some monitoring of local authorities' performance.

1151
Local authorities of course are not flush with money at the moment and without entering into another argument, which again I am sure we could all conduct in our sleep, I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will maintain that money is easy for them. I think therefore that some monitoring is necessary or else there will be malnutrition and that in the end is rather more expensive. I do not think the Treasury would like it any more than I would.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, my interest in this topic encompasses most of the points already made about the importance of sound nutrition to children's general health, but it also extends to the very significant areas in school terms of behaviour and intelligence. I believe there is increasingly persuasive evidence linking diet to both these areas. I recognise this is not yet part of mainstream medical thinking. The reasons for this are several and I have elaborated on them in previous debates on crime and on food policy. They have much to do with the diffuse disciplines and journals in which research has been published and not a little to do with current fashions and funding in medical science.
To mention one only of the many studies that have recently been done in this field, certain improvements in diet were carried out over a four year period in all the schools in New York City involving about 800,000 children, and the precise timing of these changes coincided with a highly significant rise in academic attainment scores vis-àvis the other school areas in the United States. Anecdotal reports suggested that behaviour had improved as well. If so, this is not surprising as behaviour and intelligence are both to some degree a product of the micro-nutrients that affect brain chemistry. If, as I believe, proper nutrition can make this kind of difference, then I think we would be foolish not to do all we can to promote it in schools. I think this amendment is a good way to start.
Lord Judd: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to congratulate those who brought the amendment forward. It seems to me that if we take the future of our children seriously this is a crucially important subject. However, I am sure that those who put the amendment forward would be the first to say that it is not merely a matter of guidelines but also of ensuring that the resources are available in order to be certain that the guidelines can be applied effectively.
All of us, on all sides of the House, must be concerned by any information—and there is such information—that malnutrition is evident among some youngsters in our own society today. That is unthinkable as we move towards the next century. I hope that the Government will take the amendment very seriously and see it through.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I support the amendment, but perhaps the Minister could comment on this point. I ought to know the answer but it has slipped my mind for the moment.
There used to be people called school meals organisers, school meals advisers or school meals inspectors. Their job was not only the physical
1152
organising of meals; they also had special expertise in and made recommendations as to the dietary aspect of school meals. Every local education authority used to have at least one and often several of these people. I wonder why they have disappeared, if they have disappeared. Perhaps the Minister can say something about that. They were some of the most important people in the advisory service of local education authorities.
There may have been an optional financial system which the Government recommended to LEAs, and LEAs then decided as a cost-cutting exercise to abolish them, but such people were a key factor in the issue which this amendment addresses. I hope that if they have all disappeared some action can be taken to have them restored.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, The Health of the Nation White Paper includes a commitment to improve catering, including school catering, through the promotion of voluntary guidelines on healthy practice for various groups in the population, including school children.
As my noble friend has already said, a nutrition task force has been established to draw up a programme of action to implement the nutritional aspects of the health strategy. Government departments—including the Department for Education—catering groups and the School Meals Campaign are represented on the task force or its working groups, which include a catering working group.
The catering working group is testing the guidelines on healthy eating in schools published last year by the Caroline Walker Trust in a pilot scheme in Kensington and Chelsea. As my noble friend knows, other local authorities, such as Essex and Berkshire which are also using the guidelines, will also be studied. The experience of other local authorities working with different healthy eating policies will also be examined.
I have no doubt that the task force will succeed in developing some voluntary guidelines on healthy eating, and these will promote further helpful debate about the content of school meals. However, I must emphasise that responsibility for school matters rest with local education authorities and increasingly the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. It is for them to decide what service to provide taking into account local needs and priorities.
As to concern that guidelines on healthy eating will not get through to local education authorities and schools unless promulgated by the Secretary of State, I do not think that there need be any serious worries on that score. The department informed schools of the Caroline Walker Trust guidelines in our Schools Update magazine, a publication which goes to every school. The trust itself also gave considerable publicity to its own work. I have every confidence that further information about healthy eating options and initiatives arising from the work of the task force and its catering group will receive widespread publicity without the statutory underpinning which this amendment would impose.
I can assure my noble friend that if guidelines are produced for schools they will be sent to all

1153
maintained schools. They will not be imposed on schools because it is not a legal requirement that they adopt them. The guidelines will go to all schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked me about the school meals organisers. So far as I know they exist. They certainly exist in my own local authority where school meals are provided. However, only 42 per cent. of the school population now takes school meals.
I also have to make the point that only one in four meals that a child eats is a school meal. It has only 190 days in school, with 175 days out of school. So I think my noble friend would probably agree with me that in addition to raising awareness of the importance of healthy eating in schools, information needs to be more widely disseminated because families need to be aware of its importance.
I have sympathy with the problem, I hope that my noble friend will be patient, I am sure that she will press myself, my department and the Department of Health to make sure that the fruit of the work of the task force will find its way as good advice into our schools.
On a final note, I am impressed with how much is going on in the schools. I know from a couple of schools where I have been a governor until recently that the healthy eating aspects of the national curriculum are translated into the dining room so that what children learn about healthy eating in the classroom is being managed as a programme when they come to choose food in the dining room. When that is well managed, it goes a long way towards promoting healthy eating among young children.
11 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she would care to say a little more in answer to me. I appreciate that she took the point; but what she is saying, as I understand it, is that there has been such a reduction in the number of school meals taken that school meals advisers are not necessary. She shakes her head. The point I was going to make was that it does not matter how few children take the meals. I think she said 42 per cent., but even if it went lower than that, there would still be a need, in my view, for an adviser. We are talking about the nutritional aspect of school meals.
The fact that there has been a reduction in itself is not sufficient reason for saying that there ought to be no school meals organisers, advisers or inspectors. Am I making myself clear? I should like the Minister to comment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not say that the numbers were reduced because only 42 per cent. of children were taking school meals. What I said was that with the school meals service there are school meals organisers. That is what they were called in my local authority; they have different names in different authorities. School meals are organised in a different way in different local authorities. The advisers are heavily involved in promoting school meals, trying to persuade parents of the benefits of children taking
1154
school meals, rather than coming into school, often with unsatisfactory packed lunch boxes. I know that through their school meals organisers local authorities are doing a great deal to try to persuade parents that it might be even more expensive to send children either via the corner shop or with a packed lunch box, when there is a more cost effective and more nutritional option to take school meals. But so far as I know, school meals organisers are alive and working well in local authorities.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I should like to emphasise the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. For a good many children who have free school meals it is very often the only proper meal they have during the day. So any percentage calculation is, to my mind, irrelevant to the nutritional value that a child receives from a school meal in those circumstances.
The fact that children are given food of nutritional value at school I believe creates a precedent and a taste for certain types of food with which they will carry on when they go home. So the relationship between what they have at school and what they have outside is relevant. Schools have a great opportunity to set a standard of eating which will be of benefit to the children's health at school and later in life.
Of course, I understand the argument put forward by my noble friend concerning the responsibility of the Department of Education. As I understand it, from the correspondence and what she said, the Department of Health is responsible for setting out the guidelines. However, I still believe that there is a lack of connection between the guidelines and what ends up on the table for the child to eat at school. As my noble friend indicated, many Members of your Lordships' House will follow the matter closely and if schools are not monitored, I hope that those noble Lords who have been kind enough to support the amendment during this short debate will monitor what is happening in the schools as a result of the work of the nutritional task force. I hope they will monitor how the information is to be disseminated and how the schools are improving the provision of school meals for children. This seems a small matter in some ways, but it is of vital importance for the health of the nation. However, on the basis of what has been said, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Miscellaneous functions relating to grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert:
(section 68 (making and varying joint schemes)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 is coupled with Amendments Nos. 144 to 147, 178 to 191, 215, 229, 239, 240 and 275. This large group includes amendments all of which are relevant to schools which enter into a joint scheme under Clauses 67 and 68 or which form or join a group under Chapter IX.
Government Amendments Nos. 56 and 275 are consequential on those passed in Committee to provide for associations of grant-maintained schools

1155
under joint schemes approved by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 56 adds the approval of schemes and variations to schemes and the power to direct variations to the list of functions that the Secretary of State can, by order, transfer to the funding authority. Amendment No. 275 is a technical amendment which makes provision in respect of orders made by the funding authority under Section 68. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 146, 145 and 147.
Clauses 67 and 68 were introduced as new clauses during Committee stage without prior consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I questioned various aspects of the employment consequences of these new clauses. The Minister replied (her words are significant):
"it is inconceivable that the interests of an employee would be sacrificed; they would be looked after".
These amendments now seek to test four specific aspects of that general commitment.
First, the School Teachers' Review Body was established under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, and the recommendations of that review body are given effect by the annual school teachers' pay and conditions document, thus providing national pay scales and contractual duties for school teachers. Section 3 of the Act permits a grant-maintained school to opt out of that national pay and conditions framework for school teachers, although no school has yet done so. The House is entitled to know whether the drafting of Clause 67(5), if unamended, means that a joint committee could opt out of the national pay and conditions arrangements for teachers as if it were an independent school, while the constituent schools of the joint scheme did not opt out. We need clarification on that point. If Section 3 does apply, then it would appear to require the joint committee to consult only those teachers employed by it, rather than all the teachers in the constituent schools.
It should be recognised that the members of the joint committee are representative of the constituent schools. But there would also be considerations of cost involved, and those members might be tempted to see teachers employed by the joint committee as second-class. It would be helpful if the House could know the Government's intention.
Secondly, for each grant-maintained school, paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 requires the articles of government to:
"include provision as to the delegation of such functions by those on whom they are imposed or conferred".
On this side of the House we wish to see effective and successful management, which requires considerable delegation by the governing body to the head teacher. Where individuals are employed by a joint committee and there are several head teachers involved, how will the scheme provide unambiguously for effective line management of each member of staff? It would clearly be unreasonable for an employee to be left in any
1156
doubt as to whom she or he is responsible. Again, it would be helpful if the House could know the Government's intention.
Thirdly, for each grant-maintained school, paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 requires the articles of government to include provision as to disciplinary rules and procedures, procedures for the redress of grievances and procedures in the case of a contemplated dismissal. The Minister has already said that mechanisms in respect of grievances:
"will clearly form part of the regulations controlling the way the federation would work".
Since Clause 67 appears to contain no reference to regulations, it would be helpful to have clarification as to whether such grievance machinery would be provided within the text of the joint scheme itself by attaching the provisions of Schedule 6 to the scheme or by some other method. In addition to grievance procedures, it would also be helpful if the Minister could give similar assurances on the other points covered by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6.
Finally and most importantly, the provisions of Clause 67 appear to permit the governing body of a grant-maintained school to contractualise part of its necessary functions, even including the employment of teachers, to a joint committee which operates as a separate employer. That artificial device could allow the joint committee to pay less for work of equal value. The amendment seeks to prevent that. Does the Minister agree that equal pay for work of equal value is such an important principle that the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools should not be offered a loophole through which to escape it? I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, this is a bewildering group of amendments. Some of these amendments, especially those moved by the Government, help on the question of governing bodies where schools are being clustered or grouped. I want to express gratitude in general terms for what the Government have provided. It certainly meets our concern that where there is a group consisting totally of voluntary schools grouped together there will clearly be a majority of foundation governors. It does not provide for that where there is a mix of voluntary and other schools, and that may mean that we shall not be able to advise voluntary schools to enter these kinds of groups.
I have a particular difficulty on advice with Amendment No. 215 where there is a curious reference in paragraph 2(3) (b), where the appointment of governors will be determined by what the instrument of government was when the school was a voluntary school, even though it had since become a grant-maintained school. I foresee a cumbersome difficulty 10 years into a school having become grant maintained if, in order to operate this provision, one has to turn up an instrument of government which is 10 years out of date. That seems to be unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that the point will be looked at further.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 144, 145, 146 and 147 deal with arrangements for staff

1157
employed by schools to which a joint scheme made under Clause 67 of the Bill applies. The new arrangements set out in Clauses 67 and 68 for schemes are intended to provide an additional route whereby small schools can come together to co-operate. They may choose to do so in different activities—some in the purchase of services, in in-service training of teachers or in ensuring breadth of curriculum for all the schools covered by the joint scheme. These may or may not involve the employment of staff jointly by the schools or the delegation of functions in respect of the employment.
What schools will be looking for in joining together with others in that way will be security. They will want to know that arrangements entered into are governed by a formal framework. They will also be looking for flexibility in drawing up a framework best suited to their own circumstances. We do not want to predetermine the exact detail of what a scheme should or should not include. It will differ from case to case.
Subsection (5) provides that flexibility. It allows for the issue of whether or not teachers jointly employed by the governing bodies under a joint scheme are within the pay and conditions order or exempted from its application to be determined by the governing bodies in question as expressed through the joint committee. Subsection (7) provides for the scheme to have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the instruments and articles of government for any of the schools covered by the joint schemes.
Amendments No. 146 and 147 would have the effect of laying down requirements to be included in the joint scheme in respect of staff employed under a joint scheme. Again we are seeking flexibility. It would be for those entering into a joint scheme to make proposals as to what the scheme will cover. There will be clear guidance; for example, where a scheme includes the joint employment of staff or the delegation of staffing matters, it will clearly be necessary for the scheme to set out the arrangements for the staff concerned. It should set out how the staff will be managed and what procedures there will be for disciplinary matters and grievances. All schemes will be subject to approval, either by the Secretary of State or, as I have made clear in speaking to Amendment No. 56, by the funding agency. Before approval we would expect schemes to cover the arrangements set out in Schedule 6 on staffing or leave the provisions in the school's articles in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 substantially undisturbed.
But that will not be a matter for every single scheme drawn up under Clause 67. The matters specified on the face of the Bill are those which must be in every joint scheme which may come to the Secretary of State for approval. Individual schemes will be drawn up to take account of the circumstances of the schools concerned and will be considered by the Secretary of State on their merits.
With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will have his fears allayed and will not press the amendments. Employees in question will be employed jointly by the governing bodies of the schools covered by a joint scheme. The scheme may provide for decisions in relation to the employment of
1158
those staff to be taken by the joint committee, but in doing so the joint committee will be acting on behalf of the governing bodies. The joint committee does not have a separate legal personality. As I made clear in debate on this issue in Committee, the rights of any employee would be fully protected where a decision was taken which affected the employee's interests.
In response to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about it not being the clearest drafting, it will be the instrument of the group that will determine who appoints the governors, not the instrument of the voluntary-aided school 10 years before. I will of course write to the right reverend Prelate, and if he wishes to seek a meeting or have further discussions about the point of concern I shall be more than pleased to see him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Resolution of disputes]:
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
11. 5 p.m.
Clause 20 [Grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("new").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 86 to 90, 100, 105, 106, 194, 245, 269, 282, 284, 285 and 294.
I know that a number of noble Lords are keen to find ways to encourage new grant-maintained schools. One of the purposes behind this group of amendments is to ensure that the necessary mechanisms are in place to enable an independent school to make the change and become a grant-maintained school. That inevitably means that the independent school will cease to exist and a new grant-maintained school established in its premises.
I have also listened carefully to the case made for dropping the 10 per cent. threshold for the establishment of new GM schools and have found it persuasive. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords who press for this change, in particular my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, will welcome the amendments in this group to remove the threshold and enable the establishment of new grant-maintained schools to be proposed anywhere in the country. I am sure that this will result in the extension of choice and diversity which noble Lords as well as the Government seek.
The criteria by which any such proposals will be judged will continue to be those that apply to new voluntary aided schools. In particular, account must be taken of the demand for new school places in the area. At present, this effectively rules out the establishment of new schools where there is a surplus of school places. The powers which my right honourable friend proposes to take under Clause 221 and Clauses 223 to 225 of the Bill will enable him to cause the supply and demand equation in an area to be brought into balance in a way that has not been possible hitherto. The result will be that any future demand requiring the establishment of new schools can be met by the establishment of new grant-maintained schools from any category of promoters

1159
who publish proposals which satisfy the Secretary of State's other criteria, especially commitment to delivery of the national curriculum.
Pupil numbers are set to rise over the years to the end of the decade, and there will continue to be population shifts in and out of areas. The Funding Agency for Schools and LEAs will be required to make returns annually of supply and demand for places, which can include predictions about the rate at which pupils may flow back from the independent sector into the maintained sector as a result of growing confidence in education provided by maintained schools. These developments will allow for much greater opportunities for the establishment of new schools than hitherto, though I point out that in 1991 and 1992 the establishment of some 46 new schools have been approved to cope with population growth as it is. The vast majority of these have been new county schools. There is no reason why in future such schools should not be provided by the GM sector and new promoters. It is often thought that there has to be an overall demand for new places in a whole local education authority before we will agree that there is a need for new places locally. This is not the case. The area we look at when considering a proposal to establish a new school is a two-mile radius from a proposed primary school and a three-mile radius from a proposed secondary school. Even in a situation where there is a general decline in pupil roles there will be pockets of growth as a result of other demographic changes.
A further concern on the part of some noble Lords is whether there are alternative ways in which plant can be provided, and the scope for the private sector to be more closely involved in investment in school buildings. We welcome this in principle. The CTCs are a shining example. We must not forget the considerable investment made by the Churches in the provision of voluntary schools. The private finance initiative announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor's predecessor in the last Autumn Statement may open up further opportunities for private sector capital investment in schools. We will give careful consideration to the ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and others on this score. There is no legal impediment to what they propose, so we do not see a need to make any amendments to the Bill at this stage. I should add that my right honourable friend expects imminently to make an announcement about the review of the school premises regulations which I know is an issue of concern to those noble Lords keen to see maximum flexibility in requirements for new schools.
I shall reserve my comments on other amendments until they have all been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to the amendment in my name, Amendment No. 105. The purpose of the amendment is to require all proposals for grant-maintained schools to have the approval of the Secretary of State. The amendment was tabled at Committee stage but not debated. The effect of the amendment is to require all proposals by the funding authority for new schools
1160
to have the approval of the Secretary of State. Clause 49, as presently drafted, allows the funding authority to approve a proposal for the new grant-maintained school that has itself proposed if there have been no objections. The point needs to be made that all new grant-maintained schools should receive the approval of the Secretary of State. It is wrong for primary legislation to rely on objections solely to a new grant-maintained school for this to happen.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for her willingness to address the concerns which led to the moving of the original amendments and particularly for the removal of the 10 per cent. requirement of grant-maintained status for the entry of new schools into the public sector. I very much look forward to hearing the Government's proposals or suggestions on how private capital might be attracted into the public sector, which I am sure will strike a sympathetic chord in the Treasury.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to echo the gratitude. My name was on the original amendments behind some of the concerns addressed by my noble friend the Minister. I particularly welcome the amendment which will do away with the 10 per cent. trip-wire. That really does open up the principles of diversity and choice to which the Government are committed.
I know that a number of the new schools already set up by parents making great sacrifices—not the kind of parents who could normally pay independent school fees but those wanting a good education in areas where that was not necessarily available—would have fallen foul of the 10 per cent. trip-wire. They will now be able to apply for grant-maintained status. For example, I was speaking today to the head of Oakhill school in Bristol, which is a new independent Christian school. It is an excellent school. He said that the freeing of the 10 per cent. trip-wire will enable that school to go ahead with an application. It would never otherwise have been able to do so. It will potentially save the life of that school if it is able to make a successful application. There are many other schools in a similar category. This is a very significant step forward in the Government's commitment to freeing up the education system to the principles of diversity and choice. I welcome the amendment and the others related to it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to raise one small point of clarification which concerns the other 10 per cent. trip-wire for bringing the funding authority into operation within a local authority area. Will this apply now to 10 per cent. of the original schools, or 10 per cent. of the expanded number of schools, including those coming in under this procedure?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Earl's point first. The number of children in an authority in schools would be inclusive of children in grant-maintained schools established via the route we are talking about tonight under the 10 per cent. rule or children who are already in grant-maintained schools

1161
that came in when the funding agency was in place after 10 per cent. In other words, for a grant-maintained school coming in through this route, those children would count and trigger off the establishment of the funding agency activity in an authority. That was the concern underlying the noble Earl's point.
Perhaps I may say, with regard to Amendment No. 105, that if there are any statutory objections, or the proposals name a sponsor, the proposals will automatically come to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Since any proposals where there is the slightest doubt will come to the Secretary of State for decision we do not see the need for this further amendment. This type of arrangement has worked well for LEA proposals and avoids creating unnecessary bureaucratic delays where everyone is agreed that what is proposed is sensible. I trust therefore that the noble Lord will not press the amendment or, if it is pressed, that it will be rejected. It does seem unnecessary, if there is such agreement all round, that there should be further delay and bureaucracy.
There are a number of technical amendments in this grouping to which I have not spoken separately. I shall of course do so if it is the wish of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Duty of governing body to consider ballot on grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 11. line 22, at end insert:
("(1A) The areas that may be specified under subsection (1) above are—

(a)England,

(b)Wales, or

(c)England and Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, will it be in order, in moving this amendment, also to speak to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 to facilitate the business of the House?
As regards Amendment No. 61, we are dealing with Clause 22 of the Bill. This clause was introduced at Committee stage in the other place. The Minister, Mr. Forth, was asked by Members of the other place to explain the meaning of the phrase,
"in relation to such area as may be specified in the order".
In response, the Minister said that it was appropriate to,
"acknowledge the different circumstances that existed in Wales".
He went on to say,
"the Secretary of State may wish to make provisions for England under the new clause, but he is more than content for the Secretary of State for Wales to decide whether or when similar provision should be made in the Principality".
He then went on to say,
"it is possible that he may wish to differentiate between areas in England. However, I envisage the provision applying to the whole of England because I cannot imagine why there is a need to distinguish between areas".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee, 2/3/93; col. 1506.]
This amendment would place on the face of the Bill a requirement that separate orders be made for England and Wales or a single order for both. I suggest that it is essential to clarify the intention of the
1162
Government. Is the intention still that England and Wales should be dealt with separately, but that England should be dealt with as a whole rather than divided into separate elements?
If that is not the case, I am fearful that there is a real danger that the Secretary of State could specify a particular local education authority, or part of it, that had no grant-maintained schools in any specific order, thereby forcing governing bodies in those particular areas of the country to consider the question of grant-maintained status and whether they wish the school to ballot. Such an approach would allow the Secretary of State to focus on areas which he regarded as needing a push in the grant-maintained direction.
If the Government are genuinely in favour of choice, surely the Minister will be prepared to concede that that is not their intention, and that they have no intention to be heavy-handed. Should that be the case there is really no reason that I can see why specific reference to separate orders should not be on the face of the Bill.
I now move to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. Those amendments concern the consideration of the governing body whether to ballot once every five years. At present, Clause 22 of the Bill would allow the Secretary of State's order to require the governing bodies of the schools which are eligible for grant-maintained status to consider annually whether they wish to hold a ballot. The aim of this amendment is to change that annual consideration to a five-yearly consideration.
Since a governing body may at any time choose to include consideration of a ballot for grant-maintained status on its agenda, this clause of the Bill is simply a further way of pushing schools to opt for grant-maintained status because the present policy is not proving effective and too few schools are choosing to opt out despite the financial incentives offered by the Government.
In recent years the work of the governing body has increased enormously and the burden of responsibility in holding the office of governor is considerably greater. Adding items to the agenda only increases that burden, and in this case does so unnecessarily.
The aim of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the governing body does from time to time consider this matter, and five years seems an appropriate time since this coincides with the period of compulsory education in the secondary school for most pupils and almost covers the period spent in the primary sector, so the population of the school will have changed very significantly over that period.
Should the governing body wish to consider the matter annually or more frequently, it will still be at liberty to do so. If I may put it with all candour and good faith; a Government which are in favour of choice, as this one repeatedly claims to be, should surely accept that compulsion to consider the issue is unnecessary. Amendment No. 63 is simply devised to keep all concerned abreast of the situation. I beg to move.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am speaking merely to Amendment No. 62. We return to another contentious issue in the matter of grant-maintained

1163
status. When we debated it in Committee under the guise of clause stand part, it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford who I thought summed up the position most effectively. He said that while the annual ballot was not the most crucial of issues, he was still surprised to see it in the Bill. It looked (to him) like a loss of nerve on the Government's part, as if the benefits of opting out could not speak for themselves. It was also an irritant - an example of what he called "administrative fidgeting". Nothing that was said in the debate before or afterwards seemed to me to gainsay the accuracy of those comments. I thought that the noble Baroness the Minister, usually the most persuasive of arguers, was at her least convincing in replying to our amendment on that occasion, especially in her attempt to depict us as the ones who were "running scared", in her words.
I have nothing against parents and governors choosing in these matters, provided that the scales are not weighted in a particular direction. There are too many places where the scales are weighted, and Clause 22, although not perhaps the most serious, is to me still one of the most offensive examples. Why should a responsible body of governors need to be told to put this particular item on their agenda at least once a year? They might just as well have been asked to consider whether to change from, say, mixed-ability teaching to streaming, or from mixed-age to single-age classes. They have the good of their school at heart and are quite capable of deciding what needs to be discussed and when.
This clause is an example of officiousness combined with a rather sly, back-door attempt to induce schools to vote the way the Government want them to. If it cannot be removed from the Bill then the next best solution is to restrict its operation. In this way irritation and disruption will be kept to a minimum.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 61, to which I have put my name. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, covered the amendment very adequately, dealing primarily with the practicality. I support it.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63, I think that both have a good deal to recommend them. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has made out a very good case for Amendment No. 62. On Amendment No. 63, I do not think that we should be overly concerned merely to provide more information to all involved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, finds it difficult to disguise his hostility to grant-maintained schools. Placing the item just once a year on the governing body's agenda is not to impose an onerous task. It does not load the dice in favour of grant-maintained schools. It simply asks the governing body to consider on behalf of the parents whether they wish to seek grant-maintained status. If the answer is no, that is an end to it, but at the least the governors can say to the parents at the annual meetings that they have done that—that they have considered the matter and have decided not to go down that road—although they may well decide to do so.
1164
If the governing body itself is hostile to grant-maintained schools—and we know that some are, up and down the country—that leaves the parents having to have sufficient confidence—sufficient "pushiness", if one wants to use a more colloquial word—to have to organise a petition. That is their only route if the governing body does not initiate the process. So, at least the parent body just once each year knows that the governing body has given full thought to the matter and reasons why it has either rejected it or why it wishes to initiate the process.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, on a point of correction, the noble Baroness earlier said, "There is an end of the matter". The whole point of our argument is that there is not an end of it—it comes up year after year. One cannot say that there is an end of it. That is the whole point of our objection.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given a good reason—it is not a weak reason - why I believe in these provisions. It is in the interests of not subjecting the parents who would wish to go down the road of grant-maintained status (and where the governing body was resistant to the idea) to having to resort in the intervening years to going to the considerable effort - and through the sometimes rather intimidating process - of having to get up a parental petition. What I mean by "an end to it" is that once the governing body has considered and come to the view that it does not want to seek grant-maintained status, or wishes to do so, that then is an end to it for that year. It can return to the matter each year. As I say, the requirement is not onerous.
Perhaps I may deal with the other amendments. During earlier debates, I made it clear that the reason the Government had taken the power to make an order bringing these provisions into effect for certain areas was to enable separate arrangements to be made for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is anxious to ensure that that commitment is translated onto the face of the Bill. While I feel that it seems unnecessarily prescriptive to include such information in primary legislation, I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment, which is why I did not move Amendment No. 60. I shall table an alternatively worded amendment on Third Reading which will give effect to the intention that the order made will apply to specified areas and that those specified areas will be England or Wales.
The final two amendments in this group are designed to relax the requirement in Clause 22 that governing bodies consider each year whether to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status. That requirement would be replaced by a duty to consider this issue every five years.
The consideration of whether a school should hold a ballot on grant-maintained status is a very important one. That fact has been clearly demonstrated by the level of debate that this House has had on the issue, not just tonight but on previous occasions. Clause 22 therefore brings that consideration to the forefront of governing bodies' minds by requiring them to consider each year whether to hold a ballot. It also ensures that parents at the school are fully

1165
informed of the governing body's thinking on this matter. After all, it is the governing body that serves the parents' interests.
I should like to stress that we are not forcing schools to hold a ballot each year, but merely requiring governing bodies to address the issue.
I am therefore convinced that that consideration should be undertaken far more often than once every five years. A great deal can happen during the course of one year, let alone five, which could affect a governing body's thinking on whether to embark on the grant-maintained process: new governors may join the governing body, other schools in the area may choose to go grant-maintained, there may be changes in the LEA itself, the funding agency may take over responsibility for the provision of school places. It is therefore wholly reasonable for the governing body to give some thought to the issue each year and report their views to the parents in the annual report. We should have expected governing bodies to do this anyway, but we know that some would not. I therefore trust that noble Lords will reject these two amendments. But if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will allow me, I shall bring forward an amendment on Wales on Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and before she finally closes her mind against Amendment No. 62, will she read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in Committee against the opting back amendment in which the noble Baroness argued against an atmosphere of perpetual campaigning, and consider whether her arguments apply to this amendment as much as they did to that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I spent too many years as a member of a governing body. The items that come forward on the agenda do not give way to massive campaigning. All that the governing body is doing is taking a view about whether to initiate the process. If it does not wish to vote for grant-maintained status, the parents have an opportunity to make that decision. That is when the campaigning starts. If they wish to campaign for or against, that campaigning begins at the balloting stage. Considering whether to initiate the process does not give way to massive campaigning. We have seen that already with the over 800 resolutions that have been made by governing bodies.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is encouraging to have the Minister's response to Amendment No. 61. We shall study carefully what she is able to do. I hope that we shall be able to thank her fully and without qualification. In view of that, I feel inhibited about using the sort of language that I was going to use about her response to Amendment No. 62. Phrases such as "codswallop" had entered my mind. But it would be unchivalrous to use such a phrase when she is being so positive on Amendment No. 61, so I would not dream of suggesting that.
After all these happy and prolonged nights that we have spent together, there is still, however, a fundamental issue of credibility. It may be that we are a set of very nasty, suspicious people but I must say to
1166
the Minister that there is a profound anxiety abroad that the Government are absolutely determined that by one way or another the schools system of England and Wales will moved to grant-maintained schools; that if it cannot be done directly it will be done indirectly; that by attrition people will be worn down; and that by the wear and tear of constantly repeated debate people will give in.
The credibility issue is that it is almost impossible for any of us to believe that the Government are doing their utmost to ensure that there is a free, fair and open choice for parents to examine both options and to decide which would be the best. Would it not be wonderful for parents then to know that the Minister of all people would back them 200 per cent. in their decision if they decided to stay with the local education authority; would be committed and excited by that prospect; and would ensure that parents had all the necessary backing to make a success? But that is not the view.
In view of her forthcoming position in respect of Amendment No. 61—which is immensely encouraging and we shall watch carefully what happens—it makes it all the more sad that the Minister does not move on Amendments Nos. 62 and 63. We remain very unconvinced. Now at least I can produce a rationale and say that in view of what the Minister said about Amendment No. 61, I shall not tonight pursue Amendments Nos. 62 and 63.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Clause 23 [Initiation of procedure by governing body]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("three months") and insert ("ten weeks").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 64, 66, 74, and 76 are coupled with Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The Government have considered carefully the concern about the disenfranchisement of new parents in cases where a school ballots during the summer period. While these issues have come to the forefront during particular summer holidays, in practice they have only affected a small minority of schools. Only 1.4 per cent. of all definitive ballots (that is, those resulting in a decision as to whether or not a school seeks grant-maintained status) have closed in the month of August or first week of September. Detailed data about ballots have been placed in the Library if any noble Lords wish to inspect them.
The existing provisions have proved satisfactory in most cases. The timing of the electoral roll is clear cut and, in particular, provides appropriate opportunities for parents to check their details and for any necessary amendments to be made before the ballot is held. I therefore cannot accept the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, although he has yet to speak to them.
This group of amendments also contains four amendments tabled under my name. I trust that noble Lords will recall that I mentioned during earlier

1167
debates that the Government were considering bringing forward amendments to reduce the statutory length of time in which schools must complete various stages of the process of becoming grant-maintained.
The first two of my amendments concern the period in which the governing body have to secure that a ballot is held. At present, the Bill states that the ballot must be held within three months of the passing of a resolution or from the receipt of a petition from the parents. The amendments will shorten this period to 10 weeks. The second two amendments will shorten the period following a yes vote in which the governing body has to publish proposals for grant-maintained status from six to four months.
These amendments will ensure that the grant-maintained process is conducted with due expediency but without making the time periods unreasonably short. It is clearly beneficial to all concerned if the processes do not drag on for a long period of time. It will also mitigate the necessity to extend into holiday periods often as a result of the length of time which the process takes. Our experience to date is that the majority of schools are publishing their proposals well within the new time limit that we are proposing. All we are doing is ensuring that all schools conform to this.
This streamlining of the process might also help with the issues concerning the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. A shorter period in which schools must arrange ballots will help ensure that governors do not allow the arrangements to drift such that part or all of the ballot period overlaps with school holidays. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I still do not really understand why the Government are shortening the period which is involved in Amendments Nos. 64 and 66. I do not see the need for haste in this regard. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about driving pressure. I wonder whether there is any other reason for shortening the period. It takes a while to form an opinion, particularly in a scattered community, and more particularly in a community where a large number of the parents work outside the area. I simply do not see the need for the haste.
Before the amendment is agreed to I should like to hear a rather more convincing reason for this. If the noble Baroness is determined to persist with it and is not giving a more convincing reason as to why haste is necessary, is it possible to defer moving the amendment until Third Reading so that we can have a more leisurely consideration than is possible at this time of night?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 65 and 67, although I have a premonition that they may not be accepted by the Government.
We have received a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, dated 7th June which indicates that the assertions made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in our debate on this issue in Committee were not entirely justified as regards the turn-out in ballots in school holidays. Not all the second ballots in August had a higher turn-out than the first ballots although I
1168
admit that of the five, only one had a lower turn-out. That first ballot must have had a turn-out below 50 per cent. since second ballots are held only when the turn-out in the first ballot is below 50 per cent. The average ballot turn-out during August has been slightly lower than at other times, although by only 1 per cent. Therefore, I do not believe that those figures are particularly conclusive.
The strength of the argument in favour of the amendments is that a general election would not be held in August because it is thought that there would be a low turn-out. It is not a good time for elections. I do not see why an election which is extremely important for the people concerned should be treated any differently. For that reason, I was disappointed about the premonition that I had at the beginning of our discussions on this group of amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, does not find the arithmetic impressive. I thought that it was extremely impressive. Of the almost 900 ballots, we were talking about only 16, and of those 16, only five were held in August. Only one of those five ballots had a turn-out which was lower than in the first ballot. That is a fairly impressive record and does not give rise to widespread anxiety on this issue.
The noble Earl asked me to continue to make the case. I do not intend to go into greater detail because I know that the noble Earl sits, quite overtly, in a very different position on the issue of grant-maintained schools. We believe that it is a very good form of education and noble Lords opposite believe that it is not.
The timescale which we advocate in these amendments is for the most part being followed in any event. Most of the correspondence that I, as the Minister responsible, receive on this issue, presses for a decision. We have to tell those schools that we cannot begin to make a decision until the legal timescale has been followed. Therefore, we believe that we are responding to requests from parents who have chosen, by ballot, for the school to become grant-maintained.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Initiation of procedure by parents]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 12, line 36, leave out ("three months") and insert ("ten weeks").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Information as to parents of registered pupils]:
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Ballot of parents]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 13, line 41, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) given such information about the procedure for and consequences of acquisition of grant-maintained status for a school as may reasonably be expected to enable him to form a proper judgment as to whether or not such status, should be sought for the school, including, in particular, the information required by subsection (3A) below;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 92. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby will also be introducing one or two amendments in the group.
Clause 26 replaces Section 61 of the Education Reform Act 1988 which placed governing bodies under a duty to secure that quite detailed information is made available to those eligible to vote in a ballot on grant maintained status. For example: a general explanation of procedures; constitution of the school; its conduct and funding; the number of teacher and first or foundation governors; the names of initial governors; and the proposed date of implementation of proposals.
However, Clause 26(3) in effect instructs governing bodies to secure only that "prescribed information" is made available to those eligible to vote in a ballot on grant-maintained status. That prescribed information will be made under regulations made by statutory instruments and subject to the negative resolution procedure. That change could mean that parents will he less well informed—depending, of course, on the nature of the prescribed information. In the view of many, it certainly represents the removal of parental rights from the face of the Bill, entrusting them instead to delegated legislation. The amendments are designed to restore parental rights to the face of the Bill, and I am glad to be able to move them.
As regards Amendment No. 92, perhaps I may just say that the Government have obviously shared the anxiety on the point we made. I say that because Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 have the same effect as ours. I should like to put on record that we welcome that fact. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 93. Its purpose is to ensure that information on the percentage of parents voting should be included in the proposals. As the Bill is drafted, no reference needs to be made in the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status by the governing body to the percentage of the electorate who voted in the opting-out ballot. Clearly that is an important matter. If fewer than 50 per cent. of those eligible voted, then a second ballot needs to be held. But however few parents vote in the second ballot, that ballot is, nevertheless, valid. Therefore, a school could proceed with an application for grant-maintained status even if less than 50 per cent. of parents voted in each of the two ballots. Surely that should be of concern to Ministers.
In a school where parents show so little interest in making such an important decision, how effectively will they be involved in running the school if it were to he given grant-maintained status? Surely it is vital for the Secretary of State to know the percentage voting in the ballot in order to make a judgment. Ministers may argue that they do in fact know the level of voting in ballots, but that is not a good reason for such information not being included as a requirement in the proposal for opting out. The governing body should be required to make a clear reference to that fact as it has important implications.
1170
In the case of a school which has to have a second ballot because the turnout at the first was less than 50 per cent., it would then be obvious to Ministers that the level of at least one of the ballots was below 50 per cent. However, if the school needs only one ballot, it will not be clear whether the level was slightly over 50 per cent. or nearly 100 per cent. Once again, that is important information which could have a significant effect on the judgment of the Secretary of State as to whether the school would be viable as a grant-maintained school.
Midnight
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wish to say a few words about Amendments Nos. 92, 272 and 274. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 have the same effect as Amendment No 92. I wish to speak on this matter because it relates to a point that I raised in Committee. This matter is of considerable intrinsic importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated, but it is of far greater constitutional importance than one would expect when it relates to a sub-paragraph in a schedule. It is of constitutional importance partly because it concerns parliamentary control over legislation, but even more so because it involves the standing and utility of the Scrutiny Committee on Delegated Legislation and the use that your Lordships' House makes of that committee, and therefore it concerns the standing and legislative competence of your Lordships' House itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, explained, Schedule 3 relates to the publicity that should attend the attainment of grant-maintained status. Paragraph 1 contains four sub-paragraphs of which the first three relate to the particular type of publicity. Subparagraph (4), however, allows the Secretary of State to alter the type of publicity that is stipulated by sub-paragraphs (1) to (3). As the Scrutiny Committee pointed out, that is a Henry VIII clause. The Scrutiny Committee examined all the Henry VIII clauses in this Bill, which was the first Bill on which it reported. The Scrutiny Committee arose out of the recommendation of the Jellicoe Committee and it was the only recommendation on which the Government expressed reserve. That is perfectly understandable because obviously Whitehall prefers to proceed by delegated legislation, which is much less troublesome, as tonight's proceedings may have demonstrated, than the full legislative process.
Moreover, it is much easier if the delegated legislation is subject only to the negative resolution procedure because it then largely escapes scrutiny in the other place. Most of all, of course, it is highly convenient for officials to rewrite by what are termed Henry VIII clauses the stipulations in a legislative measure. That is what has been done here. The Scrutiny Committee made its original report, which was accepted by the House. It was set up, however, on a probationary basis and for a limited time only —only for this Session—and it has proceeded in a way that has received general acclaim. Its report on this Bill in particular has been widely acclaimed on all sides of the House.

1171
It has rightly been a very cautious approach, like the courts' approach on judicial review. For example, the Scrutiny Committee drew attention to the fact that Clauses 38 to 40 were Henry VIII clauses but said that it considered them acceptable in the circumstances. The committee used very different language in relation to paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 3.
The noble Baroness let it out that the official view was that the provision ought to remain subject to the negative resolution procedure. I shall not embarrass her by recalling the circumstances in which that information was divulged to the House. I believe that your Lordships will be very grateful, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated, to the noble Baroness for having secured a change of mind and that by Amendments Nos. 272 and 274 the provision is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said by way of gratitude and express my appeciation of the fact that the Scrutiny Committee has in this first Bill proved its usefulness in this vital respect. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is a member of that committee, is present to preside over the occasion.
As I said, Amendments Nos. 92, 272 and 274 do precisely the same. Generally, it is very much for the draftsman to determine how that should be done, and your Lordships do not normally interfere with a decision on that point. I venture to prefer Amendment No. 92 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, although I believe that it will require a consequential amendment to Clause 277. I say that on a purely stylistic ground, because the draftsman has added the reference to the schedule to a number of other references to different clauses which are excepted from the general negative resolution procedure provisions. He has then taken out this particular one relating to the schedule and made it subject to affirmative resolution. It seems that the others are subject to no parliamentary control at all. It seems to me to be a little awkward stylistically under those circumstances. Perhaps the noble Baroness will consider that point with the draftsman between now and Third Reading.
There is nothing further I can do except to repeat my appreciation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think I, too, should join in the thanks to the noble Baroness and to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Although I take style seriously, I shall not insist on style between friends.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the only member of the committee here this evening, I wish to add my satisfaction on their behalf that our advice has been taken and our thanks for the glowing tributes from the noble and learned Lord. It is nice to feel useful.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall come back to those three amendments later on. In speaking to this group, I shall obviously also be speaking to the various government amendments, Amendments Nos. 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 163, 164, 201, 247, 252, 272 and 274.
1172
The first two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe in regulations the information that is to be sent to voters in a ballot on grant-maintained status and put detailed requirements on the face of the Bill.
The details that the noble Lord wishes to specify are similar to those currently set out in Section 61(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988. This information is designed to enable parents to make an informed decision as to whether to vote in favour of the school going grant-maintained.
I understand the noble Lord's concerns about this information. It is for that very reason that the Bill enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make regulations. This will allow more flexibility than if the requirements are baldly set out on the face of the Bill. We will consult widely about the content of the regulations, and, without wishing to prejudice that consultation, would expect them to contain information along the lines of that set out in the amendments before us. If during the course of time it transpires that some changes are needed to the information, the fact that we have regulations will make it relatively easy to put matters right. Changing primary legislation, as most people agree, is not so easy. The Government intend this Bill to stand the test of time, and we shall need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.
I hope that those arguments are sufficient to convince the noble Lord that we will consult on and consider very carefully the contents of the regulations. I hope, therefore, that he would not wish to press further Amendments Nos. 69 and 70.
Turning to government Amendment No. 91, this is purely designed to ensure that the press notice which summarises the proposals for grant-maintained status must be published in a newspaper within 10 days of the date of publication of the proposals themselves. This is not a new provision. The requirement to publish the press notice within 10 days is currently contained in the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Publication of Proposals) Regulations 1989. This amendment merely seeks to make this a requirement on the face of the Bill. I trust that the House will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
Amendment No. 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was, I believe, one which we were prepared to accept at the Committee stage, but which the noble Lord, for various reasons, did not move on that occasion. As he explained, it would require a school, in addition to giving the result of any ballot and the numbers of parents who voted for and against, to specify the percentage of those eligible to vote who did in fact do so. This would clearly give anyone considering the proposals more information about the overall level of parental interest and support for the school. On that basis, I am happy to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 99, a government amendment, is a technical amendment to ensure that the appropriate arrangements for the way objections can be submitted

1173
to a proposal by promoters for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school are described in the proposals.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 92, 272 and 274. I am grateful for the general acceptance from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of our amendments in place of his own. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for the reasons he gave, would on purely stylistic grounds prefer the drafting of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, Amendment No. 92, as he said, amended in some other way. I shall certainly examine very carefully what he said.
I think that the noble and learned Lord also said that he accepted that there were different drafting styles by different Parliamentary Counsel. I hope that on this occasion he will accept my desire not to accept Amendment No. 92, other than in principle, but for the House to accept our two government Amendments Nos. 272 and 274. However, I can certainly give the noble and learned Lord an assurance that I will consider writing to him after we have considered this matter again with Parliamentary Counsel. But as the noble and learned Lord put it, in the end this matter of drafting style should be for Parliamentary Counsel.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Minister.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I put it to the noble and learned Lord, I will consider writing to him after this matter has been considered further by parliamentary counsel. On that basis, I hope that this evening the House will be prepared to accept our amendments.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments Nos. 95 to 98, 163 and 164, 197, 201, 247 and 252. These amendments cover a number of issues relating to the publication of proposals. They come in three groups. The first group, Amendments Nos. 95 and 247, are minor technical amendments. They are necessary to secure a more accurate description of the requirements of the clauses to which they apply.
The second group of amendments will ensure that, where proposals are published by grant-maintained schools or by the funding authority, details of the nursery provision to be made by the school will be provided. These amendments meet the concerns of various noble Lords who felt that grant-maintained schools might otherwise admit pupils to nursery provision without providing details.
The third group of amendments ensures that whenever proposals are published the number of pupils admitted to the school does not exclude those pupils who were admitted to school before they reached the statutory school age. I hope therefore that, going back to the beginning, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No. 69, and I hope that in due course the House will feel able to approve the various government amendments that I have spoken to.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. First, perhaps I may say—and I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House at this
1174
hour—that almost any excuse to hear the erudition, wit and wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is always welcome. It is a treat. It instils a sense of humility in everybody present. Following what he said, I think it was generous of the Minister to say that he would look again at what the noble and learned Lord had said to see whether some move could be made towards what we proposed in Amendment No. 92. But I do not in any way detract from what I said earlier; namely, that we are glad to have seen the Government move on this matter, and we are very grateful to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for having drawn the matter to the attention of noble Lords.
On Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to move. It seems to me that it would have been a small thing to do but one which would have underwritten in a generous way the spirit of what the Government say they are concerned about, namely the position and rights of parents. It is not just that under some sort of detailed regulations the rights are being looked to and preserved. It is a matter of putting them there on the face of the Bill for all to see. This is the real, substantial commitment. I am, frankly, sad that the Government did not feel able to move on that. But on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, perhaps I may say that we are grateful to the Government for accepting his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Power to declare ballot void for irregularity]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 15, line 3, after ("section") insert ("25,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 72, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 73.
Very simply, these two amendments state that if the governing body fails to give out the names and addresses of all those parents who are eligible to vote in a ballot for grant-maintained status, the result shall be considered null and void. This is primarily to ensure freedom of information for all those concerned in the process.
Whether one actually subscribes to the cock-up or conspiracy theory of the way things happen, if there is not sufficient information given out at least to enable those people who are contesting the point to be given a chance to put their views across, then the whole process of the ballot is surely very, very questionable, if not almost totally unmanageable, as a fair representation of what the parents think.
These are two small amendments but I feel that they are very important. Effectively, they act as some kind of guarantee of giving out the correct information to enable parents to make the correct decision. They are especially important when it is considered that the noble Baroness has just moved amendments which cut down the period of time over which the ballot can take place. Surely it is now even more important that those who put forward a

1175
viewpoint against opting for grant-maintained status should have the opportunity to put their side of the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments will add further categories to the list of reasons for which the Secretary of State may declare void a ballot on grant-maintained status by including references to Clause 25. Let me briefly explain the provisions of that clause.
The governing body is required to draw up a list of parents. That list must be made available to parents who wish to inspect it or obtain a copy in connection with a ballot for grant-maintained status. Any parent who does not wish his or her name and address to be disclosed may write to the governing body requesting that he or she be removed from the list. The governing body may charge parents who wish to have a copy of the list an amount not exceeding the cost of supply.
I believe that it is clear from that description that the provisions of Clause 25 do not have a significant bearing on the arrangements for, or conduct of, the ballot itself, which is what the voiding provisions are intended to address. I should explain that the parental list is not the same as the electoral roll. It is the electoral roll which determines who is eligible to vote in a ballot. Clause 25 is not about the compilation of the electoral roll. It is not about the conduct of the ballot at all. It seems to me to be difficult, if not impossible, to justify a ballot being declared void (with all the additional time and effort that that involves) for reasons that had no bearing on and may not have influenced the ballot.
I am certainly not implying that a contravention of the provisions of Clause 25 is not extremely serious. Indeed it is. The provision in Clause 25(3) which gives parents the option of removing their names and addresses from the parental list is designed to protect their confidentiality. Parents are naturally concerned that their names and addresses should not fall into the wrong hands. Therefore we would always expect governing bodies to act reasonably in administering the list. It would also be disturbing if there were widespread reports of governing bodies charging excessive fees for the list. We should take seriously any complaint that that had happened.
I am aware of the sensitivities involved with this subject. We had a lengthy discussion about these issues in Committee. The point before us, however, is whether a ballot should be declared void if the provisions of Clause 25 are contravened or the governing body acts unreasonably in discharging its duties under that clause. I do not feel that the Secretary of State's powers to void the ballot merit being increased further than already provided by the Bill. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness's usual clear response. She said that it was a serious matter. I am still a little uneasy about this point, but I think that she covered most of the points.
1176
I shall read what she said and take some advice to see whether she has in fact done so. I hope that it is the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Publication of proposals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("six") and insert ("four").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Withdrawal, approval or rejection of proposals]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 16, line 15, at beginning insert:
("( ) Before considering any proposal under section 30 of this Act the Secretary of State shall consider any proposal from the local education authority to cease to maintain or make a significant change in the character of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980; and if such a proposal from the local education authority is approved the Secretary of State shall reject the proposal under section 30 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was considered at Committee stage. In moving the amendment my noble friend Lady Blackstone noted that 114 of the English schools to hold ballots so far had been subject to simultaneous Sections 12 and 13 notices of closure as a result of reorganisation proposals by their LEA. Of those, 85 voted in favour of opting out and 42 were approved by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State approved for opting out almost 50 per cent. of the cases in which the local authority was trying to reorganise its schools to reduce the number of surplus places by allowing those schools to opt out as soon as they were under threat of closure.
The Minister may argue that the Education Secretary is not approving all such schools for opting out. That is true, since 50 per cent. of the cases are not approved. However, there is a major disincentive to any LEA in considering a major reorganisation if it knows that there is a 50 per cent. chance that any school that it threatens with closure will be able to opt out and thwart its plans. If the LEA could be certain that the Secretary of State would consider the proposal for reorganisation by the LEA before considering the proposal to opt out, then LEAs would at least feel that their proposals were to be considered on their merits and that there was a reasonable chance of success in achieving reorganisation.
At present, the law demands that the Education Secretary considers any proposal to opt out before considering a reorganisation proposal. As the Minister said, both sets of proposals have to be considered together, but the grant-maintained proposals have to be determined first. Amendment No. 75 would ensure that decisions about reorganisations would have to be made before decisions about obtaining grant-maintained status. At present priority is given to grant-maintained status whereas the amendment argues that the more important decision is that which affects the whole community; that is, the reorganisation proposal by the LEA.
If the proposal is accepted, then the application for grant-maintained status would not be considered in cases where the reorganisation was approved. In that way the Government would encourage LEAs to put forward proposals for reorganisation and reduction of surplus places, because they would be less fearful of the possibility of a school preventing that reorganisation by its proposal to opt out. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is clear to me that in the circumstances envisaged by the clause, those most concerned—the parents and the governing body of the school—have a right that any proposals that they have for the future of the school should be considered. The proposed amendments would abolish the procedures established in the Education Reform Act and re-enacted in Clause 252 of the present Bill. Those required both sets of proposals to be considered together, not one in advance of the other as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested. But the grant-maintained proposal was to be determined first. Clearly, one has to take into account both the proposal for closure and the proposal for grant-maintained status. But one cannot establish a grant-maintained school if one has decided to close it. Therefore, all the information is taken into account at the same time.
If the amendments were put into effect, grant-maintained proposals would receive no consideration whatever before a decision on Section 12 proposals was reached. The existing arrangements are not biased in favour of grant-maintained schools. Both the grant-maintained and Section 12 proposals are, and will continue to be, decided on their merits. Attempts to prevent grant-maintained schools being considered are misconceived.
If the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had received some of the delegations that I have received of parents whose schools are up for closure and who wish to explore the possibility that other things can be considered—whether it is grant-maintained status or other proposals in the local area —he would understand the strength of feeling of parents.
Taking the most recent months—the information relates to 1992—of 11 proposals, eight decisions found in favour of grant-maintained status. In the next period, of 14 proposals, 11 decisions found in favour of closure. The arithmetic is reasonable. They are not easy decisions. In fact, a great deal of agonising goes on in making the decisions. So far we have rejected more grant-maintained proposals than we have accepted. We have rejected 35 grant-maintained school proposals and approved 33. We take into account all the information that comes before us and it is given full consideration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, we are agreed that we want to encourage local education authorities to undertake reorganisation where that is sensible. I am sure that if the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, she and her department will keep it under active consideration. It would be stupid if we had procedures in places which discouraged the rational arrangement of education in particular areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No.76:
Page 16, line 38, leave out ("six") and insert ("four").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Acquisition of grant-maintained status: exercise of powers before date of implementation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.77:
Page 191, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Such requirements may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the funding authority of the whole or any part of the following amount.
( ) That amount is—

(a)the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant, or

(b)so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which the grant was paid as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant, whichever is the greater.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 77, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 101, 102 and 104; Amendments Nos. 107 to 111; Amendments Nos. 168 to 171; and Amendments Nos. 287 and 292. The amendments cover a number of issues relating to the premises of grant-maintained schools. I shall take them in three groups.
The first group, Amendments Nos. 77 to 111, comprises technical amendments. They are necessary to secure that, where grant is paid to a governing body before the implementation of proposals, the grant can be repaid in certain circumstances. They cover both the establishment of new grant-maintained schools either by promoters or the funding authority and the approval of proposals by existing schools to acquire grant-maintained status. For example, if a new grant-maintained school is established by the funding authority and capital grant is paid to build the school, it will allow the funding authority to reclaim the amount or the value of the asset if some time later the governing body decide to dispose of an asset acquired with grant before the establishment of the school. These requirements already exist in that part of the Bill—Clause 88—which deals with grant paid to governing bodies after implementation. The amendments therefore provide the same cover for grant paid before implementation.
The second separate amendment is Amendment No. 85. The amendment will ensure that an LEA's duty to transfer existing property to the trustees of a voluntary school will not cease purely because the school has become grant-maintained. Here we are talking about land that has already been provided for a school. Usually, property provided by the LEA and not owned by the trustees transfers to the governing body of a voluntary school when it becomes grant-maintained. However, in certain cases—for example when a school has moved sites—the LEA will have provided the school with a site or buildings for which it is then under a duty formally to convey to the trustees. It would not be right that that duty should fall merely because the school became grant-maintained. This might occur if, for example, due to an oversight or administrative delay the property still remained in the hands of the LEA rather than the

1179
trustees on the day a school became grant-maintained. The amendment meets the anxieties of, among others, the Churches. It does not reduce any of the school's right to the continued use of the property, but it rectifies a minor omission in the existing legislation. It will safeguard the position of trustees in circumstances where they may otherwise lose their rights largely because of an accident of timing.
The third and final group covers Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 104, Amendments Nos. 107 to 110, Amendments Nos. 168 to 171 and Amendments Nos. 287 and 292. I have introduced these amendments for very practical reasons. Where proposals are published for the establishment of new grant-maintained schools either by the funding authority or by promoters, the proposals will need to include details of the site, buildings and cost of the new school. The Secretary of State will need to take these factors into consideration in determining the proposals.
However, after the proposals have been approved, the funding authority are charged with making capital grant available and processing the capital projects through their estimate and tender stages. The funding authority will need to ensure that the projects take account of statutory requirements about health and safety and constructional standards. For example, they will need to satisfy themselves that appropriate building materials are used and fume cupboards are sited in the right places. Professional architects and quantity surveyors will look carefully at these projects in detail and when they are happy that standards have been maintained they will approve the particulars of the premises. As the funding authority pays capital grant to the governing body of the grant-maintained school, such approval is an integral part of that process.
Similar provisions have been tabled for the implementation of proposals published for the significant change of character, enlargement and change of site. Where such proposals involve capital projects it is a straightforward operational matter that the approval of particulars is carried out by the funding authority as part of its overall responsibility for processing projects and paying capital grant. I recommend the amendments to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 85 and, in particular, to Amendment No. 111. We are grateful for Amendment No. 85 which deals with our concern that LEAs may not always convey a site when a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained. I should like reassurance from the Minister because we have a technical concern about proposed subsection (1B) (b). In disapplying Clause 39 I wonder whether this inadvertently leaves the LEA free to convey the site to someone else who is not the trustee. I do not want to be suspicious of any LEA but if we are trying to clarify that they have a continuing responsibility to convey the site even though a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, we might possibly be dealing with an LEA which is either slow or incompetent or even worse. It is possible that a difficult LEA, by having Clause 39 disapplied, could try to convey the site to someone else. That may
1180
not be possible under this clause. It is a technical matter, and I should be grateful for reassurance. I apologise for revealing my suspicion of recalcitrant LEAs.
I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 111. The Minister referred to it as a technical amendment. She may see it in that light, but I am not sure that I do. She said that it is in a sense an extension of the provision. She referred to Clause 88, which confused me as that refers to Wales. I think that she may have meant Clause 82. This provides that a grant given to a new school, if it is received before the new grant-maintained school is created, can be reclaimed. This therefore impacts on Church and other comparable bodies which may wish in the future to create new grant-maintained schools and will look to the Government for 85 per cent. grant.
I accept that the Minister thinks that the amendment is technical. It was tabled only recently. I did not have sight of it until this morning and I have not had much time therefore to consider it. As I read it, it could mean that were such a school to close, the 15 per cent. provided by the Church, perhaps from trust funds, could be at risk if the grants that had been received over a period of time were all called in. This causes me some concern in so far as the Church and other voluntary bodies may wish to create new grant-maintained schools.
I expressed in Committee concern about what was then Clause 257 and is now Clause 260. I refer to the whole matter of the Secretary of State having total discretion over grants for aided schools. This is a parallel move. The Minister may view it as a technical amendment. I have not had time to consider it in detail but it may impact on our continuing negotiations over Clause 260 which are not yet complete. I hope that they will be completed shortly. I am anxious that at least the Minister will give me the assurance that we can consider this amendment in our continuing negotiations over trying to reach agreement. I hope that I am not making too much of a meal of this, but I shall be grateful for those reassurances from the Minister.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly address some comments to Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 104. These three amendments appear to me to be fairly significant. They remove the role of the Secretary of State from the approval of premises in the grant-maintained schools, whether they be established by a funding authority or by promoters. It is not clear to me from the changes whether the premises have to be improved by anybody at all.
The funding authority has to prepare particulars about the proposed premises where the funding authority is establishing a new grant-maintained school. In the case of a new grant-maintained school that is to be established by promoters, the details of the school premises have to be submitted to the funding authority. Can the Minister explain what is the accountability for the standards of premises of these new grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the final question first. Once a school is grant maintained, it becomes subject to all the premises regulations and the health and safety regulations. The funding agency would be responsible for the school. So there is no question that it stands somehow outside the system once established as a grant-maintained school.
The right reverend Prelate has some fears about Clause 111. My understanding is that his fears are unfounded in terms of moneys which were legitimately the investments of-the Churches or the trustees and being at risk in the transfer of funds. I do not know whether he feels sufficiently strongly for me to withhold this amendment and to bring it forward at Third Reading or whether he will accept that the amendment is accepted for the moment and that we continue to talk about any deficiencies that there may be. Then the matter can be thought about again at Third Reading.
As regards the reference to Clause 88, the right reverend Prelate was right. It is Clause 82, and I stand corrected.
As regards Amendment No. 85, we do not consider the situation to be as described since such action on the part of the local authority would conflict with its duty under Schedule 1 paragraph 6 to the 1946 Act. But I shall check on this particular amendment as well and, if necessary, write to the right reverend Prelate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Expenses in connection with proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 17, line 33, at end insert ("provided that no expenditure incurred under subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act exceeds the limit set out in subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 is to limit the amount that a governing body can spend on promoting opting out to the same prescribed amount as applied to the LEA; and to tie the prescribed limit applied to LEA expenditure to individual ballots in schools rather than being authority-wide for a particular financial year.
The weakness of the Government's position is that as it stands the clause with which we are dealing provides for a prescribed amount which would cover the aggregate expenditure by an LEA on all the ballots which may occur during a financial year. However hard we try, it is impossible to imagine a practicable method for calculating such prescribed amounts that could satisfactorily cope with the enormous variation between LEAs in the number of ballots held in any year.
Opting out is highly concentrated in just a small number of areas, while some LEAs have yet to experience a single ballot. Essex, Kent and Lincolnshire - just three of the 117 LEAs in England and Wales - account among them for over one-quarter of all the schools voting to opt out. How can a prescribed amount be calculated which would suit both of these extremes?
The failure of the Government to bring forward their own amendment, as promised by the Minister in
1182
Committee, clearly illustrates the extent of the difficulty. The amendments proposed offer a practicable and fair way of handling this issue. One seeks to tie the prescribed amount to a particular ballot - that is, each ballot would have a prescribed amount calculated by reference to pupil numbers and other such factors. It is modelled closely on the Government's own Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, which already includes limits on the expenditure of education authorities and school boards - that is, governing bodies. The other would make the same prescribed amount applicable to both the LEA and the governing body in any particular school, thus establishing fairness.
In the Commons Committee stage, on 12th January at col. 765 of Hansard, Eric Forth said of the prescribed amount:
"I envisage that, in due course, a consultation document will be produced outlining some possible different approaches to the problem which will draw on the Scottish experience".
In our own Committee stage, the Minister said:
"We intend to bring forward an amendment at Report stage which will clarify the scope of the provision… The precise terms of any formula to link LEA expenditure to modest sums payable to governing bodies by the Secretary of State are still under consideration".
That, surely, is not good enough. There is simply no evidence that the Government have devised a method capable of functioning other than their Scottish model which we therefore suggest should be adopted also in England and Wales.
As to linking the expenditure of governing bodies with the prescribed limit applied to LEAs, this merely ensures a basic degree of fairness. In addition to material of their own production, governing bodies will doubtless continue to be able to acquire, free of charge, material produced by the Department for Education. The cards are, in reality, stacked against LEAs even under the arrangements proposed in these amendments.
More importantly, they are stacked against parents who wish to have access to a balanced range of information on this vital issue. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, your Lordships might remember that on previous occasions I have expressed considerable concern about some of the propaganda which local authorities and others have circulated to parents when schools have been considering whether to vote for grant-maintained status. Some of it has been demonstrably very misleading. I was encouraged by what my noble friend the Minister said earlier both about the code of conduct being negotiated with LEAs with regard to the new power and about the new power in Clause 29 for the Secretary of State to void ballots if the outcome might have been affected by false or misleading information.
I have also been deeply concerned about the volume of information which some local authorities have circulated. In some cases there have been three or four mailshots to parents' homes. In other cases, there have been full or half-page advertisements in local papers. In almost all those cases the intention has been to try to persuade parents to vote no. That one-sided use of public money must be limited.

1183
It seems to me that what the noble Lord is proposing in the amendment would weaken the effectiveness of such limits, and I would therefore oppose it. Indeed, on the contrary, I would be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could assure me that Clause 34(3) as currently drafted provides an adequate basis for a watertight and effective regime to limit LEA expenditure in this area.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 34 is an important clause about expenses in connection with proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status. If governing bodies are to have responsibilities for the arrangements for grant-maintained status and hold a balanced debate of the issues, it is only fair that the Bill should make provision to reimburse them for modest expenses. At present they have no funds other than what they can raise themselves. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the case that, as my noble friend Lady Cox said, LEAs already have substantial resources which they can deploy in influencing the ballot process, if they so wish.
I have to say that I am very tempted to accept Amendment No. 78. But the noble Lord seems to be suggesting in Amendment No. 78, if that is taken in isolation, that the expenditure incurred by any single school's governors in acquiring grant-maintained status should be limited to the amount which its LEA could spend for the whole financial year on all of the ballots for all the schools that might be held in that local authority. I wonder whether that is what he means.
If indeed the noble Lord confirms that understanding then, as I told him in Committee, I would be tempted to consider this amendment seriously. However, it is possible that I might, reluctantly, be persuaded to believe that in the interests of fairness and levelling the playing field the amendment might not be in the best interests of all concerned.
Amendment No. 79, which seeks to limit calculation of the prescribed amount of LEA expenditure to that period after the governing body has given notice that a ballot of parents is to be held, imposes unnecessary constraints. Local debates about the desirability of grant-maintained status usually start well before governing bodies pass a formal resolution to hold a ballot. LEAs are frequently involved in those early debates and it seems to me right that any expenditure they incur in that period to influence a school's move towards grant-maintained status should not be exempt from the limits proposed under Clause 34. Nor should expenditure on the expression of general views about grant-maintained status not related to a specific ballot be exempt. The noble Lord's amendment would have both those effects. I strongly oppose such weakening of the intended spending limits.
My noble friend Lady Cox made an important point. I am happy to give her an undertaking that I shall look again at whether the wording of Clause 34(3) will provide an adequate basis for the necessary regulations. If there is any doubt about that, I shall use
1184
the opportunity of Third Reading to bring forward a suitable amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not press the amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, which seemed a little less forthcoming than some of her other pronouncements. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says. I would not suggest that she is misleading the House. I am sure that the information to which she refers exists and that she has seen the evidence of it. But what I find difficult is that there is never any reference to all the propaganda that circulates on the other side of the fence. Many of us could assemble quite a dossier to that effect. If the argument is to carry weight, we must be even-handed and more judicious in our assessment of what is going on.
The point that I wanted to make, which I leave with the Minister, is that we are concerned that what the Minister has said in various debates during our consideration of the Bill in this House about the Government merely wanting parents to have a choice, and for that choice to be clear and honest, should not just be a stated intention but should be something which at all levels of the process of choice is demonstrably the case. I wish that the Minister had felt able tonight to say that, if there are anxieties, she is prepared to look at them to see whether rules and regulations could be devised which would have the confidence of everyone. At the moment, they do not.
I hope that this will not be the end of the matter for the Minister and that, although I shall not pursue the amendment tonight, she will go away with her very able officials, recognising that there is a genuine issue here, and that the spirit of free choice and even-handedness to which I know she is committed is not being reflected, as people see it, in what happens at the coalface. I hope that she will go away and consider this issue and see what can be done. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Transfer of property etc.]:
Lord Ponsonby on Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby on Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 19, line 46, after ("1988") insert ("as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act").
The noble Lord said; My Lords, I wish to address Amendment No. 80, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 293. The purpose of the two amendments is to tidy up the role of the Education Assets Board with regard to the transfer of school and community buildings to grant-maintained schools.
The amendments refer to the transfer of property from an LEA to a grant-maintained school and have particular relevance to the transfer of a property not wholly used by the school; in particular, buildings which are shared with the local community. The amendments seek to remove one of the three tests of ownership of facilities provided by local authorities for use by schools and the communities which surround them.
At present, when a school is awarded grant-maintained status the local authority and the school

1185
are frequently able to agree on ownership issues. In the event of a disagreement the Education Assets Board becomes involved. The assets board is empowered to seek to reach agreement between the parties. Should this not be achieved the matter is passed to the Secretary of State for Education for determination.
In seeking to determine the ownership of a particular facility the Education Reform Act 1988 gives three tests of ownership: first, whether the facility can be divided between parties; secondly, which party has the greater need of security of ownership; and, thirdly, which party is likely to have greater use.
It is the second test of ownership which is causing a number of problems. They arise out of the definition of the word "security" and the concept of what constitutes the need of that security. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. The most desirable outcome would be the deletion of the second test of ownership. That would avoid a situation such as that described by Estelle Morris at col. 779 in Committee in another place on 14th January regarding the Great Barr school in Birmingham. That has been in the process of determination for more than two-and-ahalf years. The assets board deliberated on the matter for 18 months. It has been with the Department for Education since September 1992 and has still not been determined. I go into some detail on the case because I know that it is of great interest to my noble friend Lord Howell.
The second purpose of the amendment is to probe the meaning of the word "security" and to examine what factors constitute a greater need of securing for ownership.
I shall not address Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 and we shall not move them when they are called.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving notice that he will not move the other amendments in the group and that he speaks only to Amendment No. 80, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 293. Obviously, they are linked and relate to the transfer of certain types of property rights and liabilities when a school becomes grant maintained.
Under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 there are criteria set out for deciding to whom property should be transferred where it cannot be divided between the school and the LEA. The type of property involved is that which is held or subsisting for the purposes of more than one institution, or which is held or subsisting partly for the purposes of one or more relevant institutions and partly for the other purposes of the LEA. Examples of the former might be a library, swimming pool, gymnasium or theatre, all of which may be shared by more than one institution. A common example of the latter is where school facilities—for example, classrooms, playing fields or theatres—are also used by the local community.
The amendments seek to change the criteria to be used in deciding to whom property should be transferred. Specifically, they will remove the provision in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 to the
1186
Education Reform Act allowing for preferential consideration in certain transfer cases to be given to the body which appears,
"to be in greater need of the security afforded by that estate or interest".
The noble Lord pressed us on the meaning of those words.
The obvious effect of the change would be to reduce the circumstances in which property would be transferred to the school. While the school might quite reasonably be in greater need of the security afforded by ownership of the property, its claim to be likely to be able to make use of the property "to the greater extent" might be harder to sustain. The sheer size of an LEA might enable it to argue that it had more scope to use the property than the school.
We do not believe that this is a sound reason for changing the present arrangements. They are flexible and allow for consideration of transfer matters on a case by case basis. If property which has been in the past used by more than one institution is transferred to one party, the other party is still protected in its use of that property: its user rights are not lost by a transfer of property to a school. They are preserved as part of the terms of the transfer agreement.
These amendments seek to change the balance between LEAs and schools. I do not accept that they are justified or necessary. An LEA does not need any further advantages in its dealings with individual schools. The security offered by the present arrangements is essential to individual schools. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
1 a.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I will withdraw my amendment. However, I would question whether the answer addresses fully the problems of the Great Barr school. As far as I understand that case, the problem is that various other interested groups have been disadvantaged by the transfer, I believe of the gymnasium, to the school.
The noble Lord said that that is a consideration and it should not be the case. My understanding of the case, which has been put forward for determination, is that that is the problem which the amendment seeks to address. As I said, I shall not press the amendment further at this stage but, on a brief hearing of the Minister's explanation, I am far from satisfied that he is addressing that problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Transfer of staff]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) any person not employed by the school but placed at the school to meet the special educational needs of a child or children, where the Secretary of State considers that continued employment by the Local Education Authority is more appropriate".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for kindly arranging a meeting with her officials

1187
after the previous stage of the Bill and for sending me a copy of her letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), which was extremely helpful.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that staff who are part of a support service for pupils with special educational needs do not automatically become employees of the school if that school becomes grant-maintained. Teachers or specially trained assistants may be deployed at one school for the purpose of supporting a child or children with special educational needs. It may be beneficial for a member of staff to transfer when a child or group of children transfer, for example, to a secondary school or from pre-school services to school-based services. Equally, the child's needs may change and it may become important to draw on different specialist expertise.
As Clause 37 is currently drafted, it would mean that on becoming grant-maintained the school would retain all the staff currently working full-time at the school. That could lead to a system which would serve neither children nor schools well. In Committee in the other place distinctions were made between staffing and equipment being used by individual children and staffing and equipment being used by more than one child. In either instance staffing or equipment may need to be moved to best meet the needs of children.
The argument has also been put that staff should be employed at a grant-maintained school because that is the only way in which the educational management of the child can be retained in the school. However, the employment of special needs staff is not a prerequisite for retaining such responsibility. The school which receives part-time support from a central support team still has responsibility for the child. The key factor is not the quality of support but that the child is in mainstream education and on the roll of a mainstream school.
It has been accepted that some flexibility is required in decisions about equipment. I maintain that the same is true for staffing. That may be particularly so in relation to teachers with very specialised skills, such as teachers of the deaf or visually impaired children, many of whom are employed by central support services. Flexibility could be achieved if a decision was made school by school. The criteria for decisions on whether to transfer staff could be based on the impact on the local education authority's ability to fulfil its policies and plans for special educational needs. That decision should be made by the Secretary of State in the light of all the evidence.
In my view, it is essential that the Bill is amended to avoid the automatic transfer of employment to a grant-maintained school where such a transfer is clearly contrary to the effective long-term use of resources. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, most warmly, as does the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has attached her name to the amendment but who, unfortunately, has had to leave the Chamber. The noble Lord made a compelling and comprehensive
1188
case. I shall only add that I very much hope that the flexibility now contained in the amendment will find favour with the Minister.
I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the very useful meeting that we had with the officials about the amendment and a related one that I moved in Committee which referred to equipment. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness for her letter of 28th May (regarding my amendment about equipment) which reads:
"I understand that you feel that the Education Assets Board (EAB) might usefully provide guidance on the question of the transfer of special education needs equipment, drawing on its experience to date. This might prove reassuring to those who are not aware of the role of the EAB in ascertaining which of a school's assets or liabilities should remain with the LEA when a school becomes grant-maintained, and which should transfer to the school itself. Officials are already in touch with the EAB on this, and they are now considering the form the guidance might take".
That is very satisfactory. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his noble friend. I hope that he will agree to the amendment, or something like it, to resolve the question of special educational needs staff in an equally satisfactory manner.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my voice to those supporting the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has put forward a very important point. As local authorities will still be maintaining the responsibility for special educational needs, it seems rather silly to try to deprive them of their staff who are capable of giving the correct support.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the thanks both from my noble friend and from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I shall certainly ensure that the thanks they expressed in relation to my noble friend are brought to her attention. Before responding to the amendment, I think that it might be worth reminding ourselves of what Clause 37 is intended to achieve. Clause 37 deals with the transfer of staff to self-governing schools. In most cases the staff working at the school prior to it becoming self-governing will automatically transfer to the school when it acquires its new status.
If the amendment was accepted, it would mean that certain staff appointed to meet children's special educational needs would not necessarily transfer to the employment of the governing body; they would continue to be employed and controlled by the local education authority. The amendment would, therefore, go against one of the central principles of grant-maintained status: grant-maintained schools are self-governing schools whose parents have voted to remove them from the control of the LEA.
Virtually all other LEA staff employed to work solely at the school automatically transfer to the employment of the governing body when the school becomes self-governing. I am sure that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness will agree that control of major staff decisions, such as appointments and dismissals, is a central feature of any system which devolves responsibility to the school. My noble

1189
friend's amendment would to some extent contradict that. Excluding certain staff from the control of the governing body would significantly reduce the power of the governors.
We do, of course, recognise that both LEAs and governing bodies have responsibilities towards children with special educational needs. The position will not, however, be improved by reducing the governing body's role in staffing decisions. The governing body, after all, has overall responsibility for both the child and the school. The Bill makes clear at Clause 155 that it has to use its best endeavours to secure appropriate provision for those of its pupils with special educational needs: this amendment will not assist it in meeting this obligation.
On a purely practical level I also believe that this proposal could be unworkable. It seeks to involve the Secretary of State in decisions about individual staff. This would require detailed knowledge of the circumstances of those staff potentially affected. This could easily be an additional bureaucratic burden for both the school and the department.
I believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend is clearly well-intentioned but I do not believe it is necessary. In terms of special educational needs staff, the staff transfer provisions of the Education Reform Act, which this clause substantially replicates, have not proved problematic. Schools and LEAs can work together on special education staffing matters without the need for statutory compulsion. Effectively this amendment would take certain staffing decisions away from the school and put them in the hands of the Secretary of State. We believe that that would be contrary to the philosophy of grant-maintained status. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support. My noble friend Lord Henley will not be at all surprised to learn that I did not like his response or agree with it. I wonder whether he has understood the amendment. He talks about staff who are employed by the school, but the amendment specifically refers to,
"any person not employed by the school".
I do not intend to press this matter this evening but I shall consider it further between now and Third Reading and I shall consider what my noble friend has said. However, I have a strong feeling that it may well he necessary to return at Third Reading with yet another amendment to endeavour to get this provision inserted in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Restriction on change of purpose for which property used or held]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Supplementary provisions about transfers]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 27, line 4, after ("(1)") insert ("No duty of a local education authority under paragraph 6 of the First Schedule to t he Education Act 1946 (maintenance of voluntary schools)
1190
to convey their interest in any site or buildings to the trustees of a school shall be affected by the school subsequently becoming a grant-maintained school.
(1A) Where such a duty is continued by virtue of subsection (1) above, then, in connection with the site in question, paragraphs 6 to 9 of that Schedule shall continue to apply after the school becomes a grant-maintained school as if it were a controlled school or, as the case may be, an aided or special agreement school.
(1B) Where any such duty as is referred to in subsection (1) above, or imposed by section 263(1) of this Act, applies in relation to a school, then—

(a)if it applies immediately before the date of implementation of proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status, section 36(1)(a)of this Act shall not apply to, or to any interest in, the site or buildings or, as the case may be, the premises to be conveyed, and

(b)if it applies at a time when the procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status is pending, section 39 of this Act shall not apply to disposing, or entering into a contract to dispose, of the site or buildings or, as the case may be, the premises to he conveyed.

(1C) Where immediately before the date of implementation of proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status there is an agreement relating to any site or buildings made under paragraph 3 or 4 of that Schedule, section 36(1)(a)of this Act shall not apply to any rights or liabilities of any local authority under the agreement; and any directions given before that date under paragraph 5 of that Schedule, so far as they relate to the governing body of the school, shall have effect on or after that date as if they related to the governing body incorporated under section 32 of this Act.
(1D)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Proposals by promoters]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 88:
Page 27, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("for the purpose of providing relevant education").
Page 28, line 14, at end insert:
("( )A local education authority may not establish any grant-maintained school.
( ) In relation to England thissection haseffect at any timeafter the funding authority have begun to exercise their functions.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause48[Provisionssupplementarytosections46and 47]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:
Page 28, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) Subsection (2B) below applies where promoters propose to establish a grant-maintained school in place of an existing independent school which it is proposed to discontinue on or before the date of implementation of the proposals.
(2B) Where this subsection applies, the proposals published by the promoters under section 47 of this Act shall, in addition to the matters required to be specified by virtue of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to this Act—

(a)specify any arrangements proposed to be made by the promoters for land and other property held for the purposes of the existing independent school to be held for the purposes of the grant-maintained school, and

(b)state whether there is a trust deed or other instrument relating to the existing independent school.").

1191
Page 28, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 26 and insert:
("part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons of any age over compulsory school age, or full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of nineteen years").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to with Amendment No. 59. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Proposals for schools to become, or be established as, grant-maintained schools]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 185, line 36, at beginning insert ("Within the period of ten days beginning with the date of publication of the proposals").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 186, line 16, after ("school") insert (", the percentage of those eligible to vote who voted,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I have just been saved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as I believe this was debated in an earlier grouping and is a consequential amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to make it easier perhaps, could the noble Lord remind us which earlier amendment this was agreed to with? I am sorry to be rather slow on this matter.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it was No. 69.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 187, line 4, leave out ("proposed for the governing body") and insert ("to be appointed by him").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my apologies for the previous amendment. In moving Amendment No. 94 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 137 to 140 and 263 to 265.
This series of minor amendments tidies the original drafting of Clause 64, which deals with the appointment of sponsor governors in grant-maintained schools, and of Clause 250, which deals with similar appointments in aided schools. There are consequential amendments to Schedule 3.
One set of amendments-Amendments Nos. 94, 97 and 139-relates to the appointment of sponsor governors in schools acquiring grant-maintained status or being established as new grant-maintained schools, and deals particularly with cases where a school wishes to take on two or more separate sponsors. The amendments provide that in such cases it will be made clear, in both the published proposals
1192
for the school and in its initial instrument of government, how many sponsor governors will be appointed by each of the sponsors.
Additionally, Amendment No. 139 provides that no sponsor governor may represent two or more sponsors acting jointly. This ensures a clear line of responsibility and accountability between a sponsor governor and the single sponsor he represents.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 137, 138, 263, 264 and 265, we believe that sponsor governors will be most beneficial and appropriate to secondary schools, and our intention is that the two clauses should relate only to secondary schools. The clauses as drafted broadly reflect that, and the amendments ensure that that will be the case.
Finally, Amendment No. 140 provides that once the instrument of government for a new grant-maintained school with sponsor governors comes into force the instrument will not need to be amended again simply to reflect the first appointments of sponsor governors. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone will oppose the amendments. I merely ask whether it is possible that a little less haste might have meant that these points were noticed before the Bill was published.
Lord Henley: My Lords, one of the purposes of taking Bills through both Houses of Parliament in the way they are is to give us the opportunity to make amendments as we listen to representations made by various individuals and as Ministers themselves consider the Bill further. That is why it was felt that these minor amendments—as I said, simply to tidy up the provisions—were brought forward. I do not believe that the Bill has necessarily been brought forward with excessive haste and I do not believe that the suggestion which the noble Earl made is justified.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 102:
Page 187, line 33, leave out ("intended") and insert ("proposed").
Page 187, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert ("and, if pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, give the prescribed information").
Page 188, line 18, leave out from ("of") to ("(in") in line 19 and insert ("sponsor governors to be appointed by him").
Page 188, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert ("and, if pupils are proposed to be admitted for nursery education, give the prescribed information").
Page 189, line 3, after ("10") insert ("or (as the case may be) paragraph 11").
Page 189, line 25, at end insert ("(except, in relation to Wales, before the Schools Funding Council for Wales begin to exercise their functions)").
Page 189, line 31, after ("published") insert ("under section 46 of this Act, the funding authority shall prepare the particulars in respect of the proposed premises of the school mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below.
(1A) Where proposals for the establishment of a new grant-maintained school are published under section 47 of this Act").
Page 189, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert ("funding authority, at such time and in such form and manner as the authority may direct, by the promoters").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 95 to 102 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 were debated with Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 97 with Amendment No. 94, Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 with Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 100 with Amendment No. 59 and Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 189, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert ("may be required or, in the case of proposals published under section 47 of this Act, as the funding authority may require").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment was debated with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Approval, adoption or rejection of proposals]:
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108:
Page 28. line 44, at end insert:
("( ) In relation to Wales, subsection (3) above shall have effect before the Schools Funding Council for Wales begin to exercise their functions with the omission of the reference to consulting the funding authority.").
Page 29, line 1, at beginning insert:
("In the case of proposals published under section 46 of this Act, particulars in respect of the proposed premises of the school prepared under paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to this Act must be adopted by the funding authority.
(4A) In the case of proposals published under section 47 of this Act").
Page 29, line 3, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("funding authority").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 was debated with Amendment No. 59 and Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 were debated with Amendment No. 77. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Implementation of proposals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 29, line 28, after ("particulars") insert ("adopted or").
Page 29, line 29, after (" 49(4)") insert ("or (4A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments which were debated with Amendment No. 77.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51 [Exercise of powers before proposed date of implementation, and payment of grant]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 30, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Such requirements may, in particular, if any conditions specified in the requirements are satisfied, require the payment to the funding authority of the whole or any part of the following amount.
( ) That amount is—

(a) the amount of the payments made in respect of the grant, or

1194

(b) so much of the value of any premises or equipment in respect of which the grant was paid as is determined in accordance with the requirements to be properly attributable to the payment of such grant, whichever is the greater.

( ) In this section "site" does not include playing fields.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 192, line 45, leave out from ("must") to end of line 46 and insert ("until every initial governor has ceased to hold office, make the provision required by sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 112 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120 to 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 148 to 160 and also 267. I understand we shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. These amendments all deal with governors at grant-maintained schools. If I may, I should like first quickly to dispose of Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 114, 127 and 129. These are technical amendments which relate to Schedules 5 and 7 to the Bill.
The three amendments to Schedule 5 will make it clear that the instrument of government will provide for the terms of office of initial governors and those parent and teacher governors appointed before the date of implementation of proposals in "new" grant-maintained schools. The instrument will, however, only have to make these provisions while there are still such governors on the governing body: it would clearly not make sense for an instrument of government made 10 years into the life of a grant-maintained school still to refer to the terms of office of initial governors who have long since left the governing body.
The amendments to Schedule 7 merely clarify references to Clauses 58(6) and 59(4). The schedule currently implies that these clauses stipulate that the instrument of government should make certain provisions in respect of the appointment of parent and teacher governors in new grant-maintained schools. In fact, rather than making stipulations the two clauses only provide for the instrument to have effect as if it made those provisions: the amendment makes this clear. I hope with that brief clarification that the House will be prepared to accept the amendments.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 116, 118, 131 to 135 and 297, I think when I started I mentioned Amendment No. 117, which is not in this group. Perhaps I may add that small correction.
Although at first sight this looks to be a lengthy and detailed set of amendments I hope I can assure the House that they are minor but necessary technical changes to ensure consistency among the various provisions dealing with governors in the instrument and articles of government and in proposals from schools for grant-maintained status. We are in particular seeking to ensure that the requirements on governors appointed to new grant-maintained schools are consistent with the need to take account of the absence of parents and teachers before the school is actually established.
Taking government Amendments Nos. 118, 131, 132, 134, 135 and 297, I should explain that among other things these make clear that for new schools the role of the first governors includes appointing parent and teacher governors in the period before implementation: in that period there will be no parents or teachers available to be elected so the first governors will have to appoint them. This is as set out in Clauses 58, 59 and 61. Once the school is up and running these appointed governors will be replaced by elected parents and teachers. The funding authority will have a similar role when it proposes the establishment of a new school. The amendments also improve the wording in the Schedule 19 cross-reference to Clause 55 and provide for consistency in the treatment of instruments and articles of government with respect to Clause 56.
On Amendment No. 116, noble Lords will remember that when we discussed the role of the head teacher during Committee stage my noble friend promised to consider whether a reference to the head teacher might be specifically included in Schedule 6. This amendment puts into effect that commitment. It makes explicit what was implicit in the schedule: that articles of government must set out the head teacher's functions.
I will now speak to Amendments Nos. 120 to 126, 148 to 152 and 156 to 160. Once again I apologise for the number of amendments involved, but the effect of the amendments is really quite simple. These amendments are intended to bridge a gap in the current arrangements dealing with parent governors. In LEA-maintained schools, parent governors may be appointed if fewer governors stand for election than there are vacancies on the governing body. Similar arrangements apply in grant-maintained schools once they are up and running. The existing arrangements do not, however, allow for parent governors to be appointed if too few parents stand for election to the initial governing body of the grant-maintained school. Nor do the existing arrangements allow for situations where an initial parent governor named in the proposals drops out and no one stands for election in his place.
These are not situations that we would expect to happen regularly. That is clearly borne out by the fact that so far the current arrangements have not led to significant difficulties for governing bodies putting together their proposals. It is, however, a situation for which we would like to provide so as to avoid any possible future problems. I trust that with those explanations the House will feel ready to accept that these technical amendments are both necessary and desirable.
I turn lastly to Amendments Nos. 153 to 155. During the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, tabled an amendment seeking to ensure that replacement foundation governors are nominated by the persons or bodies who normally appoint them. Under the current arrangements, if a foundation governor named in a school's proposals for grant-maintained status dies, becomes disqualified from holding office or decides he
1196
no longer wishes to stand as a governor, a replacement may be nominated by the foundation governors on the existing governing body, that is, those on the governing body of the LEA school.
We gave a commitment at Committee stage that the Government would return with suitable amendments to ensure that in all cases the appointing bodies—which could be, for example, the school's foundation or a Church body—select or nominate the initial foundation governors. I trust that the noble Lord and other noble Lords will find those amendments acceptable.
I apologise for having to explain at this hour these amendments at length but I think it was necessary. I shall deal with Amendment No. 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, after he has spoken to it. But meanwhile, I beg to move my own amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may address Amendment No. 115, which concerns the appointment of first governors. The provisions of the 1988 Act were designed mainly around short-term considerations of opting out arrangements, with little attention being paid to the longer-term conduct of the school in grant-maintained status. It is disappointing that the Bill so extensively re-enacts the 1988 provisions without development or improvement.
The initial first governors after opting out may be considered to have stood collectively for election by parents at the school since their nominations are necessarily part of the proposal for acquiring grant-maintained status. The issue that this amendment seeks to address is that replacement first governors may, according to the 1988 Act and this Bill, later be appointed by the existing first governors with little or no other support.
The amendment therefore seeks to provide better tests of parental support for successive appointments to the dominant party, the governing body, by encouraging external nominations and by requiring a high quorum for the governing body meetings which decide on any new appointments. I do not move the amendment at this stage. I address the amendments.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that this amendment will add to the detailed requirements that the instrument of government must include in respect of first governors. It may be that there is concern that first governors should not become self-perpetuating elites. I hope that I can offer reassurance. The composition of the governing body of a self-governing school is carefully balanced. There are, in addition to the first governors, elected parent and teacher governors, and the head teacher as a governor ex officio.
First governors in up-and-running self-governing schools are appointed by the governing body as a whole, including the elected parent and teacher governors. Parents and teachers —I believe this is the point on which the noble Lord wished for reassurance —will therefore have a say in who is to be appointed as a first governor: they are not simply self-appointing. Two of the first governors must also be parents of registered pupils at the school on the date

1197
they take office. This clearly means that the same group of first governors could not remain in office in perpetuity.
First governors must also include members of the local community and business community. A broad range of interests and expertise is therefore brought together in the governing body. Their common aim, however, must be to work for the good of the school. To this end we have made it a requirement in Schedule 7 to the Bill that first governors are committed to the good government and continuing viability of the school.
We believe that there are already sensible safeguards in place over the appointment of first governors and that it would not be appropriate to encumber self-governing schools with unnecessary requirements. That certainly would be the case if this amendment were accepted. I appreciate that the noble Lord has spoken to it more in the manner of a probing amendment. I trust, therefore, that he will not press it when the time comes. In the meantime, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 113 and 114:
Page 193, line 11, leave out ("any") insert ("the instrument for a school must, until every").
Page 193, line 13, leave out ("shall") and insert ("has ceased to hold office, provide for any such governor to").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Content of articles of government for grant-maintained schools]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 194, line 35, after second ("body") insert:
("( ) the head teacher").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
Clause 55 [Subsequent instruments of government]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 31, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall in respect of subsections (l), (2), (3) and (4) above, consult—

(a) the relevant Diocesan Board of Education (in the case of Church of England endowed grant-maintained schools);

(b) the relevant Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop and Trustees (in the case of Roman Catholic endowed grant-maintained schools); and

(c) the person or persons named in the schools Instrument of Government as being entitled to appoint foundation governors (in the case of other endowed grant-maintained schools).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 55, which is about changes in instruments of government. The amendment provides for consultation with the Churches and other persons entitled to appoint foundation governors in the case of endowed grant maintained schools. It follows roughly the wording of Amendment No. 22 of the noble Baroness which amended Clause 2.
Consultation is important to ensure so far as possible that any new instruments of government do not remove or water down the entrenched rights of persons entitled to appoint foundation governors or the promoters of new grant-maintained schools under Section 47 of the Act. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord. At Committee stage I believe that the Minister indicated that she would take this point away and come back to it at Report stage. We have not heard anything and for that reason the amendment has been tabled. It is in order to make sure that she has an opportunity to report back to us.
Baroness Blatch: As I made clear when this matter was raised during Committee stage, the Government will certainly consult widely about the regulations to be made for grant-maintained school instruments and articles of government. I can assure noble Lords that consultation will include national bodies representing the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
The Government believe that it is right to consult the Churches and other appropriate bodies when drawing up national regulations affecting grant-maintained schools. It is also right that those national bodies should be consulted if at a later date all grant-maintained schools or all Church of England or Roman Catholic grant-maintained schools have their instrument or articles of government amended by the Secretary of State.
However, this amendment will not provide for consultation on the making of regulations; that is covered by Clause 54 rather than Clause 55. The amendment is in fact specific to subsequent variations in a school's instrument of government.
It is far more practical for the Secretary of State to consult on a national basis when national changes are being made and on a local basis when he is initiating changes to individual schools. However, if an individual school itself seeks to initiate a change, then it is far more practical that the requirement to consult with the local diocese or bishop should fall on the school. It would not make sense for the Secretary of State to have to consult with local bodies when it is the schools themselves which are seeking a change. The schools will know which are the relevant local bodies and who will be able to enter into meaningful discussions with them prior to seeking the Secretary of State's approval of a change in their instrument of government.
I have given a clear commitment to national consultation on instruments and articles of government regulations. I have also set out some of the ways in which that consultation could be conducted. I do not believe therefore that this amendment is necessary. Apart from the technical problems associated with what is proposed, it is not appropriate for such requirements to be included on the face of the Bill. First, it can be overly rigid to list consultees in statute. Secondly, I do not believe that such singling out of two bodies for inclusion in the Bill is desirable. There are other interests, particularly those of individual schools, which also need to be consulted.

1199
There is one other point worth making. There are a number of other areas in which the Churches would wish to see explicit references to their involvement in consultation. As I said before, we do not think it is necessarily practical to include that type of requirement on the face of the Bill. But I am more than willing, if noble Lords are still concerned about the issue, to table an amendment at the next stage to provide for regulations to be made which will specify which bodies are to be consulted on that and other relevant matters. With that assurance, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance. On the basis of her assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 [Subsequent articles of government]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 32, line 1, leave out ("the existing articles for the school") and insert ("any articles made under paragraph (a) above or, where articles made under Chapter IV of Part I of the Education Reform Act 1988 have effect by virtue of paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 19 to this Act, those articles").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 was spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Whole school behaviour policy
.—(1) The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 22—

(a)in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) after "authority" there is inserted "and for others"; and

(b)at the end of paragraph (a) there is added "and such measures shall be known as the whole school behaviour policy of that school"; and

(c)in paragraph (b), after the words "any such measures" there is inserted—

"( ) to consult with the staff—both academic and non-academic—of that school, with the registered pupils at that school and with the parents of such pupils.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 makes a requirement that,
"The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school shall provide (a) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to determine measures … to be taken with a view to (i) promoting, among pupils, self-discipline and proper regard for authority".
I do not want, either, to expand on or repeat the arguments I adduced at Committee to convince your Lordships—which was not difficult to do—that discipline which rested on a proper regard for authority only would not necessarily provide an effective school. Keeping the pupils down does not necessarily bring them on. Your Lordships agreed that the missing word was "others"—a proper respect for authority and for others.
Therefore the first paragraph of the amendment introduces that word by amending that section. At the same time the amendment takes the opportunity to give a name to the other ingredients of making an effective school; that is, the "whole school behaviour
1200
policy", which is a term widely used in schools in this country. It is much easier to promote a policy if it has a name.
The third element of the amendment is a requirement that the whole school policy shall be approached by the way that works best—that is to say, involving all the staff, both academic and non-academic, and the pupils and their parents.
I should add that at Committee stage my noble friend pronounced herself in some sympathy with the first element of the amendment and said that she would like to think about it between then and Report. I have heard no more and like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am providing her with an opportunity to tell us how she got on with that.
The second two elements could be met by an undertaking from the Minister to proceed by regulation or guidance because it seems to me that the 1986 Act is defective in that respect. That aspect is tackled by the first element in the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will agree at least to accept that much of it. I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very strongly on this point. It would be a pity if all the work the noble Lord has done on the discipline of schools would allow the wording of the 1986 Act to remain. That would be a limited view of the duty a school and its governors should have to ensure that there is moral education in the school. That is not a matter simply of obeying the rules or respecting authority, though it would be an element of it. What is required is a kind of internalisation of the rules where the pupils in the school are taught specifically to develop a moral sense with regard to other people. That requires the 1986 Act to be amended.
It is well known that a whole school policy is needed because the whole staff of a school, teachers and others, have to be prepared to take on the responsibility for developing a moral sense in pupils, largely by example but also by precept and, if necessary, punishment. A whole school policy seems to be something that should be insisted upon. I do not know whether that should be done by regulation or by some other means, but the first part requires legislation. I therefore support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, put forward.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I too very much support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the principle of the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too support the amendment most warmly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Section 22 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 is a key provision. It establishes the responsibility of head teachers to maintain good discipline and order in their schools. The head is empowered to institute measures to that end, but is required to act in accordance with any general principles laid down by the governors. I believe that is the right balance. The governors determine overall policy but the head teacher is the person responsible for day-to-day enforcement and

1201
for reacting to situations as they arise. I do not believe that it is appropriate in primary legislation to lay down too many restrictions on how head teachers should act in carrying out their responsibilities under Section 22 of the 1986 (No. 2) Act. For example, to require in law the head to consult widely as suggested here seems an innocuous enough provision but can lead to problems. What would happen if the course of instituting measures which accorded with broad principles laid down by the governors the pupils, having been consulted, objected to them? How far is the head teacher to be required to take account of such views? Are we not undermining his authority?
That is not to say that the head should act alone in determining the behaviour policy for the school. While he should take the lead in proposing principles and standards, we would expect the detail of policy to be worked out co-operatively in consultation with teaching and non-teaching staff. The principles and reasons for the school's behaviour policy should also be made clear to parents and pupils. The department will be embarking on the production of guidance on behaviour and discipline linked to the new duty in respect of education otherwise and our changes to the exclusion procedures. If I heard my noble friend aright, I believe that at least he accepted the principle that that issue could be coped with in guidance. The former is now on the face of the Bill; the latter will be the subject of further government amendments which will be tabled shortly. I believe that such guidance provides a more appropriate vehicle for encouraging heads to arrive at a degree of consensus among all concerned—staff, parents and pupils—on measures designed to promote good behaviour in schools.
My noble friend Lord Elton will recall that in Committee I expressed some interest in his proposal —repeated here—that respect for others should be specifically mentioned in Section 22 of the 1986 Act. I am sympathetic to the underlying thinking. It is highly desirable that young people should be encouraged to have respect for others, not least those in society who are vulnerable. I have particularly in mind the elderly and the handicapped. The Government's views on the important part that schools can play in promoting shared values are well known. But we must also be alert to the dangers of adding wording to existing primary legislation when it may have little practical effect in law. We would therefore propose to make respect for others a theme in our forthcoming guidance on behaviour rather than amend primary legislation.
I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps she will explain one matter. She referred to guidance on the matter of behaviour but said that it was guidance on education other than in school. If so, it is totally irrelevant to the amendment. I wonder whether that is what she means or whether she is referring to something else.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I took the point of the question. Will my noble friend bear with me and explain it again?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said in her answer, and looked around appealingly, if I may say so, as she said it, that she was planning for there to be guidance issued on behaviour for education otherwise than in schools. That was the phrase that she used. I am talking about what goes on in schools. If that is what she really meant, it has no bearing on this amendment at all and of course it cannot satisfy me. If I dwell a little longer on the thought, I wonder whether she could just cast her eye over what she said and let me know whether or not I am right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is right and that it was on the narrower point of being linked to education otherwise. What my noble friend is saying is that it must be much more expansive and take into account whole school policy in mainstream schools. Is that right?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this amendment addresses what goes on in schools, not what goes on outside schools. That, I think, is fairly clear on the face of the amendment. It was also in the note I sent to my noble friend and her department on Monday explaining that that element of it which she is now discussing—the inclusion of the words "and for others" in the amendment—could only be undertaken by changing legislation whereas the remainder could be undertaken in giving guidance. It seems to me that my noble friend has said that she does not wish to change legislation because it is dangerous to add words which may not have any effect. But the effect they would have would be considerable. At the moment, what the statute book says is that all you have to do to have pupils behave properly is keep them down and make them keep to the rules. After that, you have a good school. That is absolute rubbish. It is not right to leave on the statute book something which says something which is educationally rubbish.
I am not satisfied with that part of my noble friend's reply. We come to the remainder where I said, in the note which I sent to her on Monday, that I would be content for it to be done by guidance. I would be perfectly satisfied with that. But it seems irrelevant to say that guidance will be given connected with a subject within an area totally remote from that which is addressed by the amendment. Of course I cannot at this late hour divide the House but I must tell my noble friend that I am in no way satisfied by either part of her reply and that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I can respond to my noble friend. I am prepared in principle at this stage to accept the addition of the words "for others" to Section 22 but if he will allow me I shall think more about the other things that he said in the course of the amendment and come back and put it right at Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that slight change in course. I look forward to seeing my noble friend's amendment to achieve this. I take it that she will provide the amendment. I am prepared of course to draft but I am also expecting to be told that

1203
it is non-effective if I draft it myself. That is what always happens when I draft anything myself. Great is the pride and satisfaction with which I bring them to the House. I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Categories of governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 126:
Page 197, line 23, after first ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
Page 197, line 23, after second ("elected") insert ("appointed").
Page 197, line 28, after ("and") insert ("a person elected or appointed under that section to hold such office").
Page 197, line 28, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
Page 197, line 29, after ("elected") insert ("appointed").
Page 197, line 34, leave out first ("a") and insert ("an appointment or").
Page 197, line 35, after ("his") insert ("appointment or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving these amendments, perhaps I may deal also with Amendments Nos. 128, 129, 131 and 132. These were spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 199, line 7, leave out ("or (6)") and insert:
("of this Act,
( ) is appointed by virtue of section 58(6)").
Page 199, line 14, leave out ("under a provision of the instrument of government made").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 58 [Parent governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 33, line 3, leave out from ("if") to end of line 8 and insert:
("(a) before the date of implementation of the proposals, the governing body had power to appoint as parent governors persons who satisfy the prescribed requirements, and
(b) the first appointments were to be made before that date.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Teacher governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 33, line 35, leave out from ("if") to end of line 40 and insert:
("(a) before the date of implementation of the proposals, the governing body had power to appoint as teacher governors persons who satisfy the prescribed requirements, and
(b) the first appointments were to be made before that date.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [First governors]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 34, line 29, at end insert:
1204
("( ) shall require at least one of the governors to be a person who can demonstrate recent knowledge and understanding of special educational needs (and such persons may also satisfy one or both of the requirements of paragraph (a) (i) and (ii) above).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 136 which is grouped with it. The purpose of both amendments is to ensure that in a grant-maintained school there is at least one governor with an understanding of special educational needs.
I spoke to these amendments in Committee on 27th April when I moved an amendment relating to parent governors. At col. 267 of the Official Report, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said firmly that he did not see how he could issue guidance to parents as to who they should or should not elect but he would look at the matter again with officials. I accept the point in relation to parents, but I return with amendments aimed at ensuring that there is one person on the governing body with a general understanding of special educational needs. This would help the governing body as a whole to carry out its very clear responsibilities. It would help to establish existing good practice more firmly and complement the Government's own amendment to what is now Clause 155(4) —the requirement to publish the school's policy on special educational needs.
I was very pleased to receive a letter this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which mentioned guidance. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister's reply. If she says what I hope she is going to say, I shall be grateful; I shall shut up and withdraw. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as has been made clear in earlier discussions of these matters, the governing body of a self-governing school is not intended to be purely a representative body. It is there to effectively manage the school. As such it is not necessary or desirable for all possible constituencies to be represented on the governing body.
In many schools the number of pupils with special educational needs is likely to be a very small proportion of the total number of pupils in the school. In some schools there may be no children falling within this category. It would therefore be inappropriate for a particular group of pupils, no matter how few, to be in effect guaranteed their own representative. The influence of such governors might then be disproportionate to the numbers of pupils at the school with special educational needs.
I think that we would all agree that children with special educational needs who are integrated into mainstream school, should be treated in a similar way to the majority of pupils wherever possible. However, I do not believe that these amendments are the best way to achieve this. There are in fact other provisions in the Bill which I believe provide a much more practical and desirable way of approaching this issue.
As noble Lords will know, Part III of the Bill already places great emphasis on the role of the school, and the collective responsibility of all members of its governing body, in providing for all pupils with special educational needs. In particular, Clause 155 continues the requirements of the Education Act 1981

1205
that governing bodies use their "best endeavours" to secure that any registered pupil with special educational needs receives the special educational provision his learning difficulty calls for. The clause also introduces a new provision to bring into effect the Government's policy that schools should publish and report annually on their policies for teaching all pupils who have special educational needs. Additionally, all schools in the maintained sector (and this includes self-governing schools) will be required to have regard to the code of practice to be introduced under Clause 151. The code will offer practical guidance to the governing bodies of such schools on how to exercise their functions towards pupils with special educational needs.
I think these general requirements demonstrate our commitment to improving the position of pupils with special educational needs. They show that schools must take very seriously their responsibilities towards pupils with special educational needs. They are a more practical proposition than those put forward in these amendments. At a more detailed level, I also believe the amendments would cause severe difficulties for schools because they are not sufficiently objective. Who is to say what level of special educational needs expertise will qualify a person to be a governor under this category? Who will do the testing? I am sure my noble friends will accept that placing ill-defined criteria on governing bodies can only lead to confusion.
In any case, the governing body of a self-governing school is not required to contain persons with individual expertise in any other particular area. There is no requirement for there to be a governor with, say, knowledge of staffing issues, or the curriculum. It should not therefore be obligatory for there to be a particular special educational needs expert on the governing body. I would here add that schools are of course free to obtain specialist advice on any subject and that will obviously include advice on special educational needs.
As I think has been made clear, we would expect the governing body as a whole to be familiar with the requirements of children with special needs in their school. With this in mind, we shall consider carefully how guidance under the Bill, once enacted, could encourage governing bodies to make sure that by whatever way seems most appropriate they have the necessary knowledge to fulfil their duties towards pupils with special needs. The Government believe that this will be of more general value than appointing one specific governor with knowledge of special educational needs.
Finally, and not insignificantly, this amendment may also have the effect of marginalising pupils with special needs by making them appear to be a separate group within the school with their own governor. I am sure that this is not the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), but it may be one effect and another reason why we have to ask for these amendments to be opposed.
Therefore, although I know that these amendments are underlain by considerable anxiety on the part of the noble Baroness, they are neither practical nor
1206
desirable. I hope that the more practical measure which I have mentioned, together with what my noble friend Lord Henley said in the letter to the noble Baroness, will mean that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for taking the trouble to give such a long and detailed reply. I find some of it slightly discouraging and would not agree with her arguments. But what I found encouraging was what was probably her penultimate paragraph when she said that she would encourage governing bodies to make sure that, by whatever means is appropriate, they have the necessary knowledge to fulfil their duties towards pupils with special educational needs by guidance. In many cases I imagine that that will mean appointing a governor with such knowledge. Indeed, many governing bodies have already done so. Anyway, I am in the main well satisfied with what she has said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in his letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 134 and 135:
Page 35, line 11, after ("Act") insert:
("(a) any provision of the instrument made by virtue of").
Page 35, line 13, at end insert ("and
( ) any provision of the instrument made by virtue of subsection (3) (b) above shall apply as if references to the governing body were references to the funding authority").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these were spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63 [Foundation governors]:
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Sponsor governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 140:
Page 37, line 25, leave out ("school which provides secondary education") and insert ("secondary school").
Page 37, line 33, leave out ("provide secondary education") and insert ("be a secondary school").
Page 37, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) Where the instrument of government provides for two or more persons named as sponsors of the school in such proposals or, as the case may be, in the instrument to appoint governors

(a)it shall provide for each sponsor to appoint such number of governors as is specified in relation to him in the proposals or, as the case may be, instrument, and

(b)it may not provide for any of those governors to be appointed by two or more sponsors acting jointly.").

Page 37, line 41, leave out ("provide for") and insert ("have effect as if it required").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these were spoken to with Amendment No. 94. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 66 [Powers of governing body]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 141:

1207
Page 38, line 26, leave out ("and (7) below") and insert ("(7) and (7A) below and section (Charitable payments etc. to individual pupils) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 141, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 142 and 143.
Clause 66 confers powers upon the governing body of a grant-maintained school in an unrestricted manner which causes some concern. Subsection (4) states:
"the governing body of a grant-maintained school may do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the conduct of the school".
These amendments aim to address two concerns arising from that subsection. The more specific concern is in respect of potential abuse of financial resources (whether private charitable funds or otherwise) by governors offering inducements or marketing incentives in order to recruit more pupils. The more general concern is that private charitable funds in the hands of the governors as trustees may not be properly held separate from other moneys over which they may exercise greater discretion.
The Minister might say in reply that there is no evidence of misbehaviour and so there is no case for legislating. To counter that, one might refer back to the 1988 Act's provisions about charges in maintained schools: where Ministers accepted in 1988 that clarification of the limits of schools' powers was desirable, even though the evidence then was of confusion rather than misbehaviour.
Would the Minister in replying state clearly the Government's position on legislating to prevent the kinds of abuse referred to? Could the Minister describe what action could be taken, short of new legislation, in response to any reported instances of abuse or misbehaviour? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a governing body will have many expenditure priorities and will not, I believe, even contemplate using grant to induce pupils to join or remain at the school. More specifically, a governing body would not be able to justify the use of its grant to influence pupils to join or remain at a school. As Clause 79 makes clear, annual maintenance grant is specifically paid to the governing body, "in respect of expenditure for the purposes of the school". It is very doubtful that any governing body could legitimately claim that offering payments to pupils to join a school or to remain at the school could be classed as expenditure for the "purposes of the school".
As to the new clause, this would require that any help given to pupils from charitable funds should be given independently of the likelihood of the pupil remaining at the school; and to comply with directions from the Secretary of State on the considerations they may take into account when giving such help. This strikes me as an unnecessary interference in the right of schools to administer these trusts according to their own good sense and the wishes of the donor. It also looks like a recipe for confusion: who is to say whether assistance to pupils is or is not to be regarded as conducive to that pupil staying at the school?
1208
The new clause would also require charities making such payments to be administered separately from the school's administration. That is both unrealistic and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is not practical or desirable for the Bill to spell out every single power that a governing body may require. Nor does it make sense to specify every action it shall not take. Certainly that is not the way in which the equivalent section—Section 57(3) of the Education Reform Act—was framed.
There has not to my knowledge been any suggestion that schools will use their grant in order to recruit pupils. Nor do we believe that the general powers provisions of the governing body, as set out in this Bill, extend to allowing payments to be made to pupils. Similarly, I am unaware of any instances when assistance to pupils from charitable trusts have been used in the way envisaged by the proposed new clause. With the exposed position of published accounts, and auditing and monitoring procedures, it is almost impossible to think that any school could abuse the system in such a way. I ask that the amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. However, she did not reply to one of my questions. If there are any reported instances of abuse, what action short of new legislation can be taken in respect of those abuses, however unlikely she may believe that will be?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if there were abuse of funds, that would be picked up by the district auditor or complained about by a parent or even a governor. It would be dealt with in the way any abuse of public money is dealt with.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lord, I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall consider my position on this set of amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 to 147 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Determination of initial parent and teacher governors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 150:
Page 41, line 15, after ("election") insert ("or appointment").
Page 41, line 46, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed by the procedure applicable under that Act").
Page 42, line 7, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Replacement of proposed initial parent and teacher governors before incorporation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 151 and 152:
Page 43, line 44, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed by the procedure applicable under that Act").
Page 44, line 3, after ("election") insert ("or make an appointment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73 [Replacement of proposed initial first or foundation governors before incorporation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 155:
Page 45, line 31, after ("by") insert ("the person or persons named in the school's instrument of government as being entitled to appoint").
Page 45, line 32, leave out ("on") and insert ("to").
Page 45, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("( ) Subsections (8) and (9) of section 71 of this Act apply for the purposes of subsection (2) above as they apply for the purposes of that section, but as if references to selection were to nomination.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74 [Elections and appointments required for determining initial governors of an elected category: supplementary provisions]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 156 to 158:
Page 46, line 16, after ("election") insert ("or appointment").
Page 46, line 37, leave out ("in the case of an election").
Page 46, line 39, leave out ("in the case of an election or appointment").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 78 [Chapter V: interpretation]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 159 and 160:
Page 47, line 39, after first ("Act") insert ("and in sections 69(7) and 72(2) of this Act").
Page 47 line 40, leave out ("in relation to filling the vacancy").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at three minutes past two o'clock.