Lords Sitting of 13 May 1993

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

Foot and Mouth Disease
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that sufficient resources are available to prevent the introduction and spread of foot and mouth disease.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, yes, the state veterinary service has at is disposal the resources necessary to enforce statutory import controls and to deal quickly and effectively with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease should one occur.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept my observation that the Minister of Agriculture acted extremely swiftly to deal with the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease which arose from the recent importation from the European Community of cattle with falsified veterinary certificates, although I understand that all the cattle have not yet been traced? Does he agree that the advent of the single market and the consequent abandonment of veterinary controls at our ports make us extremely vulnerable to the importation of all livestock diseases, not just foot and mouth disease, and thereby puts at risk the extremely high animal health status that this country enjoys from being an island?
Earl Howe: My Lords I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks about the Ministry's swift action in response to allegations that possible seropositive animals had entered this country. He may like to know that we have traced and tested some 860 animals to date and of those animals 260 have proved seropositive.
Trade in live animals and genetic materials is subject to strict animal health rules, requiring all consignments to be accompanied by health certification signed by an official veterinarian of the exporting country. Certification confirms compliance with the rules, which are designed to protect the importing country from diseases such as foot and mouth disease. In addition, under single market arrangements, veterinary checks are carried out at points of origin in the EC, supported by spot checks at points of destination. In the case of third country trade, documentary, physical and identity checks are carried out on all consignments on entry into the Community. If, despite those arrangements, an outbreak of serious disease should occur in Great Britain, contingency plans have been prepared to ensure that it is contained and stamped out as rapidly as possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we note what my noble friend said about the effect of our being in the single market. Can he confirm the hope that the Channel Tunnel will not lead to any extension of foot and mouth disease in this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, under the old arrangements prior to the introduction of the single market we were always reliant on foreign veterinary services to inform us whether or not to issue an import licence. That was the old system. We now have a system with a much better degree of co-ordination between member states and a common approach. The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Italy demonstrated that the new system works very well indeed. I hope I can reassure my noble friend that when the Channel Tunnel is opened there should be no diminution in the safeguards that are now in place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that I had the responsibility of implementing the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee on foot and mouth disease? Are the Government satisfied that those recommendations, as they were brought into force, are adequate to deal with the current problems and developments to which noble Lords referred, including the Channel Tunnel and the consequences of the single market?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, we are fully satisfied that the recommendations made in that report will be sufficient when they are implemented to protect us in the way in which the noble Lord clearly desires.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that I expressed my concern on this matter early last year? Can he say whether he believes that the position is in fact as secure as he suspects, as only spot checks are done on animals entering this country? Does he agree that it would be better to check all the animals coming into this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I explained, we now have an automatic system of certification at point of origin within the Community. In due course that will be supplemented with a computerised record of animal movements within the Community to pre-warn the member state that will receive the animals. I am fully satisfied that we have a more secure system than the one we had before.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, to the extent that the government procedures rely on overseas certification at some point, will they bear in mind that within certain member states there is a level of corruption that is incompatible with the issue of proper certification? Will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that the Government have taken that factor into account?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are very much aware of the incidence of fraud within the Community. But there is no evidence to date that veterinary surgeons in fellow member states have been subject to any degree of corruption whatsoever. In fact we have full confidence in their abilities to certify as

1363
necessary. Indeed, veterinary surgeons' qualifications are harmonised throughout the EC and have been since the 1970s.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the Minister has detailed the rules and regulations that apply to the movement of animals within the Community and, indeed, within greater Europe, but is he aware that veterinary authorities, especially in this country, lack confidence in the ability of some eastern countries to apply them in a satisfactory manner, both in regard to animals coming in from outside the European Community and within the Community itself?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend about our views on the qualifications and abilities of veterinary surgeons within the Community. As regards veterinary surgeons outside the Community, and in particular those in the Czech Republic and Poland, we are keeping the situation under review. Trade is only allowed subject to those countries providing strict additional safeguards which will prevent the spread of the disease.
A Noble Lord: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches has been trying to speak for some time.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, from my experience I hold the view that our present policy is the best within the Community. Is there any hope of persuading our counterparts in Europe to pursue a policy similar to ours, which is without doubt the best?
Earl Howe: My Lords, all other member states within the Community have fallen into line with our long-held policy of slaughter and stamping out foot and mouth disease should an outbreak occur rather than wholesale vaccination, which was previously their policy.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is a possibility that lorry drivers, taking loads of calves from Ireland and Britain to European countries, may want to fill their lorries on the way back and buy cheap cattle of doubtful certification from third countries?
Earl Howe: My Lords, if that occurs, when entering the Community the animals would be subject to checks at the border and would be stopped if proper certification were not in place.

NHS Private Finance Initiative: Scrutiny
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new measures announced on 21st April relating to private sector involvement in the NHS will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the private finance initiative was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement. Use of private finance is encouraged where it gives the National Health Service best value for money. The Department of Health and the Treasury will continue to scrutinise business cases for large projects, while those for smaller ones will be scrutinised locally.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full and detailed Answer. Is she aware that Mr. Tom Sackville, a junior Minister who sits in another place, last month made a Statement in which he disclosed that hospitals would be free to negotiate with firms for deals worth up to £10 million without the need for Treasury approval? The present limit is £225,000. Is not that an enormous increase to set loose without scrutiny? Bearing in mind the recent announcement that the Secretary of State is negotiating with Tesco and Marks & Spencer—a company which does not provide basic toilet facilities or a changing room for mothers with babies in its stores—are we not entering into partnership with some extremely strange people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service has strict scrutiny of its finances in terms of the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office and internal auditors, which every hospital and health authority must have. The Tesco scheme to which the noble Lord refers has not yet been agreed. The limits have been reduced. Where a case being submitted is either novel or contentious, then the Treasury would want to have a say in it.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the £225,000 limit on joint ventures between private companies and the health service was so small, on the basis that building costs are so expensive, that no private venture of any consequence ever took place? The result of increasing that limit to £10 million means that whole blocks of new capital from the private sector will be able to go into the health service. It will then be able to produce better funding and, as a result, infinitely better care for the patients who deserve it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Even as a chairman I remember being extremely frustrated by certain schemes which would be good for the private sector, the National Health Service and patients but which were not able to go ahead. With the additional flexibility being introduced, £2.1 billion extra capital finance will be available to the National Health Service this year.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, in the case of deals taking place—in order to obtain further capital for the health service—with companies like Tesco and Marks & Spencer in return for the right to build stores, the local planning authority will never be overridden on a question of planning for those stores?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those cases will be treated as any other. Where the local planning authority has jurisdiction I am sure that it will come to the right conclusions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is going to the private sector because of the crazy way in which resources have been used, does the noble Baroness agree that the new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, which Her Majesty the Queen is visiting today, was the wrong hospital on the wrong site costing a grossly over-inflated sum of money—£100 million more than the estimate? That decision was taken against a much more viable plan, including retaining hospital services in the Westminster area, which was put together by an all-party group of Peers, of which I had the honour to be chairman. Is it because of that sort of absurd incompetence that the Ministry feels it must go to the private sector?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. The new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is a very, very wonderful hospital. It is one of the best in Europe. I believe that it will provide the services that are necessary. It has made savings in terms of the rationalisation of other hospitals that has taken place. We are immensely proud of it and I have no doubt that it will provide the first-class service for which it was built.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness expecting the introduction of the private sector into the National Health Service to have similar beneficial effects to those of Group 4 in the prison service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we cherish our patients. We hope that we are not careless with them. But this is not a new idea. We have been working with the private sector for many years. This is just introducing flexibility into the rules. Market testing produces £125 million every year. That is the equivalent of running two 500-bedded hospitals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of the fact that the health service cherishes its patients, the present statements cannot be described simply as flexibility? Is she further aware that, in the light of some of the recent statements, the pledge of the Prime Minister at the 1991 Tory conference that,
"there will be no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, nor in part, nor as a whole, not today, not tomorrow, not ever while I am Prime Minister",
now sounds very hollow? In that context, will she agree that, following the Questions of my noble friend Lord Dean both today and yesterday, it really is important that, if private companies are to be brought into the health care system, procedures for accountability are put in place before that private investment is made rather than, as we have seen in the Wessex debacle, in retrospect pulled out by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Commission some time after the event?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is certainly not privatisation. It is the use of private finance to aid the National Health Service. This brings more resources to the service; it ensures that people get good value for money; and it increases the enormous amount that we already put into the National Health Service—£4 million every hour. Of course there has to be very careful monitoring of the schemes; and I explained earlier on in answer to a previous question from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, exactly how we were going to do that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister make every endeavour to carry along all the staff associations of the NHS? Anything that could come out of the scheme, whether it is privatisation or anything else, is bound to affect all the staff of our NHS. Will she give the House an assurance that they will be consulted at all times?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course we try to work with the staff in the National Health Service. They are our greatest resource.
Lord Desai: My Lords, if, as the Minister says, borrowing money from the private sector is not privatisation, what, in her view, is privatisation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, privatisation is when we abandon the ethic of the National Health Service, which is that people—whether they are rich, old, young, poor, black or white—should get their services free at the point of use. That is the ethic of the National Health Service. If that ethic was abandoned, it would be privatisation.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether in future NHS patients who are treated in the private sector will still be able to complain to the Health Service Commissioner if they consider that they have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. They will be part of the National Health Service if the National Health Service is paying for their treatment.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not true that we have expanded health service expenditure from £7 billion when we came to power to £36 billion—an increase of 42 per cent. in real terms? Has my noble friend received any constructive ideas from the Opposition as to what is to be done to find the money, without putting taxes up immensely, to meet the expanding needs of more people living longer, more medical progress and therefore more changes in services? What has been proposed positively by the Opposition?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, very little that I can recommend.

Organophosphate Poisoning
3.25 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the work of various research groups into the long-term effects of organophosphate poisoning on humans is co-ordinated.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive has initiated meetings of the main UK research groups concerned with the long-term effects of organophosphate poisoning on humans to ensure co-ordination of the work.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the gracious way in which he always gives me a full answer to my questions, both written and oral. He is indeed a gentleman. Will he bear in mind that the object of my questions is to help people who are currently suffering from organophosphate poisoning and to prevent future suffering? Will he please say why, in spite of the letter that I have had from the Health and Safety Executive, Dr. Jamal at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow has not yet been contacted? There seems to be no co-ordination with people who are actually suffering; there has been no epidemiological study; and there seems to be a flat refusal to undertake any study on the dangers of inhalation. The manufacturers say in their data sheets that there is a danger from inhalation and yet they are not prepared to take action on the matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is, as the noble Countess will know, a plethora of research being undertaken at the moment funded by the Government and other bodies. We are awaiting the results of that research. Interim results, at the very least, should be available by October when the VPC is due to meet again to complete its review of OP products. With regard to the risk of inhalation, the Government have consistently accepted the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee. That advice is reflected in the new safety leaflet which we are in the course of distributing this week. The advice has been consistent over the years. It is up to each individual farmer to undertake a COSHH assessment prior to a dipping operation so as to identify any particular hazards which may need to be addressed. In some circumstances respiratory equipment may be necessary.
Lord Carter: My Lords, since a study in the Lancet as long ago as 1961 showed the chronic effects of OP poisoning and exposure on farmers and others, and as they are exactly the same effects as we are seeing now—this was backed up by a guidance note from the Health and Safety Executive in 1987—does the Minister agree that a lack of co-ordination of research and a lack of funding may well have contributed to the problems that we now face?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not accept that. The initial reports that we had in the 1950s and 1960s were concerned with worker safety at that time when
1368
agricultural and chemical products were at a far less sophisticated stage of development. In those early days products coming on to the market were not subject to prior government approval and the manufacturing process did not contain the same safeguards against impurities as it does now. I believe that we have responded to current concerns with speed and with the necessary funding.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many people are now suffering from the results of organophosphate poisoning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not have precise figures. But if they are obtainable, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl again why there has been no epidemiological study, which is a study of the number of people suffering from organophosphate poisoning? Why are the Government consistently refusing, even when they are offered help, to carry out such a study? There is a wealth of information out there. People who are suffering know how they originally became contaminated and what treatment helps them best. I ask the Minister again, please, to look again at this matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall look again at the point which the noble Countess raises. The HSE has commissioned a number of pieces of research: first of all, into the possible chronic neuro-psychological effects of occupational exposure to OP products in sheep farmers and, secondly, into the frequency and severity of pesticide poisoning incidents and whether they can result in long-term health effects. As I am sure the noble Countess will agree, those are the crucial questions. It is the results from that research, at least on an interim basis, which we hope to have later in the year.

National Vocational Qualifications
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that industrial organisations are making adequate progress towards the attainment of national vocational qualifications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the framework of national vocational qualifications is an essential part of the Government's training strategy. This framework now covers over 80 per cent. of the employed population at levels 1 to 4. The Government are satisfied that good progress is being made towards the attainment of those qualifications by people in work.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the noble Viscount is a gentleman too. Has he noted the findings of a recent survey carried out of 171 organisations by Industrial Relations Services Limited in which it was found that only one in 35 employees was working towards a national or Scottish vocational qualification and that

1369
only one in 80 had attained such a qualification? If those figures are anything like representative of the overall position, does not the noble Viscount agree that, to say the least, they are most disturbing? Can he say what action, if any, is being taken to improve the position?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, over 300,000 full NVQs have been awarded to date. A number of organisations have a role to play in promoting NVQs. They include the NCVQ and industry training organisations as well as government and business. Much has already been done to promote NVQs within industries. A high profile national publicity campaign was not appropriate until NVQs were widely available. But a major campaign to put NVQs on the map was launched by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment this very morning. National advertising will follow in the autumn.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, can the Minister say which body is responsible for verifying the standards of training organisations to allow them to participate in the vocational qualification schemes?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we use a number of bodies for verification. Perhaps I may mention three as examples. They are the City, and Guilds, BTEC and the RSA. They also give an important quality assurance measure so that NVQs can be appreciated by all employers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government are very complacent about this matter and that the situation is perhaps worse than revealed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester? For example, is the Minister further aware that senior and middle management take hardly any part in those courses? Perhaps even more important, employers are now saying that the courses themselves and the qualifications are not relevant to their needs. Does not the Minister agree that there is hardly anything more important than that? Finally, is the Minister aware that budgets are now being quite severely cut for training in large organisations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I certainly would not agree with the last point which the noble Lord made. The budgets for training are holding up extremely well. Of course, it is very important that employers should know what their employees can do and what is expected of them at work. The possession of a NVQ indicates that an employee has achieved that standard of competence and therefore employers can have confidence in potential employees who have NVQs, irrespective of where the qualification was obtained.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent survey, which I believe was published in the Financial Times, indicates that TEC leaders are very dissatisfied with the situation and with the level of support which they have been receiving from the Government? Does that not indicate perhaps that that is a contributory factor to lower NCVQ attainment? Does not the Minister agree
1370
that something should be done about that? This is not the first time that the issue has been raised from this Dispatch Box.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, TECs are very much involved in the implementation of NVQs. In fact they are funded to put a plan of implementation forward, so they are closely involved. They are also closely involved in the assessment of prior learning. It would be wrong to suggest that because the workforce does not have NVQs it is not qualified. It is because it has a whole range of qualifications—it is the standardisation of that range which is so important—that we are promoting NVQs in the way I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that a great deal of money has gone into the development of NVQs and that, if they are to be good, it will take a great deal of money to pilot the schemes and test them? Does the Minister further agree that it will be a great pity to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar if the money is not there in order to market them? The evidence is that there are a great many people who do not know what the initials mean and the schemes are not being taken advantage of, not only by employees but employers, because of sheet ignorance. Does the noble Viscount accept that what is needed is a firm, well-financed marketing campaign to get the scheme over? I declare an interest as chairman of an administrative body.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely agree with the comments which the noble Baroness has made. It is important that the development of the framework should take place in a controlled manner. We have looked to industry training organisations. Where they have been the lead bodies for the formulation of NVQs—which they carry out with the backing of industry and employers—I believe that that means that the framework we have should be well respected by employers and that they will make good use of the schemes. Just because it has taken a little time for NVQs to be well known, I do not believe that the publicity we are now undertaking over a period of two years—because that is how long the campaign which started today will take—will not make them very well known in future.

Business
3.37 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, the Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and the Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993 will be taken.

Whitsun Recess
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday 27th May and return on Monday 7th June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 27th May.

Business of the House
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Disability Grants Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Monday 17th May.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this is a money Bill and whether that is the reason for this Motion?
Lord Wakeham: Yes, my Lords. It has been certified by the Speaker in that way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 287BA:
After Clause 246, insert the following new clause:
("Information on provision of goods and services
.—(I) The governing body of any grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school shall in accordance with any regulations made by the Secretary of State make available at the commencement of each academic year to any parent or guardian of any pupil admitted to the school (and on request to any other parent of a pupil registered at the school) information falling within subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) above shall include any statement made in accordance with section 265(4) below by a local education authority which has in the previous academic year supplied goods and services to the school concerning contracts for the supply of such goods and services and any period over which such contracts might have effect.
(3) The information referred to in subsection (1) above shall also include whether any local education authority other than that in whose area the school is situated has in the previous academic year supplied goods and services to the school in accordance with section 265 below.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 299ZA, 299BA and 300ZA. There are two strands involved here. The first is a matter of the information that we
1372
feel that parents ought to receive concerning the goods and services that are available to their children's grant-maintained school from the local education authority. The second deals with the question of those goods and services themselves and the stipulations for them which the Government are putting forward in this Bill. This strand brings in the other amendments that are grouped with mine.
Let us look at Clause 265 as printed. In the normal way local authorities may supply goods and services, for example to schools, but only within their existing spare capacity; under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, an LEA is not permitted to retain staff and operate any services which go beyond what it requires for the efficient exercise of its own functions within its own area. This is called trading at the margin of capacity, and it is an ill-defined area where the Audit Commission takes a restrictive line and the courts have never yet pronounced.
What the Government are proposing under Clause 265 is a relaxation of this rule. We welcome this. But before we get too excited about it we must be aware of the restrictions that are to be imposed. An LEA will only be able to trade beyond the margins, first, when the Secretary of State by order says it can, and specifies which services; secondly, for a period of two years thereafter; thirdly, in its own or adjacent area, again as specified by the Secretary of State; and, fourthly, at full cost. It is with some, but not all, of these stipulations that we see some difficulty. I think that it is fair to say that the great majority of local councils (of whatever complexion) are deeply worried about them and have made their views known.
"Goods and services" is a wonderfully nondescript phrase. We are talking here about county music services, in all their richness and variety; about out-of-school drama; about the schools library service; about in-service training, career development for teachers, and all the networks of professional advice and support; about legal advice on school matters, and about personnel advice; about maintenance, repair, cleaning, catering; about school transport; about educational psychology and welfare. They are not just the optional extras—except I suppose in a world where the Back to Basics lobby has taken total control. They are part of the fabric of our children's education, and in the brave new world which is being ushered in the parents of the future, as they make their choice of school, will want to know whether and for how long these services will be available from the sources that have supplied them, on the whole successfully, up until now. This is what Amendment No. 287BA, with its cross-reference to Clause 265 (4) in Amendment No. 300ZA, is all about.
I said that we saw some difficulty with Clause 265 as it stands, with its four main restrictions. The chief problems appear to be these.
As schools opt out, so the operational base of the LEA declines and it becomes harder and harder to maintain a viable core of services. Diseconomies of scale begin to make themselves felt. "Well, good", say the Government, who want to see LEAs wither and perish. But there are children in LEA schools as well as in the GM schools who might want to buy in these

1373
services, and these children are bound to suffer if services decline in quantity and quality. That should concern us all.
The Government hope and expect that a thriving market will come into being to replace the local authorities. In some areas, and in some services, I dare say it will. But in others, notably in rural areas and where specifically educational expertise is called for, it will not be so straightforward. What if no market emerges in some of these areas—or no quality market—or at least no market within the specified two years? This is more than likely. What of the schools that only opt out after the two-year period has run? These are serious objections to the Government's plans as drafted.
It is claimed that, where gaps exist, schools themselves will be able to band together into co-operatives to supply the services. Well, it is a possibility. My scepticism springs from experience of schools getting together for these kinds of purpose in the past. It has often been tried, and it has not often worked. Schools are so different from each other (despite what many people think): each has its own agenda, which becomes all too apparent when the going gets tough. They may be attractive on paper, but arrangements of this kind so easily come apart at the seams, however enthusiastically they start. And we must remember that schools are now being set more and more in competition with each other, which is likely to make future co-operation even more problematic. And, again, in rural areas things will never be easy. An awful lot of schools would have to come together to produce the quality and economy of some of the LEA services they would be replacing.
I can foresee a difficulty with the Secretary of State's order which is to bring this clause into play. When will he know to make it? No one knows for certain at what point an authority is going beyond its margin: there are no certain definitions here; red lights do not begin to flash. What if he gets it wrong, which is not unlikely? Schools of all kinds will suffer.
Just as important—and it is curious to be making this point to a market-orientated Government—there is the issue of choice. Why should schools not purchase their goods and services from whomever they choose? Knock out the most experienced player, and you will ensure that in some areas children will get second-best. One odd effect will be that schools that remain with their LEA will be able to choose between their local services and the private sector, whereas grant-maintained schools can only choose the latter. Many schools in fact went grant-maintained in the full expectation that they would be able to continue to trade with their LEA.
On this point of choice, let me quote from a number of interested parties. First, the National Confederation of Parent-Teachers Associations:
"This is an area where parents have come forward in numbers to voice the desire to keep services under LEA responsibility safe for the future, eg school library service, peripatetic music teaching. They believe these services will disappear along with other much needed services in the name of cost effectiveness".
Next, the Association of Heads of Grant Maintained Schools:
1374
"AHGMS is uncertain about the reasoning behind the proposal that local authorities should be restricted over the services which they may offer to GM schools. Many of us, particularly in rural areas, have valued the services offered. These have been freely negotiated after competition with other suppliers from both public and private sectors and we cannot understand why it is proposed that there should he restraint of such trade".
The Museums Association has written similarly—but we shall doubtless be hearing about that in due course.
Then, the Girls' Schools Association:
"We cannot understand why, after two years, the LEAs must cease to market their services. The independent sector has taken advantage of these which are often excellent. If they are not no-one will buy them and they will, in any case, die. Why abandon a source of expertise already assembled? We are concerned lest the communities created by LEAs and their schools are to be destroyed and the smaller entities of single schools, with their parents and governors, become isolated islands, all competing against each other".
That was the Girls' Schools Association. It is quite clear that the users of these services want them to continue at full strength.
I have described some of the problems. Other noble Lords may find other ones. Our solution in Amendments Nos. 299ZA, 299BA and in 300ZA is quite clear-cut. We have no quarrel over full costs, and not enough of a quarrel over geographical boundaries to make an issue of it here. But we want to do away with the need for the Secretary of State to intervene, in subsections (1) and (2). We think, for the reasons I have given, that there should be a genuinely free market, for the benefit of all schools and all children. And we believe that there should be no artificial time limit on it, in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose Amendment No. 300 also seeks to do away with the two-year restriction in subsection (4). If LEA music, grounds maintenance and curriculum advice are what GM schools want, let them have them; if not, they will wither away.
There cannot be an argument of principle against relaxing the Local Authorities Act of 1970, or the Government would not be proposing it themselves to meet the new situation. And that is the point: we have a new situation in our school system, and to meet it the legislative dog should wag the tail and not vice versa. We must do what is best for our schools—all our schools—and legislate accordingly. Common sense requires it. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: The proposals in the clause have caused widespread concern. Many schools have adopted grant-maintained status, as the noble Earl has been arguing, on the assumption that they would be able to continue to buy local authority services. They are worried by the Government's proposals. The clause could, paradoxically, act as a disincentive to parents in seeking grant-maintained status. Grant-maintained schools may, under the clause as it stands, have their main supplier of particular goods and services (the LEA) disbarred from trading with them. Parents put an enormous amount of time and effort into selecting schools for their children and take many aspects into consideration, including those which may be affected by the clause, such as the provision of school meals, library services, music tuition and the rest. Therefore it seems right that information as to which are provided by LEAs, and for how long LEA provision

1375
may continue, should be notified to parents. That would also mean that such information is in the public domain and therefore available—this is crucial—to prospective parents.
Clause 265, as it stands, provides for exemptions allowing LEAs to provide goods and services to grant-maintained schools by order of the Secretary of State and with an upper time limit of two years on such provision. The Secretary of State may also decree which goods and services may be supplied. The amendments to Clause 265 would enable LEAs to provide goods and services to grant-maintained schools so long as both the LEA and the school wish the service to continue.
If such trading is not allowed, a variety of problems might arise. For example, the proposed time limit will act as a disincentive to set up new or to develop existing LEA-based service provision. What privately run business would start up knowing that its markets could disappear in 24 months? Diseconomies of reducing scale as more schools opt out will make it increasingly difficult for LEAs to retain core services in support of their own schools without disproportionate expense. It is doubtful whether others will necessarily enter the market to provide those services. In some areas—I hope that we all listened to the point the noble Earl was making about this—particularly rural ones, schools could end up with a monopoly private sector supplier of some goods and services which the LEA could provide more efficiently and cheaply were it permitted to do so. The restriction is nothing more than a denial of choice to grant-maintained schools which perversely, as I have said, could inhibit future moves to grant-maintained status.
What I am very worried about in all this is the inevitable drift in the new policy. Are we really supposing that people who are driven by the profit motive—that is the honourable purpose of business—will be looking at the educational needs of the children all over the country or will they be looking for the opportunity for profit? Is this a sensible provision to introduce for the heart of our educational system?
Many of us who look at the provision are also worried by another insidious attack on the whole concept of service. At a time when we talk to young people about values and responsibilities, the message again being sent out is that provision can be made only by those who are profiting out of provision. The sense of service to the community, and effective service, is being dismissed. We know that the better local authorities have been providing outstanding services in that respect. If we become more specific, the issues that must worry us are in the sphere of, for example, outdoor activities. Outdoor activities can be highly dangerous. We have seen that in recent months. Surely the only acceptable standard for our children is a standard of provision which puts safety, professionalism and quality above all else. The thought that people may be coming into the operation merely to be able to make money has frightening dimensions for the future.
As it stands, the clause—I emphasise this point—has met with considerable opposition. The quotations
1376
given by the noble Earl were a good illustration of the breadth of the anxiety, because they came from quarters from which anxiety might not necessarily have been expected. I wonder whether I might add to his quotations one which I find particularly telling in this debate. It is from the secretary to the Headmasters' Conference, no less. What more prestigious body is there in the independent sector of education? He wrote:
"We are concerned that Clause 244 of the current Education Bill will effectively prevent local education authorities from providing support services to grant-maintained and independent schools after two years. Many independent schools have been pleased to take advantage of the services supplied by LEAs and are concerned that such activities will be now left to private enterprise. While our schools will certainly not need to be persuaded that educational activities can be effectively provided by the private sector, there is a serious danger of a valuable resource being eroded to a point where it ceases to be viable. We hope that Clause 244 can be suitably amended to allow the LEAs to complete with private enterprise in providing services to the grant-maintained and independent sectors".
That was officially from the Headmasters' Conference to the Secretary of State.
In its report, The Implementation of Local Management for Schools, published by the DFE itself, HMI noted:
"The support offered by LEAs is an important contributor to the successful implementation of local management by many schools. The grant-maintained and independent sectors too have taken advantage of those quality services. It is difficult to see why this choice should be restricted in the way proposed".
It is also worth recognising that not all grant-maintained schools will be able to benefit from the two-year concession, because, as the noble Earl underlined, that will be true only in respect of grant-maintained schools established at the date when the relevant order is made. Others established later will have a reducing period of discretion. Indeed, as he said, those established more than two years after the date of the order will not benefit at all.
It has been argued that the local authorities exist to provide services to those in their area and not to trade. Surely that should enable them to provide educational services to those pupils for whom they have a responsibility —those who reside in their area. That is not trading in simple market terms, but provision for the residents in their authority, which should be available whether they attend county or grant-maintained schools.
In conclusion, perhaps I may make this point: of course we want the provision of public services to be cost-effective. Nothing less than cost-effectiveness is acceptable. The electorate, and others, should keep its local authorities under sharp scrutiny in that respect. If the free market principle is to be applied, why should not the local authority be able to compete with other private suppliers? There is a basic illogicality here. It seems to me that, regretfully, here we go again at the beginning of our last day in Committee with a distressingly marvellous illustration—if that is not a contradiction in terms—of the way, repeatedly in the Bill, dogmatic ideology comes before common sense and quality. I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Blotch: Perhaps it would help the Committee if I come in on what I believe to be a

1377
misunderstanding of the relationship between the 1970 Act and the provisions of the Bill. If the Committee is agreeable it might inform the debate and of course it would not preclude anyone from coming in after me.
There has been considerable misunderstanding about this part of the Bill. Under the 1970 Act, as the noble Earl said, although he did not go on to discuss the relationship, so long as the LEA does not exceed the margin of capacity, it can provide services to schools (LEA-maintained or grant-maintained) in and beyond its own authority's boundaries. A designation order under Clause 265 would enable the authority, in addition to the 1970 provisions, to trade beyond that margin with grant-maintained schools within the authority or in the area of an adjacent authority. That is in addition to trading up to the margin of capacity in any other local authority.
During that period the LEA could also continue to provide services to schools in other authorities so long as in doing so it was acting within the margins of capacity of any service that relates to the functions of that authority. At the end of the two-year period, which has already been referred to, the authority will continue to have power under the 1970 Act to provide services to grant-maintained schools in any authority in the country, again, so long as it did so within the margin of capacity. These amendments call for the provision of services to anyone and for local authorities to he able to develop businesses to any size whatever.
It is important to make one or two comments about the margin of capacity. First, since 1970—that is 23 years—the margin of capacity has never, ever been determined because no authority has been challenged to have been operating beyond margins of capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked how the Secretary of State will know. The Secretary of State has no hand in this. He will make no judgment on a local authority. It will be for the district auditor to judge that a local authority is spending money over and above money which it ought to be spending on services to people in its area and well beyond using any spare capacity which it may have. If a local authority disagrees with that judgment it will be for the local authority to challenge it. It will then be for the courts to decide the matter, which has not happened in 23 years. Only when the courts have determined will the provisions of Clause 265 come into play. The Secretary of State will indeed be invited to grant an order to a local authority to operate and to trade additionally to the provisions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
Local authority services—and I mean local authority services, which subsume local education authority services—are many and varied. There is, for example, the payroll service. While a local authority exists and has a payroll service it may sell on capacity.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Is the noble Baroness making a final speech or is she just clarifying a point?
Noble Lords: No.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thought that I had made that clear at the outset. Another service is personnel advice. So long as the local authority has the facility and the provision to offer personnel advice, and so long as it does not operate beyond the margin of capacity, it can continue to do that into the mists of time.
So long as it is responsible as a local authority for museums that will continue to be its function and, therefore, they will not disappear as local authority schools become grant-maintained. The same applies to libraries; so long as libraries exist under the function of the local authority generally, the libraries will not disappear and the local authority grant-maintained schools will be able to borrow books from the libraries.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, mentioned transport. I wish to inform the Committee at this point, because it is important, that transport is not affected by the provisions of Clause 265 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Local authorities have the power to provide transport to any pupil at any school. The noble Earl also mentioned psychology services. As I said in previous debates on the Bill, they too are not affected by its provisions. They are protected by Clause 154, which empowers local education authorities to offer special educational needs services to pupils at any school.
When local education authorities have no schools in their areas they will still continue to have trading provisions as local authorities; for example, libraries and museums, which will continue to be a proper function of the local authorities. I hope that my comments have been helpful in relation to some of the debates that may follow.
Lord Dormand of Easington: In order to be sure what we are talking about, will the Minister define "margin of capacity"?
Baroness Blatch: I thought that I had made that clear and I had hoped to be helpful. However, I fear that I was not helpful enough. There is no way of defining "margin of capacity" for any one service. Local authorities have statutory functions. In providing for those functions, they will have departments which offer payroll services, in-service training, libraries, museums, social services and so forth. They will have those departments for the purposes of providing such services to people in their own areas. When they are deemed to be employing extra staff or using extra equipment to satisfy the needs of customers over and above the people for whom they are providing, they will then probably be in the area where they can be deemed to be exceeding capacity.
It will be for the local authority itself either to offer up and say that it is operating to capacity or for the district auditor to make a judgment. The local authority would be in a position to challenge that if it thought that it was unnecessary. If when a local authority is deemed to be trading at capacity, or verging on exceeding capacity, it has two choices. First, it can remain within capacity of any service and

1379
never, ever require a two-year extension. It can continue to provide services and to sell capacity to any customer it wishes. Secondly, it can, if it wishes to go beyond capacity, apply for a two-year extension. It may be that there is a good need, which is why the two-year extension exists, and that grant-maintained schools in an area adjacent to the authority will find it difficult to find services until there is another provider in the area. It will be for my right honourable friend to make a judgment about whether he grants that application.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: From these Benches I had intended to rise in total support of the amendment. Indeed, we support the amendment but we have a confused situation. Many parents, teacher and those connected with education are confused by the situation. They fear that Clause 265 is threatening the continued services and goods offered by local education authorities. As the debate proceeds today we hope that the Government's intentions will become clear.
Many people are worried, confused and suspicious of the Government's intentions. Is it their intention that ultimately local education authorities shall dwindle into mere services for special needs and that everything else will be provided by private enterprise? That idea is extremely problematical. The services may not arise, they may work only for profit, they may become private monopolies, and people are anxious that services such as outdoor education will cease to be adequately supervised.
I ask the Committee to bear with me because I wish to seize the opportunity to read a brief excerpt from a letter which I received from the recently-retired chairman of the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres, Mr. McMorrin. He stated:
"Whilst I would not wish to anticipate the findings of any inquiry, the recent tragedy at Lyme Bay has focused attention on the need for staff supervising pupils in potentially hazardous situations to be appropriately qualified and experienced. The LEA Centres, particularly those whose Heads are members of the AHOEC, have constantly sought to ensure the safety of their pupils by investing in qualifications and experience. Our concern is that, since such staff are the most expensive item in any Centre's budget, they are the most likely to suffer reductions when cuts have to be made. Since the thrust of Government policy in the Education Bill is for the Outdoor Education service increasingly to be provided by the private sector, we are concerned that the need to operate at a profit will result in corners being cut in the provision of qualified staff".
That is a real anxiety from an important source. I hope that today we shall have some reassurance from the Minister about the issues which worry many people most seriously.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I had thought that when the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said that he had intended to support the amendment he would go on to say that, having heard the explanation of the background, which was given by my noble friend on the Front Bench, he had reached the conclusion that the matter was rather more complicated than he had assumed. That is certainly my experience. In the briefs that I have received from reputable organisations
1380
representing, for example, local authority finance officers, and others, there is no reference whatever to the 1970 Act.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, had obviously done his homework extremely well because he started by quoting the 1970 Act. I am immensely grateful to my noble friend for explaining the matter so clearly because the 1970 Act remains at the heart of this and all the powers still exist. I had not understood that. That is perhaps my fault and I should have gone into the matter more deeply. I find that I have added my name to an amendment already tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to take out subsection (4) on the understanding that this was merely a two-year transitional period after which a grant-maintained school would not be entitled to use local authority services.
My noble friend has entirely satisfied my doubts on that score. It is clear that the 1970 Act refers not just to education services but to all the services which a local authority is entitled to provide. Nothing in this Bill reduces that. On the contrary, Clause 265 extends it to some extent and gives a power to the Secretary of State. Although I shall listen carefully to the rest of the debate, I must say that those of us who were anxious about the effect of Clause 265 have had our anxieties substantially removed.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he satisfied that if in five years' time there is merely marginal capacity, will all the grant-maintained schools which may wish to look to local authorities, be able to obtain the services that they require? That seems to be what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: On the contrary, it seems to me that, where there is a creation of grant-maintained schools which had previously been local authority maintained schools, there is no increase in the demand and, therefore, no need for any increase in capacity. If the local authority is then able to show that it can continue to deliver satisfactorily, for example, library services, outdoor sports services and all the other services which have been mentioned in the course of the debate to the benefit of those authorities, it seems to me that the limit is adequate. I am grateful to my noble friend for making that clear.
The Earl of Onslow: I had some doubts about this clause. I was approached by a clever man who understands these matters much better than I do to mention the music side of this issue. Having listened to the noble Lord. Lord Judd, I thought, "There is a splendid old-fashioned high Tory speaking", as I seemed to agree with everything that he said.
I then thought to myself that the 1970 Act was probably passed for a system of education and local authorities where outward contracting was not thought of at all. My noble friend on the Front Bench has comforted me and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has helped even further my understanding, for which I thank him.
If I have no worries about schools losing music teaching, orchestras and bands because the situation is

1381
more or less the same plus a hit extra if needs be, then we can all tear up our speeches and go home and not do all the homework which we thought we might have to do. In saying that, I must thank my noble friend for sending me a long and detailed letter which was helpful and explanatory even though I had to try hard to understand it.
If she is saying that there is nothing to worry about, I shall sit down, shut up and thank God for that.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: Perhaps I may comment on the Minister's intervention which did not clarify the situation for me. The 1970 Act was passed when there were no grant-maintained schools. Therefore, the question of trading with them did not arise. Surely that means that the Minister's comment that authorities have never gone beyond the margins of capacity is rather irrelevant to our considerations.
It is more significant that once a number of schools in an area have opted out, authorities will inevitably quickly move beyond the margins of capacity in educational services, such as music teaching and outdoor education. That is the ground for our anxiety.
I believe that legislation should clarify issues. After all, this Bill has 229 pages. However, we are now told by the Minister that at the very best there is a confusion which the courts must sort out. Therefore, we are going into the educational future of our country by saying to local authorities and schools, "There is a muddle, hut, if necessary, the courts can sort it out". Surely legislation should clarify the situation from the start.
People reading the Bill will see, as distinct from the convoluted arguments used by the Minister this afternoon, that Clause 265(4) states:
"This section may not apply to a local education authority after the expiry of the period of two years beginning when it first applies to the authority".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, the observations of the Minister were not confusing at all. They were declaratory and most helpful. Indeed, they stated in plain English that what would happen in the courts is a matter of construction which I had not appreciated until—I agree—the matter was clarified. The courts construe and must construe the 1970 Act as applicable to changed circumstances.
I seek further clarification on one point. It has been said that, as regards contracting out services, standards would fall, qualifications would not be demanded and safety provisions and so on would slip. If the local authority contracts out, can it not impose conditions to safeguard qualifications and standards? If that is done, everything would be all right, would it not?
Lord Rochester: I asked the Minister a question following a point made by my noble friend Lord Ritchie: are the Government proposing to provide LEAs with guidelines which will enable them to fulfil their statutory duty to secure adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training and also, for that matter, to maintain the youth service as a
1382
priority concern? It is the definition of that word "adequate" on which I seek such reassurance as the Minister is able to give.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: The noble Baroness on that point did not say anything that I had not myself assumed. If I pretended to be an expert on the 1970 Act, I am certainly not in comparison with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but my firm understanding was that, yes, it would continue within the margins. But the issue is, I think, whether those margins are going to be wide enough to enable anything realistic to survive afterwards. An awful lot of people in the country have studied this and have come to the very firm conclusion that they will not. Therefore I was surprised but very interested to hear the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there was no problem. I continue to believe that there is a big problem.
Baroness White: I tried to follow the Minister's explanation. I am still not quite clear why we need to worry about two years. Why is it necessary to have two years?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am sure that the Minister is aware that Clause 265 has given rise to a great deal of worry on the part of a number of organisations. As past president of the Museums Association and a patron of the Association of Independent Museums, my chief concern is the possible damage which may be caused to museum education and services traditionally provided by the LEA.
But, having heard my noble friend's reply, I think that perhaps our worries have been dissipated in many ways. I should like to thank my noble friend for explaining it so well. 1 am sure she will agree that local education authorities can make a major contribution to museum education, most particularly as regards the secondment of teachers which is a two-way traffic whereby teachers can also benefit enormously in their careers by working in museums. That was the reason behind my amendments to the clause. I am now mostly satisfied by my noble friend's reply.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may, unusually, help the Minister by asking a very simple question. Is she saying that the position will be no different from what it is at present?
The Earl of Onslow: I have one very small point to raise. It appears that there has been genuine confusion in the matter. Therefore, would it not be better at some stage to insert in the Bill a clause which makes it much more difficult for people to arrive at such a confused view? I suppose that asking for legislation to be clear is asking for the impossible, but that is just a rather cynical view.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I trust that the Minister will bear with me for a moment. Is it true that in two years' time local authorities will be in direct competition with possible private companies that may come forward, but that the former will have the prohibition on them that they may not trade beyond marginal capacity, whereas the private companies can

1383
trade as they wish? In that case, the LEAs would surely be at a disadvantage in an open market, especially so as their central funding from the schools within the authority is likely to have diminished; more schools will have opted out and so they will not be trading on equal terms—or, to use that other cliché, on a level playing field—with the private companies that the Government hope will come forward. Is that the case? Am I right in my assumption?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend the Minister replies, I should like to ask her a question. It is possible that she covered the ground in her earlier intervention. However, if she did, I did not understand it. My question is a simple one and it is about Clause 265(4). What is the point of the two-year time limitation?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like briefly to support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. It may well be a good thing if the clause itself could be clarified so as to show that it is in fact in terms applying the 1970 Act, without amendment, to change the circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may speak again just shortly simply to say that I wonder whether we are going down quite the right road. I well understand that Members of the Committee opposite are satisfied as to what the provision means. However, I am not satisfied that what we have heard so far actually answers the real underlying problem, which is not whether local authorities will be in the same position in two years' time as they are now—that is, able to trade at the margin of capacity; I understand that that is the case—but whether trading at the margin of capacity will be sufficient for the educational demands of grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Blatch: I began by saying that there has been misunderstanding. I am totally confirmed in my perception of the misunderstanding by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. Even after my intervention and what has been said today, the noble Lord stood up and asked what would happen after two years and whether local authorities would have to compete with the private sector. The most commonly-held perception is that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, the clock starts counting on two years at the end of which local authorities will no longer be able to trade.
Perhaps I may counter a quote used by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, when he mentioned the NCPTA (the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations). I can remember attending a conference when a very senior member of that body gave me an explanation of how she perceived that part of the Bill. It was quite clear to me that she actually believed that the two years started counting once the Bill received Royal Assent. Nothing of the kind is going to happen; that is a wholly wrong perception.
I am constantly asked—and, indeed, I have been asked again—for a definition of the word "capacity". It is difficult to define. If one looks at services that schools require, some of them are very school specific, such as in-service training which would be a totally
1384
school specific provision. But many of the services that schools require, especially as they become grant-maintained, are, for example, advice about personnel matters, payroll and managerial issues which local authorities generally provide. That is a local authority function. I have already mentioned many of them: museums, transport, personnel matters, payroll matters and psychological services for special needs children. So there are many services which relate specifically to local authorities' functions generally. They will continue to operate under the 1970 Act. There is nothing in the Bill whatever that cuts across or renders invalid the provisions of that Act.
My noble friend Lord Onslow said that that means that we no longer have any worries. I do not wish to be over-simplistic in the matter because I think that that would be wrong. Of course the world is changing because more and more schools are becoming grant-maintained. But the world is changing in any event for local education authorities. As local management of schools becomes a firm policy in all local education authorities, the money for many of those services is actually in the hands of the schools. I think that those who support the amendments on the Marshalled List have already said that they have no quarrel whatever with services being paid for at a proper cost.
Therefore, having agreed that, all we need to be certain about is that schools—whether they are LMS schools within a local authority or whether they become grant-maintained—can purchase the services. It is only when a local authority ceases to have a function that it is not able to provide the service. It is very difficult to find any particular function that it will not have in at least the short to medium term future. It is a long way into the future when it is conceivable that any local authority will have no local authority schools at all. Indeed, out of 24,000 schools, 18,000 to 19,000 of them are primary schools and the others are secondary schools, in addition to special schools. It will only be when they cease to have a function to provide services to those schools that the provision will seriously start to bite.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked about the position when a local authority contracts out services. He is indeed right in the assumption he made that, of course, local authorities are able in very great detail to specify the standards required. Even better, they are able to build in penalty clauses for those contracts to ensure that those standards are achieved. That is not so with local authority provided services. The standards are very often hit and miss. If it is a good, well run local authority, the services will be good and the quality will be high; but, if it is not, there is no guarantee that the services will be of high quality. Moreover, there is no contract to enable one to do anything about it.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked what was the purpose of subsection (4). I should like to reply in a way which I believe will also partly answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Let us think, for example, of all the secondary schools in a particular area moving into the grant-maintained sector and something which is entirely school specific.

1385
As I said, I find it very difficult to define services as entirely school specific, but if there was a department in the local authority that provided in-service training for secondary schools only—although that is not the way that local authorities usually set up their in-service training—it would cease to have the function to provide that service to its secondary schools, because it would cease to have LEA maintained secondary schools. Schools (whether they were locally managed schools within the LEA-maintained sector or grant-maintained schools) have the money in their hands to purchase the services. While they were in the local authority (while they were LEA-maintained) they would clearly purchase those services from their local authority. If those schools were all grant-maintained they would not be able to do that because the LEA would not be free to provide them. They could seek for a two-year period of extension in order for the providers of services in that area to adjust to the new situation; in other words, for other providers to come up in their stead. Very few services fall into that category.
Perhaps I may give an example that relates to a query of my noble friend Lord Onslow about music. Kirklees, a Labour-controlled local authority, representatives of which came to my department yesterday and have been talking with my department for some weeks, has an excellent peripatetic music service. It has already made it a self-contained entity within the local authority where the peripatetic services are bought in by the schools. I understand that the next stage is probably that it will become private, with the same professionals providing the lessons and the schools purchasing that provision, but purchasing it from this body which was once wholly controlled by the local authority, then given trust status and then moving out into the private sector. The two-year extension is to allow for that period of adjustment for grant-maintained schools to secure services.
I have a very long speaking note to which I have not referred because it relates specifically to individual amendments. I believe that there has been sufficient debate for me to say how I believe that this part of the Bill would work. If people—
4.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I want to speak to the amendment that is in my name because I am not altogether convinced, as some people seem to be—I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is. In case the Minister was going ahead with the total reply, I should like to inform her that I intend to speak to my Amendment No. 300B.
Baroness Blatch: I was about to suggest to the Committee that I abandon my detailed note, which is rather long, because in a general sense many of the points raised have been addressed during discussion of the amendments. I will of course sit down and allow the noble Baroness, and anybody else who wishes to speak to individual amendments, to do so, and I shall continue to answer questions. But I believe it would be
1386
tiresome for the Committee if I went over a very detailed reply to the amendments when I may well have covered the points generally. But of course I stand to be advised by the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to come back to my noble friend again. I think it is probably because I am not being as intelligent as most other Members of the Committee on this occasion. Am I right in saying that if all schools in a local authority go grant-maintained as opposed to local authority area, the LEA would have to close down, say, its peripatetic music organisation or form it into a trust; that it would not be allowed after two years of the vanishing of the purpose to run a system of peripatetic music? I understood from my noble friend's first reply that they were to be allowed to do that. It is the let or hindrance bit that worries some of us. If it will be the same as it was with a little extra help to allow people to go outside, that seems to be excellent. But if at one stage one is going to say, "No, you can't", some of the easing of my worry has now been "uneased", if that is the right word.
Baroness Blatch: First, perhaps I may draw a distinction in respect of music. There is music within the national curriculum which this Bill does not affect. The national curriculum music is an entitlement to children which local authorities are under an obligation to provide. The peripatetic music provision in most local authorities deals mostly with providing music tuition to children in schools. At this time the money for purchasing that music is now in the hands of schools under the local management-of-school system. So already local authorities' schools purchase musical tuition from the peripatetic musical staff, which in many local authorities now is a self-contained entity within the local authority. That continues.
It is a very long time in the future, but if every school in a local authority were in the grant-maintained sector, then the local authority would not have that function to provide, other than to provide for its music within the national curriculum. What would happen is that those same professionals would probably have moved to the halfway stage of being a trust within the local authority—my own local authority is one such example; Berkshire is another; Kirklees is another (there are many of them up and down the country). Instead of local schools purchasing their music from the peripatetic music service which is part of the local authority, that peripatetic music service would not be allowed to function under the local authority if it had no schools at all in its charter.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to prolong this discussion, and it may be my fault because I have had to pop in and out. It seems to me that a lot of trouble arises from the use of the word "may", which is always ambiguous. Does "may not" mean "shall not" (will be prohibited) or does "may not" mean "perhaps it will" (perhaps it won't)? Is it to mean: this section may or may not apply to a local authority, or the section must not apply?
Baroness Blatch: The point I have been making is that Clause 265 is permissive. There are local authorities in this land which may never need the provisions of Clause 265. They will provide services only to their own customers and they will operate wholly within capacity. I should say to the Committee that when we talk about exceeding capacity, we are talking about a local authority that has a function to provide a service but is providing it not only for its own people; it has used up all its capacity and still wants to go to customers beyond that.
All I am saying is that we then come to a point which I believe seriously divides both sides of the Committee. Are we going to allow unlimited capacity in scope for local authorities to become businesses—for that is what they do once they go past needing to provide services for their own people and enter the business of selling services to anybody, employing more staff, employing more equipment and attracting more customers? If they do that, then they are becoming businesses as opposed to local authorities, there to provide services for local people. When they get into that situation there is a serious philosophical difference between those of us on this side of the Committee and those on the opposite side.
Having said that, I believe, first, that there is genuine concern about the future of services for grant-maintained schools and, secondly, there is a serious misunderstanding about the clauses in the Bill. These will be triggered only if the local authority is literally operating up to and beyond the margin of capacity and has used up two years doing so. Then it is not allowed to provide any more services. We are talking about local authorities entering into the world of being businesses rather than local authorities providing local services.
Lord Judd: The Minister was very helpful in her last intervention. She has made it very plain that there is a more fundamental difference within the Committee over this matter than was perhaps suggested at the beginning. She said very specifically in her last remarks that the objective is to prevent the local authority becoming a business. None of us wants the local authority to become a business. But we do believe—if she reads Hansard she will find that that is what she said.
Baroness Blatch: I do not deny that. But I said businesses "over and above" providing services that relate to its own functions for its own people.
Lord Judd: I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes and I believe she hopes to clarify the situation. What some of us are saying is that some local authorities have built up unrivalled expertise and quality of service, and it is quite extraordinary that they should then be artificially debarred from competing in the market-place. That is what we find very odd in terms of the commitment of the Minister and her colleagues to the market. It is not an open market; if the local authority wants to compete, it is not allowed to. That deeply disturbs us and is causing a great deal of anxiety in the country; particularly because in areas such as outdoor activities—I do not
1388
think that we can emphasise outdoor activities too much because of the dangers and the hazards that operate there—some local authorities have built up their reputation on the basis of safety, quality and professionalism. There are genuine anxieties about the cowboys who may begin to operate when they see the opportunity for profit, and children's lives become at risk.
I am very grateful to the Minister for having opened up this debate. She has, almost painstakingly, made it clear that there is perhaps a bigger issue here than at first we were led to suppose.
The other point I must make is that I find her argument tortuous. If local authorities were not likely to go beyond the margins of capacity in providing specific goods and services there would be no need for the clause. So why is it there? The clause has obviously been introduced because there is a problem. The Minister really cannot have it both ways.
Perhaps the most important point arising from the debate in Committee is that it is becoming clear—if this is not a contradiction in terms—that the Bill is about as clear as dust. The Minister herself has said that there is a serious misunderstanding about the Bill. If there is such a serious misunderstanding about the Bill, she and her officials should be worried about that. It would be encouraging if she felt able to say to the Committee this afternoon that she accepts that there is a misunderstanding and that the situation must obviously be clarified and she will therefore take the clause away, have a look at it and come back at Report stage having made the situation much clearer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his help. Is the burden of his first point that the long-stop provision of the Audit Commission and the facility to go to the courts for a declaratory judgment—which has never been done—is not satisfactory and the mechanism ought to be changed? Is that one of the aspects which he believes should receive attention?
Lord Judd: I always respect interventions by the noble Lord. My response is that it does not seem to me to be satisfactory that when we are considering a Bill which is supposed to be taking the educational system of Britain into the next century we should be told that the drafting has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. We have been told that by the Minister herself. We have been told that there will be misunderstandings and tangles ahead but if they arise they can be sorted out in court. That is an admission of inadequacy in drafting.
I have been longing to applaud the Minister on something during our deliberations. I would applaud her if she felt able to say to us this afternoon that, having said that there is serious misunderstanding, clearly the matter ought be put in language which can be better understood. If even the Headmasters' Conference has misunderstood the situation, what hope is there for the future of Britain? It seems to me that the Minister should tell us now that she is taking the matter away and will come back at Report stage with the situation clarified. We would then almost give three cheers.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is contributing to the confusion in this debate as much as anybody. The Act which I described has been on the statute book since 1970. That Act, which underlines all of this and which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding mentioned when I first intervened in the debate, has served local authorities very well. Local authorities provide all manner of services: social services, housing, street cleaning, collection of waste, all aspects relating to education and so forth. Local authorities have always provided those services. They have no need whatever to make judgments themselves about what is marginal capacity. They behave in what they believe is a sensible way, providing services for their people.
It is for the local district auditor, who every year inspects local authorities' books, to make a judgment about whether authorities are spending local ratepayers' money in a way which is defensible and consistent with their functions. The system has worked for 23 years. There is no confusion about that.
There is nothing in the Bill which cuts across that or invalidates the provisions of that Act. The local authority will continue to operate under the 1970 Act, just as it has for 23 years. However, because of the growth of the grant-maintained sector, and because there has been some anxiety, we have allowed an extension should a local authority find itself, at some time in the future, with no local authority schools at all and its functions in that area cease to exist. I have named a large number of local authority functions, which are not school specific, which will continue and which schools will use. Those functions include payroll, advice about industrial relations, transport and psychology services for children with special needs. Those are all important.
There is one other Act of Parliament which I have not prayed in aid of my case but which may help my noble friend Lord Onslow. In addition to national curriculum music and the arrangements which I have spelt out, and in addition to the provisions of the 1970 Act, there is also Section 145 of the 1972 Act. That section gives local education authorities the ability to assist in enabling the setting up of orchestras and bands. That is outside the curriculum. It is a local decision. It is for local authorities to decide. Where they do so the law allows pupils who attend grant-maintained schools to participate without having to seek a designation order under Clause 265.
Some local education authorities, despite having that freedom to act on behalf of their grant-maintained schools, are denying grant-maintained schools that service. Here we have people pressing us to allow local authorities to provide the service. Under the 1972 Act they are free to do just that.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend answer the question which was originally put to her by the noble Baroness opposite, which I found rather difficult to follow? I do not believe that my noble friend has answered that question. In the famous subsection (4), around which a good deal of discussion has centred, the word "may" is used. It reads:
1390
"This section may not apply to a local education authority".
Is that equivalent to "will not apply", or is it equivalent to saying that it may or may not apply? If it is the latter, in what circumstances would it apply or not apply?
Baroness Blatch: I was going to have a stab at clarifying that point myself and stand corrected if necessary. My understanding is that under subsection (4) a designated order may not apply after the two-year period. That means that it shall not apply. If the Committee believes that it should read "shall" rather than "may", I shall take that point back to my department and I shall beat counsel over the head in order to have the matter made even clearer on the face of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be very glad if my noble friend would amend "may" to read "shall". Then we would really know what it meant.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: At the risk of being thought boneheaded and obstinate, I feel that what we are really talking about and what a great many people and organisations in the country, parents and the education profession are concerned about is quality assurance. They are afraid that as the system is unravelled the quality of services which have been offered successfully for a number of years will decline.
I believe that I am right in saying that there was a parallel fear at the time of the abolition of the ILEA which, with all its disadvantages, offered excellent services of this type. Although the individual boroughs have made a good attempt a great deal of expertise was lost. That is the fear in this case. Many people do not see the two-year period in a positive sense. They see it as a negation. That is what is misunderstood. I believe that people are really concerned about quality assurance and what will happen as the system is unravelled.
Baroness Warnock: I am almost ashamed to say that I still do not understand what the Minister has said, because she has taken immense trouble. Like an excellent teacher she has made allowances for the stupidities of those of us who still do not understand. However, whether or not I decide to move the amendment to which I have put my name—Amendment No. 300 —depends upon the answer to a question which I must put. We have heard that in the event that there were no longer any local authority secondary schools in a particular local authority area but all of those schools were grant-maintained, it would not be possible for the local authority to continue to supply services which were wholly school related. I think that I understand that.
But let us consider that that the local authority area is divided 50:50, or 60 per cent. grant-maintained schools and 40 per cent. local authority schools. The local authority still has the power and duty to provide school services such as peripatetic music teaching for its own schools. It has the ability to provide for grant-maintained schools also if those schools so wish. When the number of local authority schools drops to

1391
zero the local authority has no schools function whatever. It can no longer supply the grant-maintained schools with those services.
That is the point that I do not understand. When the local education authority still has two or three schools to supply why is it possible still to supply the grant-maintained schools with services but no longer to be able to do so when the last local authority school becomes grant maintained? I do not understand why the local authority can provide such services in the first instance but not in the second.
Baroness White: Has the noble Baroness taken into account the entire reorganisation of the local pattern by the Secretary of State for Wales? The provision is not as important as it is for England because I do not believe that we shall have many grant-maintained schools in Wales. However, has the situation been taken into account? It will involve a completely different balance between the authorities.
Baroness Blatch: No, it makes no difference. Whether or not there are grant-maintained schools, there will be local authorities with a local authority function. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that even if there were no local authority maintained schools in an area—in other words, if every single school had become grant maintained—there would still be a local education authority which has functions as set out in the Bill. Those authorities have serious functions to do with transport, special needs, psychology services and a host of matters. They continue to have those functions with or without their own maintained schools. Those functions remain. It is the service which a grant-maintained school purchases. If it is one of the general services, there will always be a local authority in the area with a function to provide most of those services. The services that are entirely school specific are very narrow and few. Those professionals who provide those services now—we are referring to a long way down the track—continue to be the same professionals, living and working in the area. They will simply provide those services, in the first instance perhaps under trust status. I have a long list of local authorities which are doing just that. The next step down the road, which again some local authorities are undertaking, involves their becoming private entities within the local authority area.
Baroness Warnock: The noble Baroness takes a very philosophical view. She takes the extreme case of an authority which is no longer an education authority because there are no more local education schools. That is an extreme—and at present I believe fairly fanciful—example. However, I worry very much about the transition period towards that glorious day when all schools are grant maintained. It will be extremely difficult for local education authorities to plan which services they will be required to provide as their own schools diminish in number and they do not know for certain whether the grant-maintained sector will wish to buy those services. How can a local authority regulate the cost of continuing its provision
1392
if it does not know which services will be required for any length of time? The period may be two years, five years or whatever; it is irrelevant. It is difficult for the local authority to be told that it may or may not be required to provide services. It will not know the answer until the grant-maintained school has made up its budget.
I realise that it can be argued that under LMS the same system applies. However, the LMS school is still a local authority school and the local authority is therefore responsible for the supply of services. There is an enormous difference in the situation when the numbers of schools are becoming fewer and the local education authority has a smaller area of responsibility.
Baroness David: I appreciate the Minister seeking to explain this complicated affair. However, some of us thought that we understood it previously. From his opening speech I am quite sure that the noble Earl understood it.
I wish to speak about school libraries and museums. From my brief I believe that the people who are anxious about the schools library service understood the position perfectly clearly. They are still extremely anxious about the situation. I shall therefore speak to my Amendment No. 300B because it may help a little with the general understanding.
Clause 265 is viewed as a concession by Ministers. At the moment the ability of local authorities to "trade" with other public bodies such as grant-maintained schools is limited by the 1970 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act. That has been interpreted by the Audit Commission and by the Government to mean that local authorities can only "trade" at the margin with such bodies using up excess capacity, but not investing extra resources to have the capacity to be able to provide services to them.
If the number of schools opting out increases, then it is likely that the schools library services, and other LEA provision, will soon be trading outside the margin, possibly unlawfully. At this stage the Education Bill provides that the Secretary of State can issue an order exempting authorities from the restrictions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act for a period of two years. However, after that all the services must be provided by the private sector.
The Local Authority Associations believe that the Audit Commission's interpretation of the 1970 Act is much too restrictive and a number of authorities probably already contravene the Act on that interpretation. However, it has never been tested in the courts and there is a danger that many schools library services could face extinction if the Audit Commission's views were accepted. The proposed amendment, Amendment No. 300B, allows the Secretary of State to extend or renew an order should no alternative schools library service provision be available at the end of the first two-year period. In the light of the debate over what the law means, it is very much a safety-first amendment.
Perhaps I may refer to the role of the schools library service. The schools library services are run either by the public library service as an agent of the LEA or

1393
directly by the education authority itself. They support the work of library and information services within primary, secondary and special schools. Typically they will provide a book exchange scheme for schools, a project loan scheme to support individual projects being undertaken within schools, an advisory service to schools on all aspects of school library management and use, training for teachers and information handling skills, and work in skills promoting the enjoyment of reading. They are an essential back up to library and information services within schools as no individual school could hope to provide all the learning resources necessary to support the curriculum. They provide a network of professional support for librarians within schools. They are also highly commended in most HMI reports and on occasion highlighted as the only good thing about a school library.
Numerous HMI reports attest to the sorry state of library and information services within schools. The Book Trust report, Books in Schools, was published only a few months ago. It highlights the importance of reading ability in relation to overall educational attainment. However, the report opens with the statement,
"Rarely have so many pupils had so few books".
The last HMI report on secondary school libraries revealed that almost half the schools surveyed did not offer a satisfactory service.
The agency best placed to counteract those inadequacies of provision is already in existence—the schools library service. If it disappears, all schools in an area are likely to end up having no service rather than increased choice. We can see no reason why a local authority should not be able to continue to provide a service to grant-maintained schools in competition with others. It is known that many grant-maintained schools appreciate the schools library service which they receive from the local education authority, with many opted-out schools buying back in.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that the private sector will be able to provide an alternative service in all areas of the country. The private sector has shown little interest, for example, in providing public library services where these have been offered to private tender. If current schools library services set themselves up as independent trusts, it will presumably remove them from the proposed restraints, but we cannot be confident that the availability of such a provision will be consistent across the country after two years. There is a great danger, therefore, that many schools would have no provision available.
The proposed amendment is intended to give the Secretary of State powers to renew orders in areas where no alternative provision will be available from the private sector, thus ensuring that all pupils have access to their full entitlement of schools library services.
In fact, I prefer Amendment No. 300 which deletes subsection (4). What I have said about the schools library service refers equally to the museum education service which I believe does an absolutely marvellous
1394
job. I cannot see how any private business could possibly provide what it provides. Only about six weeks ago I went to the Dulwich Picture Gallery and was shown round by Mrs. Gillian Wolfe, who is in charge of the education department there. I spent a morning watching schools parties going round and it was a marvellous occasion. The children were absolutely rapt, there was an actor dressed up as Van Dyck, who was explaining the period of the pictures, when they were painted and so on. I do not think that any other private service could possibly supply what those people are doing. The departments for education in the museums rely very much on local authority funding. It is that kind of service that I believe is in danger of disappearing. I understand and I believe that the schools library service understands what the clause means. I very much hope that the Minister will agree to take the amendment back; we should all be happy if she did so. But I felt that I wanted to say my piece about the schools library service and the education side of the museums.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may remind the Committee briefly that this long and marvellous discussion on Clause 265 and the amendments to it has taken place on the first amendment on the Marshalled List, which is to add a new clause after Clause 246 and which has only a slight effect upon Clause 265. The first amendment has scarcely been discussed.
I feel bound to make the comment, however, that as it requires only one parent or guardian to seek any information from the governors collectively about a matter arising under Clause 265, the amendment should not be at all necessary. I should expect the governors, if circumstances require, to give information about the operation of Clause 265—indeed about the operation of the 1970 and 1972 Acts.
However, I say with deep respect to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whose names are to the amendment, that it is an over-zealous provision of the kind which makes our legislation so detailed and voluminous and, incidentally, it raises further problems of interpretation. It would also add to the cost of administration. Therefore, I wonder whether in those circumstances it might be better for the noble Earl and the noble Lord not to press the first amendment. We have had a wonderful discussion on Clause 265; we shall obviously all have to think about it. The discussion has gone on for one hour and 21 minutes.
Lord Lucas: I have learnt a lot in the last hour and 21 minutes, but have not really understood how the definition of "trading at the margin" will operate. As an accountant, I know that it is hard to define and is capable of being interpreted much more fiercely than the Government appear to interpret it. I feel uncomfortable that this important idea should be left for some future definition by the courts.
Perhaps I may pick out an example from the subject addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady David. If a museum, which is clearly protected under the current arrangements, had a number of staff guiding school

1395
parties around, it is quite clear to me that, under any reasonable definition of "trading at the margin", if the number of grant-maintained schools in an area grew to the point where one of the staff were solely concerned with guiding grant-maintained pupils round the museum, it would be trading beyond the margin.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I ought, first, to refer to museums and libraries because I understand the anxieties that have been expressed about them. However, I also need to say to the noble Baroness that at least one illustrious Member of the Committee runs a private museum very well and does extremely well by young people. First, perhaps I may refer specifically to museums.
Baroness David: I know that that covers one museum, but there are areas where the children need to go; it is more than just one museum.
Baroness Blatch: Of course, I concede that point, but the noble Baroness said that it was inconceivable that a private museum could provide the same kind of service as a local authority-run museum. I am simply saying that they can do so, and there are examples where private museums provide very good services to young people.
Museums which receive funds other than from a local authority, including nationally funded and private museums, are not the issue here. Nothing in the Bill affects them. My noble friend Lord Montagu's museum—the one to which I referred just now—is most impressive and one which I have had the pleasurable experience of visiting. It provides a wonderful experience for young people and is also not at all affected by the legislative framework which we are now discussing.
Where local authority-funded museums occur, they exist to provide a museum service in all its guises and to all the people within the local area. There is no question of any of that being affected by the provisions of the Bill. In the course of their work in some areas, the museums will provide services to schools in terms of school visits, help to teachers and exhibition artefacts being taken into individual schools. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964—another Act of Parliament which I pray in aid of my case—a local authority is required to take into account the need to secure that a museum or gallery plays its full part in the promotion of education in the area and to have particular regard to the interests of children and students.
A local authority may also make contributions towards the expense incurred by any person in providing advisory or other services or financial assistance for the benefit of a museum or art gallery. So it goes on being a function of the local authority. Finally, a local authority maintaining a museum or art gallery may establish a fund to be used for the purchase of objects for exhibition in any museum or gallery maintained by that authority. Of course, under local management of schools schemes, where money is
1396
delegated to schools, whether a school actually wishes to use any of the services is very much a matter for the head teacher and governors of the school.
The provision of museum services of that kind to grant-maintained schools will not run into difficulties under the 1970 Act. As to libraries, where a schools library service might well be part of the local authority-wide public library service, which provides a service to the community as a whole, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which a library service will operate beyond the margins of capacity, even if all its school-based work were in grant-maintained schools. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend Lord Lucas.
However, even if the 1970 Act and Clause 265 came into play, the amendments essentially boil down to whether the services are, by their nature, so different from others that the LEA monopoly must be protected and, in trading terms, local taxpayers' money put at risk, because that would certainly be the effect of Amendments Nos. 299A, 299B and 299C. I believe that in practice it would also be the effect of Amendment No. 300B.
We want the full effects of the 1970 Act to continue, the extension and permission to operate under the provisions of Clause 265, which is additional to that, with the 1972 Act as it relates to orchestras and so forth and the other Act to which I have just referred in the case of museums.
We could talk ourselves into a great frenzy about fears about the Act. I believe that they are mostly unfounded and that we need to make sure that schools, whether grant-maintained or LEA-maintained, continue to receive the services that allow them to provide a high-quality education service.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Is she confident that local authorities will continue to be able to run local education authority museum services when they are no longer responsible for the majority of primary and secondary schools in their areas? There must be some anxiety that those services will fall by the wayside in those circumstances.
Perhaps she will also explain a distinction that she appeared to make earlier in the debate between what she called school-specific services and other services. I must admit that I am a little confused by that distinction. What is it based on and why should such a distinction be made?
Baroness Blatch: On the first point, it will be a local authority function, not an LEA function, to provide museums. If it continues to provide museums, so long as a museum is there people can partake of its services. The museum is for all the people in that area. Even under the local management of schools system the schools have the money—so too will the grant-maintained schools have the money—and they can continue to buy into that service so long as that museum is in that local authority area. The same goes for libraries so long as the libraries are there. As regards education services local authorities have passed the money down to schools and schools will

1397
continue to provide the service because it will remain a local authority function to provide museum and library services for all of its people, whatever their age.
On the second point concerning the school-specific service, as I believe I have said a number of times, but I shall reiterate it, a school-specific service would be in-service training for a particular subject taught in schools, with courses laid on to enable teachers to teach a subject of the national curriculum. That is a school-specific service. Non-school specific services, which a school would still need, as would other organisations within the local authority, would be payroll services, advice to deal with industrial relations and personnel management issues. Those are non-school-specific services. They are general services for which the local authority will continue to have a function and an obligation to provide whether there are schools in the LEA sector or all the schools are in the grant-maintained sector.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to intervene again. Is my noble friend saying that the only school-specific service is in-house training for teachers? If not, will she tell us what the others are? I do not think that I am the only person who is confused, otherwise I would not have intervened.
Baroness Blatch: I cannot think of many services. I am finding it very difficult to think of one, but if any Member of the Committee can suggest a service that relates to a function of the local authority which would be provided only for schools and not for any other organisations within the local authority, that would be described as a school-specific service. As I said, in-service training, which is concerned with the delivery of the national curriculum, would be entirely school-specific, but beyond that I cannot think of any other examples. So long as the local authority has any schools in its charge for which it is responsible, it will need to provide those services—training for the national curriculum and so on.
When local authorities run courses it makes good sense to allow them, under the 1970 Act, to fill up the places on those courses with anyone who wishes to purchase their services. Only when they go beyond that capacity are they allowed to call for a two-year extension and only at the end of that two-year extension are they deemed to be trading well beyond provision for local authority services.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps the noble Baroness will help me. I am becoming more and more embarrassed at revealing my total stupidity. If I have understood her correctly, she now appears to be saying that the provision in Clause 265 is only for school-specific services of which she cannot think of any. Have I misunderstood the position?
Baroness Blatch: I said that Clause 265 is a permissive part of the Bill. When local authorities provide services to their schools they have to ensure that those services relate to their functions as set out in law. When they are deemed by the district auditor to be selling so many of their services that they are trading beyond the margins—in other words, if they are selling services to numerous other local authorities
1398
in the country and the district auditor takes the view that they now employ more staff and equipment than they need to provide for their own services—they can come to the Secretary of State for Education and ask for an extension to provide a service for two years beyond which that permission falls. It need not be a school-specific service. They could come to the Secretary of State and be at the margin of capacity for payroll services or personnel advice, but if they wish to continue to provide those services to schools, whether grant-maintained schools or schools in another authority, they would need to seek permission if they were above the margin of capacity for that service.
As I said earlier, the only services that cause anxiety are those which will be affected as schools become grant-maintained. Local authorities will be expected to adjust their central services to the number of schools for which they are responsible. It is only that aspect which may throw up the need to invoke Clause 265.
Baroness Hamwee: I hesitate to raise this point because I might have missed it being dealt with elsewhere, but would supply teaching be one of the school-specific services that might be affected by the provision?
Baroness Blatch: If a local authority had no schools whatever in its charge and was responsible for no schools at all, it would provide no teachers. As teachers came along and wished to be recruited, they would be recruited by the schools as they are now LEAs employ their own teachers in maintained schools and grant-maintained schools employ their own teachers. Indeed, they employ most of their own local supply teachers.
However, let us take the most extreme example, that a local authority has no schools in its charge for which it is responsible. It would not provide a pool of supply teachers. Notice has been given of the intention to oppose the clause regarding the number of agencies that now supply teachers to schools. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that, if a local authority had lost all its schools and had ceased to have a function, it could operate the two-year extension to provide those services, although once it had reached the end of that period it could no longer provide those services. One of the problems is that there are now so many agencies supplying teachers to schools. Schools can recruit teachers from their local areas so it is ceasing to be a big issue for schools.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I shall he brief. I am a little worried because all local authorities now have to put everything out to competitive tender and this has become a huge job for them. All local authority departments are now called trading departments, whether they are looking after consumer services or parks and playing fields, and at the end of the financial year they have to report their profits and losses. None of them can make losses any more when they are tendering. School transport has gone out to competitive tender. There are contracts on playing fields and open spaces which schools use for sporting events. School dinners have gone out to competitive

1399
tender and many local authorities have lost their tenders. Swimming is also going out to competitive tender. In the long run all those departments will have to ensure that they receive the money from somewhere for the schools that have come out of local authority control and become grant-maintained. In the long run they will not accept it because the trading departments are standing on their own feet and are not part and parcel of the education department. They will say, "No. Those schools will have to put in a special tender to use our facilities". Is not that a problem that could arise?
Lord Northbourne: I ask the Committee to forgive me for intervening from the Cross Benches. I should like to draw attention to the fact that this is the first amendment and we have spent nearly two hours on it. There are a great many Members of the Committee who fear that they will be here not only until the early hours but to the late hours of tomorrow morning.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps this is a moment to bring the discussion to an end, if there is nobody else who wishes to come in on it. I shall try to keep my reply as simple and short as I can. This afternoon's debate has taken some very interesting turns. I have listened very hard to what the Minister said. I thank her for her clarifications, one or two of which put my mind at ease over certain points. But on the major issue, I still have a difficulty with trading at the margins.
It seems to me—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, also pointed it out—that as the market shrinks, so the moment at which one trades beyond the margins comes ever closer. Therefore, despite what the noble Baroness said, it seems to me that there are services, which may not be exactly school or education specific but for which a large amount of the market is out in schools, that will soon be trading beyond the margins. In that case it will be disallowed and there will not be the choice. We are not talking about a monopoly. There is no question of a monopoly—that is the word she used. It is a free choice for everybody. It is this business of quality assurance, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said.
On that basis I cannot be convinced that all the services, or most of them, will survive in the way that the noble Baroness says, nor that we will not be in a position quite soon when the margins are exceeded and all this rigmarole is brought in. If the Minister were going to do as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said and bring in some clarification—I do not know whether she is with me on this—perhaps we might think again. Am I right in guessing that she does not propose to do that?
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure on which question the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, wishes for clarification.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: It was the suggestion from these Benches earlier that perhaps the whole clause should be taken away and re-worked to bring some clarification to it.
Baroness Blatch: If that is the question, the answer is absolutely not.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I thought so. Therefore our feeling is that at least our amendment brings a measure of quite strong clarity into the matter and will produce an educationally desirable result for all the schools. On that basis I should like to press the amendment to a division.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.287BA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ailesbury, M.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Judd, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kitchener, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.[Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bottomley, L.

Molloy, L.

Bridges, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Palmer, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strafford, E.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Bessborough, E.

Aldington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blake, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Auckland, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Beloff, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1401

Cadman, L.

Lye L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mancroft, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Moyne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

O'Cathain, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L.

Orkney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dormer, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Prentice, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Romney, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Granard, E.

Sandford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sherfield, L.

Harvington, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Slim, V.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Huntly, M.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tebbit, L.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Layton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Liverpool, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wilberforce, L.

Lucas, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
Clause 247 [Sponsor governors for aided secondary schools]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 287C:
Page 146, line 34, leave out ("aided") and insert ("county, voluntary or maintained special").
The noble Lord said: I trust that this group of amendments can be dealt with more swiftly than the last.
The purpose of Amendment No. 287C is to enable all LEA-maintained schools to have sponsor governors and thus the financial and other benefits of business sponsorship. It is unfair to discriminate in this respect between categories of school.
The Minister may argue that only the trustees of an aided school can hold an endowment or other large capital gifts from businesses, since they own the school premises and governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools do not. But that technical difficulty is reduced
1402
by the Bill's provision for legally incorporating all governing bodies of state schools. In any case, it can be overcome by the governing body setting up a trust. The trust can be administered together with the sponsors and sponsorship money paid into it.
It is a simple amendment. It is another example of trying to level the playing field between different statuses of school so that the competition which the Bill seeks to set up between different schools can be on a fair basis. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 288 in my name and that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. Clause 247 amends the Education (No.2) Act 1986. It relates only to aided schools in which the trustees at present have a right to a majority of two governors, or three if the total number exceeds 18.
Clause 247, as drafted, would reduce the majority to one in schools where there was one or more sponsor governors. The purpose of the amendment is to restore the status quo so that there should be two trustee governors, which we feel to be reasonable. Although that would mean a slightly larger governing body due to the addition of the sponsor governors, we feel that trustees should preserve their majority of two so as to give more certainty that they would be able to ensure that the duties and responsibilities of the trustees are properly enforced.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a good point. If we are to have equal types of school, we should try to ensure that the same requirements apply equally across the board, especially when we are talking of sponsor governors. Bearing in mind the extra benefits that may arise, it would be extremely equitable to have the same requirements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): The purpose of Clause 247—and for that matter Clause 63 which we discussed some time ago—is to enable those schools which already have a considerable degree of autonomy to extend that by direct association with a private sector sponsor. That sponsor, with the consent of the Secretary of State, will be able to nominate a minority of members of the school's governing body.
Amendment No. 287C would allow county and special maintained schools to appoint sponsor governors. We feel that grant-maintained schools have demonstrated their wish to take parent power seriously by seeking self-governing status. Aided schools already have a strong relationship with their foundation. Those schools, standing free of the local authority, are best equipped to take advantage of the benefits sponsor governors can offer. That is not so in the case of other schools.
The amendment would also cause an unacceptable increase in the size of governing bodies of county and special maintained schools. The Education Act 1944 establishes that a school of more than 600 pupils shall have five parent governors, two teacher governors, five LEA governors, six co-optees plus, optionally, the head teacher. Thus such a school already has 18 or 19

1403
members and could find itself expanding the board to 23 or more. In fact, it is quite possible for a county school to achieve the benefits of sponsorship sought by the noble Lord and of direct private sector involvement in its governance by bringing in sponsors as co-optees. Authorities, such as Lincolnshire with its College of Science and Technology and Wandsworth with Battersea Technology College, have already demonstrated how successful such an arrangement can be. I do not believe, therefore that the noble Lord's amendment would take us any further.
Amendment No. 288 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, requires the foundation governors to have a majority of two on the governing body of an aided school. Original thinking was that a simple majority would be sufficient to preserve the balance of interests on any governing body if sponsor governors were appointed. However, I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord and those for whom he is speaking. I am sure that that small increase in the majority of foundation governors would not adversely affect what the appointed sponsor governors could achieve. Consequently, I am sympathetic to the amendment. Though I shall want to take advice as to whether the amendment is satisfactory, I am prepared to give an assurance that at Report stage we will come forward with a government amendment to the same effect.
Therefore I will accept Amendment No. 288 in principle, but I cannot accept Amendment No. 287C and hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am somewhat surprised by the response that somehow grant-maintained parents have exercised parent power and for that reason deserve to have business sponsors. I have heard many speakers over the past few years talking about parent power under LMS schemes within local education authorities. I therefore find the argument particularly perverse.
I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I am sorry that the Minister does not see the argument of levelling the playing field and being seen to be fair between the different status of schools. My understanding of the primary purpose behind the whole of the legislation is to establish competition between schools. Surely that competition should be on the basis of the well-known phrase of "the level playing field". Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may add a word in regard to what we feel is the difference between the two groups of schools.
As the noble Lord will be aware, we are giving the opportunity of appointing sponsor governors to the voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools because they will have full responsibility of governance. In contrast, the county or controlled schools still have a strong link with the LEA. If the county or controlled schools were to seek a direct relationship with a sponsor, it may be that the LEA would wish to use some of its positions on the governing body to
1404
accommodate a sponsor. I do not see that, because parents have not taken the same steps as those in the grant-maintained sector, the amendment takes us any further.
Referring to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I understand that counsel have advised us that we can accept it as it is. If that will speed up Report stage by avoiding the need to bring forward another government amendment, I can assure the noble Lord that when he comes to move his amendment I shall have no objection to it.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 148, line 6, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 247, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 248 [Power of governing body of county school to propose change of character etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 288A and 288B:
Page 148, line 26, after ("been") insert ("withdrawn or").
Page 148, line 29, leave out ("change in character or enlargement") and insert ("alteration, etc.").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 248, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 249 [Power to make and deal with proposals in the case of schools eligible for grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 289 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 289A:
Page 150, line 5, leave out ("(change of character or enlargement)").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to this matter together with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 249, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
Clause 250 [Revision of schemes for financing schools maintained by local education authorities]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 290A:
Page 150, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("(replacement") in line 26 and insert:
("( ) For section 34(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (duty to consult before preparing a scheme) there is substituted—s
"(4) Before preparing such a scheme a local education authority shall consult—

(a) the governing body and the head teacher of every county, voluntary or special school maintained by the authority,

(b) the governing body of every grant-maintained school in the area of the authority, and

(c) the governing body of every grant-maintained special school which—

(i) is established under section 173 of the Education Act 1993 in the authority's area, or

(ii) before becoming a grant-maintained special school was a special school maintained by the authority,

1405
but the Secretary of State may, by notice in writing to the authority, dispense with the duty imposed under paragraphs (b) and (c) above in respect of such schools, or class or description of schools, as are specified in the notice."
( ) For section 35 of that Act").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 290A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 290B to 290D. This group of amendments, together with the other provisions in Clauses 250 and 251, is intended to make useful improvements to the sections of the Education Reform Act 1988 which cover local management of schools. In respect of LEAs' LMS schemes, Amendments Nos. 290A and 290B will impose a requirement that grant-maintained primary, secondary and special schools are consulted both on new LMS schemes and on revisions to schemes. However, the Secretary of state will have power to dispense with that requirement for certain schools; that is, those that are funded according to a common funding formula rather than the LMS scheme formula. In respect of LEAs' LMS financial statements, Amendment No. 290D will enable regulations to prescribe that outturn statement contain details of planned as well as actual expenditure. It will also allow for regulations to prescribe that grant-maintained schools for whom the statements are relevant are furnished with a copy. It will enable regulations to allow LEAs to furnish only relevant parts of their financial statements to schools, and it will empower the Secretary of state to direct some or all LEAs to have their LMS financial statements audited.
Amendment No. 290C is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: Amendment No. 290A obviously shows the continuing close link between grant-maintained schools and LEAs. I see that the next amendment continues the requirement to consult grant-maintained schools where the local education authority is proposing the revision of a scheme for local management. I take it that there has been a specific recent incident that has caused the department to require the involvement of grant-maintained schools in the drawing up and approval of LEA local management of school schemes. Is the fear that, unless that is done, LEAs will devise a way of reducing the direct funding part of annual maintenance grants to grant-maintained schools by making amendments to the local management of schools scheme?
The Minister has frequently said that it is the desire for independence from the LEA that is the cause of grant-maintained school applications. If that is the case, why is it that the Government are providing a way for grant-maintained schools to continue to be heavily involved in the affairs of local education authorities and those schools that have not sought grant-maintained status? Perhaps I may ask the Minister what account local education authorities will have to take of representations by grant-maintained schools in this context.
Referring to the other amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State will
1406
provide financial information to all LEA-maintained schools in the area about the excess resources that grant-maintained schools are receiving. Quite a lot of people believe that the grant-maintained school sector is probably already giving this information to schools as an incentive to get them to opt out. I should like to ask also what access local education authority-maintained schools will have to the accounts of grant-maintained schools. One other question that needs to be answered is what is the specific incident that has caused this amendment to appear. I should be very grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on those points.
Lord Henley: Grant-maintained schools are currently funded according to the formula in local authority local management schemes. Therefore, it makes obvious sense for them to be consulted on any scheme changes proposed by that authority which may have the effect of redistributing resources between schools. Whether any particular case has cropped up is not relevant. They have a particular interest in this matter and therefore it is important that they are consulted. It will be for the LEAs to take note of any representations that those grant-maintained schools may make.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 290B:
Page 150, line 37, leave out from ("consult") to ("section") in line 39 and insert ("every governing body and head teacher whom they are obliged to consult under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 250, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Young: I should like to intervene briefly to raise a point that was touched on in the course of the very long debate on the first amendment. The issue of supply teachers has not been debated. The point that I want to raise is quite separate from the matters discussed earlier. We are all aware of the need for supply teachers in schools and the valuable role that they play in helping out when permanent members of staff are away sick or otherwise absent. This often happens quite suddenly. It has been drawn to my attention that it is important that supply teachers should be subject to the same conditions of employment as full- or part-time teachers; that is, that there is a need to ensure that they are properly qualified and do not have criminal convictions or any psychological problems that expose children to danger. Historically, local education authorities have maintained a pool of supply teachers. A school that needs a supply teacher will ask the LEA to supply one and the LEA will undertake the whole process of vetting the individual to make sure that the proper conditions are met.
As I understand it, there now appear to be some difficulties over that procedure. Smaller local education authorities have problems in maintaining a pool of supply teachers. It is possibly a new problem that may come up in relation to the future of county councils as a whole. As schools are no longer obliged to use local education authorities some may cease to provide a pool of supply teachers even for maintained

1407
schools. As my noble friend the Minister indicated when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised this point earlier on, employment agencies are now helping to overcome the problem of supply. An agency can, of course, act for either one or a number of local education authorities or indeed for individual schools. If an agency is working through an LEA or a group of LEAs, it can arrange vetting by a local education authority. But now that we have schools with local management of funds, local decision taking and budgets under LMS, as well as grant-maintained schools, they can go themselves direct to an agency.
The point that I wish to raise is this: it would be possible in the future—we need assurance on this point—for there to be either no or inadequate vetting of supply teachers, with all the dangers for children that this could entail. There are, I believe, a number of possible options that could meet this difficulty. It may well be that there ought to be a granting of approval to an employment agency by regulation before it could supply a supply teacher and some way of monitoring its standards. But it is essential that both heads and governors know that when they are dealing with an agency its standards are as high as those of the local education authority.
If this is not an acceptable way it might be possible to meet the difficulty by an amendment to the Bill—I have not put down one because I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in her answer—or it would be possible to place an obligation on either the local education authority or the grant-maintained school to undertake the vetting procedure in all cases. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister would let me know how she sees this important problem being dealt with in the future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. I presume that it would not happen too often that a teacher would be available through an employment agency. The main point of what the noble Baroness is saying is that these teachers should be qualified and experienced teachers. I am glad that the noble Baroness is indicating her assent. That is the most important part of it. However, if there is the possibility that teachers would be recruited through an employment agency, who would do the assessing and the investigation? Presumably, an employment agency would say, "Yes we have a teacher who is on our books", and not look at the qualifications, training and so on. I believe that the point is worth investigating.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may pick up the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. That is less of a problem. It is not a problem that a teacher should be qualified. If a school goes to an agency and asks for a qualified teacher, it expects to receive a qualified teacher. It must be for the local employment agency taking people on to its books to check that it is employing on its books qualified teachers. Clearly, if a school was let down and found for one reason or another that a teacher was not competent or qualified, the local employment agency would stand culpable.
1408
My noble friend is concerned about other aspects about which it is much more difficult to secure information. I refer to people on what I think the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, would know as List 99 in the department; teachers who have qualified in the first instance but been struck off for one reason or another. That is a much more sensitive and difficult issue.
My noble friend raises the issue of the operation of private sector employment agencies in the supply of teachers. Many such agencies are now offering a service to schools, sometimes to help fill permanent posts but more often to provide what are usually called supply teachers who stand in at short notice for permanent teachers when they are absent. When a teacher is appointed to a school, whether permanently or temporarily, a number of conditions must be satisfied. The employer is responsible for ensuring that they are satisfied. The teacher must be a qualified teacher and have the health and physical capacity for teaching. Critically, he or she must not have been excluded from teaching by the Secretary of State on health or educational grounds or on the ground of misconduct. Those conditions are laid down by law for teachers in local education authority maintained and self-governing state schools. They are designed to safeguard the health and well-being of the pupils.
The Committee will readily agree that it is vitally important to ensure that pupils are not exposed to unsuitable teachers and especially to any person who is excluded from teaching because of misconduct against pupils. It is entirely understandable that schools should wish to have teachers' credentials suitability checked by the employment agency before they work in the school. The department is considering how the arrangements for doing that might be improved. We already provide a service to the agencies by checking teachers' names against the list of teachers who are excluded from teaching. Any licensed agency is able to request such a check before accepting a teacher on to its books. That is an important safeguard. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate responsibility again must rest with the employer.
My department is also consulting the Employment Department, which licenses all agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, about the possible issue of guidelines by that department. We are also investigating whether there are other facilities we might be able to make available to help agencies perform a useful service. I do not believe that new legislation is needed for this purpose but I can assure my noble friend that we have the issue clearly in our sights. I shall keep my noble friend informed of any action we may take from the department.
Baroness Young: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I hope that she will address the issue urgently. It is an important issue which we would all agree needs to be dealt with. It is very important that either the agency or the school should be responsible for ensuring not only that the teacher is properly qualified but does not appear on List 99, nor has committed any of these other offences. It should be laid down clearly

1409
who is responsible. If I might leave that point with my noble friend, I should be glad if she could write to me on a future occasion on the issue.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should be grateful if the Minister would keep me informed too.
Clause 250, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 251 [Publication of financial statements]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 290C:
Page 151, line 36, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 290D:
Page 151, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) in subsection (6) after "with respect to" there is inserted—

"(aa) the planned financial provision in that year specified in the statement prepared by the authority under subsection (3) above", and

( ) for subsection (8) there is substituted—

"(8) The authority shall furnish—

(a) the governing body of each school required to be covered by the scheme in any financial year, and

(b) the governing bodies of such grant-maintained schools in the authority's area and grant-maintained special schools mentioned in section 34(4) (c) of this Act as may be prescribed,

with a copy of each statement prepared by the authority under this section in relation to that year or, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, with such part or parts of it as may be prescribed."
( ) After that. section there is inserted—
"Certification of statements by Audit Commission.
42A.—(1) This section applies where in the case of any local education authority the authority's financial provision for county and voluntary schools is subject to regulation by a scheme.
(2) Any such local education authority shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, require the Audit Commission to make arrangements in accordance with section 29(1) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 for certifying such statement or statements prepared by the authority under section 42 of this Act as may be specified in the directions; and any statement under that section shall be treated for the purposes of section 29(1) (d) of that Act as a return by the authority.
(3) The arrangements made by the Audit Commission in pursuance of subsection (2) above shall include arrangements for sending a copy of any such statement or statements as so certified to the Secretary of State.
(4) Directions given under subsection (2) above may relate to any local education authority or to local education authorities generally or to any class or description of such authorities." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 251, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 252 and 253 agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 291:
Before Clause 254, insert the following new clause:
("Duty with regard to provision of resources
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the funding authorities, local education authorities, governing bodies of grant maintained schools and the governing bodies of voluntary schools in the exercise of the functions conferred upon them by or under this or any other Act to have regard to the principles set out in subsection (2) below.
(2) The principles referred to in subsection (1) above are that—
1410
(a) the resources available for the provision of education shall be distributed so that so far as is reasonably practicable all those seeking access to maintained schools shall be afforded equality of opportunity to benefit from those resources;
(b) in the distribution of resources available for the provision of education in maintained schools, the weighting attached to factors related to age, ability, aptitude and need shall be such but no more than is judged necessary and appropriate to ensure that the skills of each pupil may be valued equally;
(c) no pupil shall be disadvantaged in terms of the share of the available resources for his or her education in comparison with the availability of such resources for other pupils by reason of any policy of specialisation of provision in any school or other educational institution;
(d) every pupil shall so far as is reasonably practicable be afforded access to a broad and balanced curriculum and shall not be disadvantaged in terms of the share of the available resources for his or her education by reason of the fact that his or her primary skills lie outside the core and foundation subjects of the National Curriculum; and
(e) every pupil shall have the right to he educated in a physical environment maintained to a minimum acceptable standard of repair, cleanliness and safety.").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading we made it plain that what we lamented about the Bill was its lack of vision. We were told that it was about accountability, it was about control and it was about management, but where was the vision of where we wanted education to go into the next century? Far be it from us to write the vision for the Government, but what we are trying to do is to introduce into the Bill some sense of perspective. This new clause provides for a basic set of principles to form the foundations of education in our schools. Those running our schools—the Secretary of State, the new funding authorities, LEAs and governing bodies of grant-maintained and voluntary schools—will be expected to respect those principles in making decisions which may deeply affect our children and their future.
Of fundamental importance is the right to a free, high quality education system for all with no reliance on parental contributions; an education service fundamentally committed to equal opportunities for all pupils. Although the Bill adds a national funding agency to the already existing national curriculum and national testing, at present it does not allow for nationally agreed, minimum levels of funding for all our schools. Similarly, there is no commitment to limit class sizes, which we debated the other night. There is no commitment to ensure that existing and new school buildings comply with agreed standards. There is no commitment to provide all schools with books and equipment to an agreed and adequate level, with all schools equitably resourced.
Indeed, there are wide variations between the grants per head even in adjacent neighbouring authorities. The introduction of pupil-led funding has very clearly exposed those disparities in the levels of finance available to schools. We now see that the money available varies significantly between schools even of the same size. Research recently undertaken by Coopers & Lybrand for the National Union of Teachers has revealed a substantial shortfall in the resources necessary to fund the Government's national curriculum. Coopers & Lybrand argue that

1411
over the next five years £4,618 million will be required for implementation of the national curriculum for primary schools. In addition, in secondary schools a further £1,598 million will be needed in start-up funding phased over four years. Then there will be necessary recurrent funding of £484 million.
The effects of the inadequate funding of education on a national basis obviously tends to magnify inequity at school level. The Government have set a series of targets for schools to achieve; for example, that the national curriculum should be taught to all pupils, with the consequent median of achievement according to the national curriculum assessment arrangements; that truancy should be kept at low levels; that there should be comprehensive availability of information to parents; that pupils should be educated in a safe environment, and the rest. Yet it is not clear what the Government consider to be the basic minimum level of resourcing to achieve those targets. Guaranteed standards must be laid down and resourced for all schools to give every child a fair chance. Those minimum standards of provision really must apply across the board.
There is nothing new per se in this call for basic minimum standards of provision for all pupils. What is new is the government's realisation that there needs to be consistency in grant-maintained school funding and that, if consistency of funding is to be achieved, it can only be by the Government themselves determining, and consequently explaining, their criteria for spending levels on education both nationally and at local level.
There is an inescapable argument for equity in funding between schools with similar age groups, intake and educational needs. Each pupil should be entitled to a guaranteed level of service on which the cost of that service should be based. This has clear parallels with the Government's own charter approach for service delivery elsewhere in our society.
The Government themselves have outlined the basic common criteria for achievement in schools in the Education Reform Act 1988. That Act not only defines the national curriculum as a common entitlement; it argues for,
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum".
The new clause sets out the principles to underpin that entitlement: that resources be distributed in a way which ensures the equality of opportunity to benefit from education; that no child should be disadvantaged by disproportionate funding going to selection or policies of specialisation, nor by the fact that a child's primary skills lie outside the core curriculum; and the basic principle that every pupil shall have the right to enjoy education in a physical environment maintained to a minimum acceptable standard of repair, cleanliness and safety. In a Bill which is as long as this, with so much detail about the administration, surely there is room for a reassuring statement of purpose and intention of this kind. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am fully in agreement with the spirit of this amendment. We on this side of the Committee are quite as deeply concerned as anyone on the other side about standards, spelling, numeracy and other questions of this kind. We too recognise that there is a real problem. What we are querying is the appropriateness of the Government's solutions.
I know that the noble Baroness has said twice in the course of debates on this Bill that she has some evidence to suggest a negative correlation between quality and funding. I cannot believe that she takes that too far because, if she did, she would be wide open to criticism for giving any funds to schools at all. As the noble Baroness's face signals very plainly, there is a point beyond which she will not take that argument and it is that point which signals the underlying solid point behind this amendment.
I say by the way that I have been very much irked, in my capacity as a parent, by the noble Baroness citing ILEA schools as an example of this alleged negative correlation. I had two sons in an ILEA school at the moment when the ILEA was abolished. It was a good school before that body was abolished, but as the funding was reduced after the ILEA went, you could see the quality draining out of it. My experience is totally different from that of the noble Baroness. When she made a face of displeasure at what I was saying about negative correlation, she was indicating that there is a basic level, in her mind as well as in ours, below which financial provision should not be allowed to fall.
The question is where that level comes. It has struck me many times that some people in government circles do not really have a concept of a true cost. They are so struck with the virtues of competition that they believe that it is capable of lowering costs indefinitely. It is not. There is a point where, even in the most competitive society, you cannot have something for nothing. There are certain basic minimum items of provision in a school which you cannot have without funding—class sizes, buildings and books, although I know that we cannot get the department to attach importance to books. I ask the noble Baroness: is it true, as reported in The Times a few weeks ago, that a high proportion of the books recommended for Key Stage 3 in English are not actually in print? It really should not be regarded as trivial if the actual process of teaching is brought to a halt because the basic raw materials are not available. That is the solid, irreducible point behind this amendment and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has moved it.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment is drafted in very broad—not to say very vague—terms and it roams extensively across wide areas of policy. The funding of schools is also, inevitably, a rather technical matter.
The noble Lord has justified his amendment by invoking the principle of equality of opportunity. The surest guarantee of equality of opportunity is the national curriculum, which for the first time gives to all pupils the entitlement to study a broad and balanced curriculum, including the 10 core and foundation subjects.

1413
But while the national curriculum lays down the framework of what must be taught, as a matter of common sense it leaves individual schools and teachers a sensible discretion as to how it is to be taught, according to local circumstances and the needs of individual pupils.
The present arrangements for distributing funds for maintained schools allow similarly for local discretion within a national framework. The arrangements sensibly combine the objective allocation of resources between local authorities according to need, with a broad measure of local discretion to tailor spending to suit local circumstances.
Central government make grant available to local authorities, taking account of pupil numbers, adjusted to take account of local factors which affect the cost of providing education: notably the additional educational needs of certain pupils, and higher labour costs in London and the South East. The underlying principle is to give each authority a level of support which would allow authorities across the country to provide a consistent standard of service.
Local authorities in their turn do precisely the same. They distribute funds through their schemes of local management of schools, rooted in principles of fairness and equity of funding. They ensure that local education authorities allocate resources to schools by means of an objective formula based primarily on the number and ages of children, but taking into account also special needs factors in their area. The factor most commonly used by all local authorities is free school meals. Indeed, the very transparency of the LMS funding arrangements reinforces the emphasis on equality of treatment and consistency of funding, but that does not mean that there are equal sums of money attached to every child, irrespective of their needs.
Funding for grant-maintained schools follows the same principles. Each school's annual maintenance grant (AMG) is based on the LMS scheme of its former maintaining authority, with additions to reflect a share of the LEA's previous spending on central services and an allowance for school meals. So grant-maintained school funding takes account of the funding available in each LEA area.
The noble Lord believes that there is a need to provide legal guarantees of equity of funding, but the system already works that way. The guiding principle underpinning the distribution of revenue support grant is that it should be shared equitably among authorities, recognising their variable differences, and the Government go to elaborate lengths, in consultation with the local authority associations, to secure an even-handed distribution. The legal framework for the local management of schools supports the basic principle of equity of funding.
But within that framework, there is a proper and valuable role for local discretion, for which, each authority is accountable to its local electors. This amendment would undermine that discretion and that accountability. I find it extraordinary that noble Lords opposite, who in the past have protested that local government discretion is being limited, now seek to hobble it in this way.
1414
Turning to specialisation by schools, the amendment specifically sets out to prohibit any financial encouragement for specialisation. I find this attitude profoundly depressing. The noble Lord's proposals echo an obsession with uniformity which has long been the enemy of a flourishing education service. Our commitment is to increase the opportunities for schools, pupils and parents, not to oppose them for reasons of dogma.
The implication of the amendment is that no school or pupil should have any benefit of any sort: the dreary philosophy that all should be held down at the same level, just in case one child gains an advantage, perhaps—heaven forbid—through his or her particular talents, whether in art, music, technology or whatever. Specialisation will increase the real choice available to parents and pupils. It will allow parents to choose the school best suited to the needs of their children. It will enrich the experience of pupils.
Our aim of achieving diversity and choice means that there will be some differences between schools, but that in itself will not mean that any pupil need suffer a disadvantage. Every pupil remains entitled to receive the education guaranteed by the national curriculum.
The amendment proposes that no pupil should be disadvantaged in terms of resources because his or her primary skills lie outside the core and foundation subjects of the national curriculum. These subjects are the core of what is taught in schools. If that were not the case, there would be no point in having a national curriculum. But there is already a statutory requirement that they must be taught in the context of the general requirement that the curriculum should be broad and balanced and seek to achieve pupils' spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development.
Schools and teachers are always the first to encourage pupils' talents. I cannot imagine schools disadvantaging pupils in terms of resources because they are particularly good at something outside the national curriculum. Besides, since all aspects of the curriculum will be reported publicly and to parents, it will be in schools' interests to maximise the achievements of all pupils, whether within or outside the national curriculum. That might mean that some children have more money applied to their education than others.
As to repair, cleanliness and safety, there is already a statutory duty on local education authorities and school governors of grant-maintained schools to ensure that school buildings within their responsibility are in an acceptable condition. It is for governing bodies to determine their priorities from the capital and recurrent resources available to them. Underlying all this is the question of the size of the cake overall, but that is another debate and is not related to these amendments. We are talking about the money that is available and how it is distributed.
So far I have dealt with the policy implications of the amendment. But even if your Lordships were minded to accept the principle underlying the amendment, in practice it is thoroughly impractical to lay down these kinds of rules. The amendment

1415
assumes that it is a simple matter to quantify the resources available for one pupil compared with another. On the contrary, it is remarkably difficult. How does one allocate support staff time between pupils? How does one allocate a schools' non-staff costs between pupils? This has the makings of a complex and confusing accountancy exercise, largely irrelevant to the task of educating pupils.
Furthermore, this web of principles, although sufficient to hinder local authorities' discretion, is drafted in such vague terms that it will be impossible to interpret them in any meaningful way.
The fundamental principle of equity of funding is already built into the education funding system. The amendment, I believe, is unnecessary, impractical and a recipe for confusion. It would undermine local initiative and opportunity and would instead impose a stultifying uniformity across the education system.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the one thing that I have always said (and which I shall continue to say) is that it is over-simplistic simply to say that "money in" equals "quality education out". I do not believe that this is a simple issue; it is very complex. It has a lot to do with how the money is spent and deployed and with the quality of the teachers. Of course, money is important. However, nor have I said that I believe that over-simplistic statement to be so untrue that I would end up not funding any school at all. That is an absurd interpretation of what I have said both in this and previous debates.
There is information about ILEA. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to one school of which he has great knowledge. What he said may be so, but the reason that it may not be a good school now may be due to other factors. I can only speak as somebody who operated in a shire county and who looked enviously year after year as money poured into ILEA at the expense of those of us living in more rural areas. Taking that considerable differential, "money in" did not equate to "quality education out". Neither do I believe that class size of itself (although it is important) can provide a straightforward correlation with quality.
I should like to end on this point. We believe that resources for education are very important, and my right honourable friend and I will fight like tigers for our share of what is available in the public expenditure round this year and in any other year for which we are responsible for the service. We will fight for our fair share, but once we receive our fair share, it is then a question of distribution. Our record on this is good. In real terms—that is, discounting inflation—we are now spending 45 per cent. more on the children in our schools than we were in 1979. Although I do nod have the specific figures with me perhaps I may repeat that the number of classes in this country containing more than 30 children is now lower both in the primary and secondary sectors. I refer the noble Earl to the debate on Monday evening for the specific figures which provide the evidence for that statement.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I think that if the noble Baroness looks at the Official Report tomorrow, she will find that we are not perhaps as far apart as she thinks. I agree that it was an absurd interpretation. If she follows what I said, I think that she will see that I was saying so. But, by saying so, she may perhaps concede some part of my argument. May I ask her finally whether she concedes that there can be such a thing as a level of funding too low to permit the delivery of the national curriculum?
Baroness Blatch: Deciding what is available for any service must always be a matter of judgment for any government. We are now talking specifically about education. I would not be able to put a specific figure on it, nor do I believe that primary legislation is the place to do that. I could not say at this moment whether it should be £1,000 or £2,000, or any figure in between. What I know is that a political judgment is made by the government of the day about what can be afforded for public services. Within that, I believe that it is right that education should fight for its fair share and, within that, I believe that we should have the fairest possible distribution. To look to primary legislation for a specific sum of money is, I believe, impossible.
Lord Judd: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for giving us that lengthy reply to the proposal. We must just dwell on what she said for a moment or two. First, perhaps I may ask her about the SSA system. Does she agree that it is acknowledged on all sides to be imperfect, and that it was designed as a way of distributing central government grant as a minority supplement—that is the point—to locally raised finance? Recently, the advent of capping and the council tax has effectively removed LEA discretion. The inequitable SSA is now what determines local spending. It would have been helpful if the Minister had faced up to and dealt with that point a little in her reply.
I am sorry to say this, but I think that the Minister has again demonstrated a lack of imagination. I do not blame her personally for that because she is a spokesperson for the Government as a whole; but it is this Government who like to make proclamations about one nation. If they really believe in one nation, they have to follow that through in the various segments of national life. They have to establish principles which are unquestionable about how we approach the management of our affairs in each of the segments in England and Wales.
When we come to education, the Minister must surely realise that there are genuine anxieties in many places that what is now happening is a drift back to selection and to competition between schools, with published leagues and all the rest, and that the end product of that will be that we will have success schools and failure schools. That is the nightmare away from which many people on all sides of the Committee believed we had moved finally and completely; we were not going to operate our educational affairs in that crude manner.

1417
I was hoping that the amendment might have achieved some consensus in the Committee that there were principles to which we were all committed, whatever our differences on other aspects of educational arrangements and the rest, and a determination to ensure basic conditions and a fair, level playing field—the expression we all use so often now—upon which flexibility and the work of LEAs, grant-maintained schools and the rest could be based. We know that the position will not be equal, as it is at the moment; that some will be able to maximise their advantage at the expense of others.
I am therefore sad that the Minister has not seen the opportunity tonight to join with us in reassuring the nation that despite the vigorous debates we have about how we organise education, there are certain principles upon which we all agree. Because we believe it to be so important to send a message of hope to children, parents, teachers, dedicated governors and councillors on LEAs and the rest, we are going to pursue the amendment to a Division tonight.
6.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 291) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Airedale, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ardwick, L.

Peston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Guildford, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Molloy, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cadman, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Auckland, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bauer, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Belstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Crathorne, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

1418

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Moyne, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northbourne, L.

Dormer, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dunrossil, V.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Prentice, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Pym, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reay, L.

Hardinge, V.

Rees, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rennell. L.

Hayter, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hesketh, L.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Sandford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

Kitchener, E.

Sherfield, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Long, V.

Stewartby, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Swinfen. L.

Tebbit, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Teviot, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.32 p.m.
Clause 254 agreed to.
Clause 255 [Inter-authority recoupment]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 291ZA:
Page 153, leave out lines 38 to 45 and insert ("to reflect relevant costs incurred by the local education authority in question.").
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment in the absence of my noble friend. It is intended to provide that the costs to be charged should be the actual costs and not the average costs. They should be the relevant costs actually incurred by the local authority in question. It is a simple point and I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I rise before the Minister even though her amendment occurs earlier in the grouping. As regards procedure, the usual logical problem arises; that I object to the whole clause. I shall speak first to my amendment and to the others as though I do not object to the clause and then I shall rise a second time to explain my objection to the clause. I shall not make my clause stand part speech under this group of amendments.
If there is to be such a change in the recoupment procedure I support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should be interested to hear any argument from the Government as to why all

1419
the costs incurred are not the costs which are recouped. We can debate whether we consider them to be the marginal or average costs. I am also intrigued by the Government's Amendment No. 219A, in which they have decided to use the expression:
"the whole or any part of".
That makes no sense but I am open to argument as to why the expression should not be "the whole".
The second point, which relates to my amendment, is that, throughout, the provisions use the word "may" rather than "must". Therefore, two issues arise. The first is that logically regulations may not be made if they "may" be made. The second is that within the regulations there may be examples of recoupment that would not occur. In an area which the Committee has debated at some length it should be without doubt the case that recoupment should occur because otherwise the activity simply will not take place. That is why I have tabled my amendment to include hospital education. I do not believe that any Secretary of State of probity worth his salt will not produce regulations for recoupment. However, we do not write legislation on the assumption that the Secretary of State is a decent person or will do the right thing; we write legislation in order that what we want to happen does happen. That is why I have tabled this specific amendment.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I shall then explain why I believe that the whole clause should be withdrawn.
Lord Henley: I appreciate that the noble Lord will explain why he believes the clause should be withdrawn. It may help if I first speak to the whole clause and then deal with the specific amendment. As the Committee will be aware, at present the schools-related part of LEAs' standard spending assessments is calculated not on the number of pupils actually enrolled in an LEA's schools but on the number of pupils resident in the LEA, whether they attend schools within their home LEA or in another LEA. When a pupil attends a school outside his or her "home" LEA the "providing" LEA can recoup the cost of provision from the "home" LEA.
This system is unsatisfactory and burdensome for two reasons. First, the number of pupils crossing LEA boundaries to attend school is increasing fast. Secondly, the expansion of the grant-maintained school sector makes it increasingly anachronistic for money to pass between LEAs when the main financial relationship is between central government (or the FAS) and GM schools.
The present system shuffles money between LEAs to little good purpose. This clause will end LEAs' right to automatic recoupment, and will give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying the nature and scope of recoupment. Once this amendment is enacted we intend to simplify the recoupment system by two simultaneous changes. First, by calculating the schools' element of SSAs on the basis of the number of pupils attending the LEA's schools, regardless of their LEA of residence. Secondly, by confining recoupment to special cases.
1420
It may well be necessary to continue recoupment where costs are high and the pattern of provision is uneven. In particular, it may prove desirable to retain recoupment for pupils with statements, including those educated in ordinary schools, and it may prove desirable to retain recoupment for special and hospital school pupils, and for children receiving education in other hospitals. I shall deal later with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I can assure the Committee that we will consult local education authorities on these proposed arrangements, and will also invite their views on whether to include other categories of pupils, such as under-fives, in the new arrangements. I can also confirm that the new regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament.
We are minded to introduce the new regime at the beginning of the financial year 1994–95. Although we may retain recoupment for some or all of the categories of pupils I have mentioned, we shall still be able to dispense with it for most pupils, with a consequent saving in the administrative burden of authorities.
Baroness Seear: If the authority providing the service is to be paid less than the authority which is receiving it will that authority have the right to refuse to provide the service?
Lord Henley: I shall deal specifically with the noble Baroness's amendment in due course. At present I am trying to explain that the present arrangements are to some extent unnecessarily bureaucratic and burdensome in providing for automatic recoupment—that is, merely shuffling money from one authority to another. If the SSA is to be based on the number of pupils attending a school in that authority, there is no need for recoupment from the other authority because the authority in which the pupil is at school provides the money. In other words, it is the money following the pupil or rather, the SSA is based on the number of children attending the school rather than the number of children living in the area. That seems to be a perfectly logical and sensible arrangement which saves a great deal of shuffling money around.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would, I fear, lead to prolonged, unnecessary inter-authority wrangling and would impose a huge administrative burden, taking up time and money which would be better spent on providing education. In addition, I believe that it is wholly unnecessary.
I understand the point that actual costs incurred by local authorities in providing education may be different from the average recoupment rates, but I would ask the noble Baroness to look carefully at the flexibility already provided by Clause 255.
Subsection (1) (a) of that clause provides that recoupment between authorities shall be for whatever amount they agree between themselves. In practice, what happens at the moment is that the Council of Local Education Authorities recommends a national set of rates, varying on a regional basis, and authorities either use those rates or, using them as a basis, reach local agreements, based on their knowledge of the individual pupils involved and the

1421
education provided. The Secretary of State only imposes a recoupment rate if a recoupment claim cannot be sorted out locally.
The second point to note is that subsection (3) of Clause 255, which is the subject of the amendment, is only permissive. It does not say that the regulations must provide for the amounts payable to reflect average costs. Indeed, the regulations could provide for the amounts payable to be based on a different principle. There will be no general direction from the Secretary of State that all recoupment claims must be dealt with on the basis of average costs.
Finally, I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on hospital education. I realise that he gave a specific example. We are well aware of the view, strongly voiced by several noble Lords at an earlier stage of our proceedings, that the funding of hospital education needs to be safeguarded.
In the Government's forthcoming consultation document, we shall be inviting views on the future scope and nature of recoupment. We shall in particular seek views on the desirability of retaining recoupment for the various kinds of hospital education. To that extent, this amendment seeks to anticipate the outcome of that consultation. Again I stress that the regulations resulting from that consultation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will be debated in this Chamber.
The Government cannot accept an amendment to require recoupment whenever hospital education is provided for more than half a day. Many pupils' stay in hospitals is extremely short, and they will receive only a short period of education. There is an obvious danger that the administrative cost of recoupment would be larger than the sum recouped. No doubt the point which the noble Lord made can be taken care of by consultation.
My noble friend's amendment is a minor technical one. The new subsection (3) of Section 51 states that:
"The regulations may provide for the amount payable from one authority to another … to reflect average costs".
The amendment would allow the regulations to provide for those amounts to reflect the whole or any part of the average costs. That would allow slightly greater flexibility when drafting the regulations so that one possibility might be to allow the authority importing pupils to receive basic credit for the pupils in its grant from central government but to recoup any extra marginal costs of provision from the pupils' home authority. Therefore, the amendment extends the possible range of options for recoupment which can be canvassed in the consultation exercise which we intend to conduct with the LEAs.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness sufficiently so that she will withdraw her amendment. I hope that I have dealt with most of the noble Lord's queries about the clause itself but no doubt the noble Lord will decide whether he wishes to speak on the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, perhaps I may respectfully point out to him that his amendment does not fit into the clause as it is. The clause is entirely an enabling clause but he turns it into an obligate clause in respect of one detail only. The amendment would have to be redrafted even if he wanted it dealt with in substance.
The other point is that it seems to me that the point which the noble Lord is after is taken care of when the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch is made to the clause. That enables the whole of or part of any costs to be dealt with in the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just given one example of "part" of the cost. Therefore, there would in any event be an overlap if the amendment were accepted.
Baroness Seear: I have listened to what the Minister said; and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to Withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 291A:
Page 153, line 38, after ("reflect") insert ("the whole or any part of the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 291B:
Page 154, line 4, at end insert ("save that the Regulations must provide for amounts payable for pupils in hospital education where the period of education is in excess of one half day.").
The noble Lord said: Within the context of the clause, I found the noble Lord's remarks reassuring. Indeed, given the new view of statutory interpretation, when the regulations are made under the affirmative resolution procedure, if subsequently a hospital school felt that it was being dealt with incorrectly, it could at least quote some of the reassuring comments made today. Therefore, I shall not take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the difference between what is obligatory and what is permissive because I was trying to argue that the provision should be obligatory.
[Amendment No. 291B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 255, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peston: There is more than one reason why we should discuss this Motion. Unless the Minister tells me I am mistaken, this is a very, important change in the way in which local education is financed. This is a major change to education finance in this country.
I believe that I am right (but I stand ready to be corrected) that that major change was never debated in the other place. Therefore, it seems to me that when a total change in the way in which we finance local education is proposed, we have an obligation to ask whether that is a sensible way of doing things. It always seems to me to be illogical that we discuss the general principle of a clause after we have discussed the detail of it, but that is the way in which our procedures work and that is why I must speak a second time on this Motion.

1423
The recoupment question is essentially a balance of payments problem. Certain local education authorities are exporting school places and certain other authorities are importing them. In the normal way in which accounting and remuneration takes place, the buyer pays the seller. Indeed, I should add that given the Government's whole philosophy here and in other areas, that is clearly the correct logical way to do it and it is how it has been done up to now.
I listened very attentively to the noble Lord but I still do not understand why these changes must be made. Equally, I am advised—again, I am always open to the noble Lord's arguments and evidence—that there is no major bureaucratic problem; quite the contrary, the present system, as I understand it, is working quite well. It can be expected to work well because that is the correct way to do things.
Those are the reasons why I felt that one had a duty to raise the matter: the Government are actually choosing an illogical way of dealing with the problem. Indeed, I go further. I do not understand why anyone would choose to deal with a problem if there was no problem in the first place. All my advisers tell me that there is no problem and that the present system is proceeding satisfactorily. Therefore, why are the Government suddenly announcing that it is bureaucratic? There is no evidence whatever to show that it is bureaucratic, nor that it has gone particularly wrong. Rather, to the extent that it has gone wrong, it could be dealt with in minor ways.
I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, but, bearing in mind the fact that this is the first time the subject has been discussed generally in either place, it seemed to me that one had a duty at least to place a few thoughts before Members of the Committee before proceeding to other matters.
Lord Henley: I think that the noble Lord is making something of a mountain out of a molehill. I explained in some detail—and I hope that the noble Lord is grateful—why we consider that the old system was bureaucratic and unnecessary. I also explained why we are making the changes. But it is not a major change in the way local authorities are funded for education; it is simply a change in the way we arrange the recoupment. The new arrangements quite simply streamline the funding system and make some savings in LEA administration, which I am sure the noble Lord welcomes, by ending an unprofitable network of bureaucratic transactions.
Quite honestly, I simply cannot see why anyone can object. In any event, the Bill merely establishes the framework for making new rules. I have given an absolute and categorical assurance that we will consult the LEAs on the details of the new system, especially for categories of pupil for whom recoupment will be retained. I have also given an assurance that the regulations, when they come forward, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 255, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 291C.
After Clause 255, insert the following new clause:
1424
("Grants for the education of travellers and displaced persons
—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the payment to local education authorities of grants in respect of expenditure incurred by them in making provision, the purpose (or main purpose) of which is to promote and facilitate the education of persons to whom this subsection applies.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to a person if—

(a) by reason of his way of life or, in the case of a child, his parent's way of life he either has no fixed abode or leaves his main abode to live elsewhere for significant periods in each year;

(b) he fell within paragraph (a) above within a prescribed period immediately preceding the making of the provision in question; or

(c) he is for the time being resident in temporary accommodation.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) above may—

(a) prescribe classes or descriptions of expenditure in respect of which grants are payable under the regulations;

(b) provide for the determination of the amount of any grant so payable;

(c) provide for the payment of any such grant to be dependent on the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations; and

(d) provide for requiring local education authorities to whom payments have been made under the regulations to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.").

The noble Earl said: I move the above amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It would empower the Secretary of State to make grants for the education of those who might otherwise be slipping through the net—that is, transients, travellers, itinerants, people of no fixed abode and people in temporary accommodation. At present, such people do not always receive an adequate education. We believe that the amendment is necessary because the present state of the law under Section 210(2) (c) of the Education Act 1988 empowers the Secretary of State to make grants for education for people who are resident,
"in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons".
We do not think that that description in the 1988 Act covers all the likely cases. In particular, it does not cover the case of those who necessarily, because of their parents' occupation, have to travel. For example, it used to be notorious in Birmingham that the children of the bargees were normally illiterate because their parents were always travelling. They were not based in any regular local authority area and it was no one's responsibility to educate their children. Being under pressure, local authorities will always tend to give priority to those they recognise as being their responsibility. Therefore, if we want them to take responsibility for itinerants, we shall have to make available some money.
Apart from the bargees, the proposed new clause would also apply to the homeless. On many occasions Amy noble kinsman and I have discussed the plight of people in bed and breakfast accommodation. I can recall the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, drawing his attention to the fact that a great many of those children do not receive any regular schooling. That is a pity and something for which, in the long term, we may have to pay. It may perhaps be a good idea for the departments to get together on the matter. As my

1425
noble kinsman happens to be on the Front Bench, perhaps he could on occasion let his left hand know what his right hand is doing in the matter.
The proposed provision would also apply to refugees. When we debated refugees during the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, recalled trying to communicate with a Somali child who was a refugee. There was no common language between them. She tried to offer him a bar of chocolate in the hope of reassuring him, but he did not know what it was.
There are very considerable problems which will all involve the local authority having to incur costs. We have here what I think is known loosely as the "Hillingdon problem", which is a very regular and well known one. I believe that the amendment kills a good many birds with one stone. I think that that is economical. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, stands in as an imperfect substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, while I stand in as an even more imperfect substitute for my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As I was only given the job a few moments ago, I am happy to say that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has covered all the main points. I simply wish to make one technical point.
Looking at the proposed new clause as drafted, it seems to fit quite logically with Clause 255. Essentially Clause 255 is a grant system of recoupment where one is discussing pupils in one LEA using the facilities of another. In a sense, the travellers and displaced persons are pupils who are not really part of an LEA, and so on. Yet again, the same logic would suggest that the procedures under Clause 255 should be used to fund the LEAs which educate those pupils.
Logically, it seems to me that Amendment No. 291C fits neatly with Clause 255. My reading of the clause as drafted —though perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on the matter—is precisely that it cannot be used for that purpose because it refers to pupils in one authority with respect to another. That is not quite the same thing. However, it seems to me that the spirit of Clause 255 could easily be carried over to accepting either Amendment No. 291C or a suitable amendment to Clause 255 to do exactly the same job.
Lord Renton: I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord; indeed, I never do. He really has put forward a case which, at any rate in part, deserves consideration and which, as he pointed out, is partly covered by existing law. But the proposed new clause seems to me to be most extraordinarily wide.
If we look at subsection (2) of the amendment, provision would have to be made,
"by reason of his way of life"—
that is, the child's way of life—
"or, in the case of a child, his parent's way of life".
The phrase "way of life" is a very broad concept. Any way of life would seem to enable provision to be made. Of course, whether it should be made is another matter and very debatable. The subsection goes on to speak of a person of "no fixed abode". One always feels sorry for children whose parents are just wanderers and who do not take the trouble to settle
1426
down into any kind of normal civilised life. I must point out that I am expressing a purely personal view; but, in such a situation, in order to ensure the child's education, I should have thought that it would be better for him to be taken into the custody of the local authority. It is very difficult to generalise because such hard cases must vary enormously.
Another circumstance which is mentioned in the proposed new clause in subsection (2) is where someone,
"leaves his main abode to live elsewhere for significant periods in each year".
I am not quite sure how that is intended to work. Does it mean that the child may have to move so as to be with his parents when they are in the main abode and then move to another area of an education authority when his parents are moving elsewhere?
Admittedly, it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to prescribe the period of movement from the main abode to live elsewhere. But the Secretary of State will have to take a somewhat difficult decision in some cases. It is difficult to see how regulations would provide for the enormous variations. I am expressing only my own point of view. I do not know whether the Government agree with it. I feel that this provision is extremely wide, and I can see various difficulties arising with regard to it.
The principal problem, I would have thought, is the great problem (the ancient problem) of gypsies. Over the years that problem has been dealt with more or less satisfactorily. It is very difficult sometimes to deal with. The modern variant of gypsies, less praiseworthy, are the new age travellers. They seem unlikely to co-operate with authority at all. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
7 p.m.
Lord Peston: This is an important point, and it may help if I clarify what we have in mind. We are very definitely at odds. At least the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself are at odds; I am not sure about the noble Earl, Lord Russell. So far as we are concerned, we may not care for travellers and gypsies and all that sort of thing (or fellow travellers even) but their way of life happens to be perfectly legitimate in our country. It is not illegal to do that sort of thing and, even though it may not appeal to us, we nonetheless have responsibilities to such people—and more to the point, to the children of such people.
Lord Renton: Our responsibility in the context of this Bill is to their children.
Lord Peston: Yes, indeed, it is to the children. But it is certainly no help to say that the way to deal with the problem is to say that they are taken into care. The point is that these people move from place to place. Even though it is not my way of life—I find the idea of moving under any circumstances quite horrifying—these are fellow members of our society and their education is important. Indeed, we have obligations regarding their education. The central point is that therefore funding should be adjusted to those obligations. That is the point at issue. It is not to my knowledge the case—again the noble Earl, Lord

1427
Russell, may be able to enlighten us—that the existing arrangements are satisfactory. Local authorities sometimes bear a disproportionate burden—or, more to the point, their ratepayers (council tax payers) bear a disproportionate burden. The purpose of the amendments is exactly to allow for that. I hold back from making any value judgment about other people's ways of life. I do not believe it is my business. But I do believe that those children deserve a decent education. Indeed, they are obliged to have a decent education under the national curriculum, and the relevant resources must be made available to the bodies that provide it. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he stood in as an imperfect substitute for his noble friend Lady Blackstone, and my noble kinsman stood as imperfect substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I will complete the hat-trick by saying that I stand in as an imperfect substitute for my noble friend.
The amendment seeks to extend the scope of Section 210 of the 1988 Act to enable the Secretary of State to pay grants to local education authorities for the education of persons for the time being resident in temporary accommodation.
I should like to argue that the amendment is unnecessary and would be unworkable in practice. There is no reason to assume that people living in temporary accommodation have by definition any particular educational needs of the kind that Section 210 grant is intended to address.
The aim of Section 210 is to enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to the LEA and also to further education colleges to promote and facilitate the education of travellers and of those who are for the time being resident in a camp or other accommodation or establishment provided for refugees or for displaced or similar persons. The grant replaced an earlier arrangement known as the "no area pool" which enabled local authorities to claim additional funding from central government to meet the educational needs of people who are not ordinarily resident in their area. That included nomadic people and displaced persons who were living in camps or reception centres on first arrival in this country, and later included the bargees, about whom my noble kinsman spoke so eloquently and feelingly.
Section 210 grant supports extra provision made to meet the particular educational needs of travellers and of displaced persons over and above what is normally provided in school. Section 210 was never intended to provide the sole means of support for their education. The LEAs receive allowance in their revenue support grant to meet the basic educational needs of all pupils, including travellers and displaced persons, based on numbers recorded in the annual pupil count.
The education element of revenue support grant contains a generous weighting for the costs of meeting additional educational needs of this kind, including needs that arise from social factors. Those authorities which benefit most from this weighting are those
1428
London authorities where, as the noble Earl says, the problem of housing in temporary accommodation is most acute.
My noble kinsman was also concerned that LEAs should receive funding for those who are temporarily housed outside their normal authority of residence. Under the present arrangements, the authority where they are ordinarily resident already receives credit for those pupils in its standard spending assessment. The authority providing the education can recoup the cost of education from the authority. We have just moved on from Clause 255, and under the system which we propose to introduce under that clause, an authority will receive funding based on the number of pupils in its authority regardless of their authority of residence.
My noble kinsman also asked about what help there was for those local authorities faced with the unexpected influx of displaced persons. The Department of the Environment announced two schemes in February to help local authorities facing unexpected hefty demands as a result of displaced persons. Those demands will not be purely on the educational service. One scheme is for those from former Yugoslavia and one is for unaccompanied children. Again, Section 210 grant is not designed to deal with those specific short-term needs, and the LEAs have to submit detailed project proposals well in advance of the start of that year for which funding is sought.
Quite apart from any considerations as to the merits of this particular amendment, which, as I have already explained, I argue is unnecessary, I should inform the Committee that it is defective, since it contains no provision for the repeal of Section 210 of the Education Reform Act, whose provisions, with the exception of subsection (2)(c), it largely replicates. I hope therefore that my noble kinsman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I congratulate my noble kinsman on completing the hat-trick. I also listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He is, I believe, creating real difficulties. But the amendment was also concerned to meet real difficulties. I do not argue that the drafting is perfect.
But let us take, for example, the "way of life". It was intended to apply to people such as bargees, or people whose parents work in a circus. That can make matters extremely difficult. I am sure that the noble Lord understands the sort of situation to which those words were intended to apply. Should the Government be minded to do more, I am sure that if we sat round a table, we could reach an acceptable wording. On the other hand, I wondered about the suggestion of taking the children of gypsies into care and whether that was perhaps a bit draconian; and whether, in the light of the Orkney case, it was a particularly timely suggestion.
With regard to the phrase "significant periods of the year", again I see the problem of definition. But there are categories of people, notably migrant workers, for whom one needs some phrase of this order in order to indicate what is meant. I can imagine, say, a single parent who is a travelling actress possibly needing very much to take advantage of a

1429
form of words of that sort. I believe that these difficulties, though genuine, are not insuperable. If this were to go further, we could discuss it.
I am grateful to my noble kinsman for the care he took in answering. I am not sure that I am convinced by his case. I shall have to read what he said very carefully. His answers in relation to Section 210 illustrated why Section 210 is not sufficient. He said that people who stay in temporary accommodation do not have a particular need, but we are concerned about providing ordinary schooling for people who are in temporary accommodation, moving, and so forth. Therefore, if Section 210 does not cover that, its wording ought to be changed.
I listened with interest to what my noble kinsman said about the pool. Here the Government appear to be suffering from the degree of confidentiality involved in the assessment of standard spending assessments. If cards were placed on the table so that it was known how much was available for what, we would be able to understand each other a great deal more quickly than is sometimes possible.
I heard what my noble kinsman said about the amendment being defective. I take that point. Having listened with care, and being grateful for much of what was said in the reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 292 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begin again at 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
7.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order introduces amendments to fire safety requirements broadly in line with those already put into effect in Great Britain by the enactment of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987.
The main purpose of the order is to amend the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which is the main legislative instrument for controlling fire precautions, in order to afford better protection for the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
I shall come to the detailed provisions in a moment, but before doing so perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded your Lordships that the central feature of the 1984 order is the requirement for those occupiers of premises, put to a use designated by order made by the department, to obtain a fire certificate from the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland. Fire certificates
1430
require that premises he provided with adequate means of escape, means of fighting fire and other necessary fire alarm measures.
While the present system of fire precautions has on the whole worked well, it is clear that amendments can be made to secure improved standards. The desire to improve safety standards prompted a review and a consultation exercise in Great Britain in 1985 which resulted in the enactment in 1987 of provisions similar to those contained in this amendment order.
The order would confer powers on the fire authority to exempt certain low risk premises from the need to have fire certificates, while at the same time imposing a statutory duty on occupiers of exempted premises to have adequate means of escape and fire-fighting equipment, for which the department will issue a code of practice. It would also provide for limited charges for the administrative costs of issuing or amending fire certificates, impose a duty on the occupier of exempt and non-certificated premises to provide reasonable standards of fire precautions, impose upon the owners or occupiers of premises who have applied for certification a statutory duty to maintain a certain level of fire safety while their application is pending, enable the issue of prohibition notices in respect of premises where there is serious risk to persons and, finally, impose on the fire authority a duty to carry out programmes of inspection. The department will give guidance about which types of premises should he inspected and how frequently. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th March be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his explanation of the order. We on these Benches fully support the order. It strengthens the law relating to the safety of premises against fire risk.
However, the order comes seven long years after the introduction of similar provisions for the mainland. I am sure that the Minister will know that the Fire Brigade's Union has been pressing for the order for years. One wonders whether the delay reflects the Government's odd sense of priorities. Can the Minister explain to the House why it has taken seven years to bring the law in this respect in Northern Ireland into line with that of Great Britain?
I see that the order is to be backed by a code of practice regarding means of escape and fire-fighting. Can the Minister say whether the code is already in draft form and whether it has, been the subject of consultation? Moreover, can he say when it will come into force?
The legal status of codes of practice is immensely variable, as the House will know. However, the legal significance of this code is clearly set out in the proposed Article 31 B. That being so, can the Minister please explain why it is necessary to introduce Article 44A(a)?
I have two questions about Article 29A(2) (c). First, if a certificate imposes a limit on the number of persons who can be on the premises at any one time, will the holder of the certificate be guilty of an offence if the limit is breached, if only for half an hour?

1431
Secondly, in the absence of a computer at the entrance to the building, how can the holder of the certificate possibly ensure that the limit is not exceeded at any given time, particularly where people are constantly moving in and out of the building, as they would, for example, where the premises are a licensed club? Is that not an impracticable condition? I should welcome some light on those two matters.
Finally, I have a couple of straightforward questions about the structure of the fire service administration in Northern Ireland. I am sure that these questions will pose no difficulty for the Minister. Will the Minister tell us what body in Northern Ireland is responsible for maintaining the local fire brigade? Is it the department, or has that responsibility been devolved to a district council? I am conscious, as all Members of the House will be, that the fire service in Northern Ireland carries an exceptionally heavy burden of responsibility, for which we are all deeply grateful. In many ways its services are allied very closely to the civil defence functions. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm to the House whether the fire service is currently up to its establishment and whether there have been any problems in relation to recruitment in any particular part of the Province.
I trust that the Minister can help me with those few questions. We gladly support the order.
Lord Meston: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I wish to join in welcoming this order. I make only one point, which is to reiterate the hope which was expressed in another place that the authorities will be sparing in the grant of exemptions, particularly for properties in multiple operation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston, for their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in particular asked a number of searching questions which I hope to be able to answer. He raised a number of points concerning codes of practice, the maintenance of the fire brigade and breaches of an exemption certificate. I shall deal with each of the detailed points in turn.
With regard to codes of practice, I am advised that a draft of the code has already been prepared. It will be circulated to interested parties for comment before being issued in its final form to coincide with the enactment of this order, which is likely to be in late August.
In relation to the code of practice, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to Article 44A(a). I should explain that its purpose is to make it clear that nothing in the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, as amended by this order, confers a right of action in civil proceedings in respect of any contraventions of the 1984 order.
The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland is the body responsible for maintaining and securing the services of the fire brigade. It is almost up to full establishment and no particular difficulties have been encountered regarding recruitment.
1432
In regard to breaches of exemption notice, I should explain that the number of persons to be specified in an exemption notice would be an ad hoc figure and intended as a safety guide in premises which are regarded as low risk. Such premises by their nature would be limited in size and consequently would accommodate relatively few persons, either employees or persons expected to be there. Any breach of the number specified would not in itself constitute an offence. However, if exempted premises were altered in such a way that their use would involve a greater number of persons than that specified, the occupier would be guilty of an offence under Article 29A (1) if he did not advise the fire authority accordingly. Premises such as clubs, to which the noble Lord referred, would be subject to licensing by local authorities and would fall outside the scope of these provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked the interesting question: why so late? Why is it seven years after the GB order? The Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 introduced for the first time in Northern Ireland provisions relating to fire precautions which had been in operation in Great Britain since 1971 by virtue of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. Shortly after the enactment of the 1984 order, the Home Office decided to amend some of the fire precaution provisions. Those were ultimately incorporated in the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987.
As the new provisions of the 1984 order had only just become established in Northern Ireland, the department did not consider it opportune to make the further changes introduced by the 1987 Act. Consequently, and in the knowledge that neither the people of Northern Ireland nor their property would be exposed to any risk or damage, the department decided to defer action on the proposed amendments for a few years. Work commenced on the Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in late 1990. The order would have been enacted in late 1992 had it not been for a considerable delay caused by the general election.
However, I would add that one of the main provisions of the order relates to exemption from fire certificates. In the six-year period leading up to this order, I can assure your Lordships that neither life nor property was at any greater risk due to the absence of those provisions. The existing provisions would require full certification.
I take the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked. It is certainly an interesting one. If I may, I prefer to write to him. I can assure him that I shall do that by the end of next week. I should like to make quite sure that he has an accurate and correct answer. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I shall speak also to the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993 which was laid before the House on the same date.
The main order makes a number of important changes in family law in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is taken to amend the law relating to the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage, the publication of press notices in register office marriages, domestic violence and the procedure for obtaining a divorce. The order also contains provisions to improve the system for the collection and enforcement of maintenance payments.
Articles 6 to 11 of the order contain provisions to extend the powers of the High Court, divorce county courts and courts of summary jurisdiction to specify the method of payment to be employed when making or dealing with a maintenance order.
Article 3 removes the requirement for the parties to certain register office marriages to publish notices of their intention to marry in the press where at least one of the parties fails to state a place of worship usually attended in the notice of marriage. This requirement, which serves no useful purpose in modern times, has been strongly criticised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and others both as an invasion of the privacy of the couple and as something which is discriminatory to those who seek a civil rather than a religious ceremony.
Article 14 relates to the law on domestic violence in Northern Ireland. Paragraph (1) replaces Article 19 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 with a new provision to make the breach of a personal protection order or an exclusion order a specific criminal office. Paragraph (2) amends Article 21 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 and streamlines the procedure for obtaining ex parte interim personal protection and exclusion orders.
Article 15 amends the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and removes the requirement for the court to hear the petitioner's oral testimony in divorce cases based on two years' separation with consent or five years' separation. This will enable rules of court to be made to devise a new procedure for those cases, which may be similar to the "special procedure" currently in use in England and Wales.
The removal of the oral evidence requirement will spare the petitioner the humiliation of having to appear in open court and publicly recite the details of the marriage breakdown. It will also produce a considerable saving in time expended by the judiciary on divorce work and will enable court room time to be used more efficiently.
I wish to reassure your Lordships that this provision will not remove divorce from the courts' supervision and will not reduce the dissolution of marriage to an administrative formality. We are satisfied that this procedural change will not affect the message, enshrined in the law, that marriage is a serious and permanent commitment and that divorce represents a fundamental change in a person's legal status.
The order effects some useful and important reforms in family law in Northern Ireland and as such I commend it to your Lordships' House.
The consequential amendments order makes amendments to the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, which Act extends throughout the United Kingdom. The amendments are purely consequential reflecting the maintenance enforcement provisions in the main order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of the order. It seems to us to be moving family law in the right direction. It is supported by these Benches. I am certainly not unmindful of the importance of each of the 11 changes effected by the order. However, perhaps I may single out two of the articles which appear to me to be sensitive and perceptive.
First, I am sure that Article 12 will bring satisfaction to wives who are being treated with violence by their husbands. The article allows the police henceforth to institute proceedings in breach of a personal protection order or an exclusion order. Violence does not cease to be violence merely because it is violence within marriage. Article 12 therefore gives effect to an important and overdue reform.
I, for my part, also have special praise for the first article, which is even more overdue. As the Minister said, it gives effect to a recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, so it seems to remove an unjust and inequitable provision which I believe has its origin in 19th century legislation.
Having praised the order, I have to say that I believe that in Northern Ireland family law is an area where the department has to do some hard and careful thinking and listening. Further changes are required. Clearly, Northern Ireland must move in the direction laid down by the Children Act and.we look forward to early legislation in that respect.
However, as the order is called a family law order, I trust that it is appropriate for me to touch upon one other issue. A week ago, at a meeting in one of the Committee rooms, a number of noble Lords, under the auspices of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children—the chairman of which is the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—met a large and influential deputation of professional workers in the health and social services fields in Northern Ireland. They had travelled to Westminster to convey to us their deep anxiety about the Department of Health's intention to encourage the setting up of community trusts to

1435
deliver child care services, among other services. They had travelled to Westminster because they found it difficult to obtain a hearing in Northern Ireland.
That deputation stressed to us that the department's policy was totally inappropriate. The members assumed that the department's policy resulted from a slavish following of the GB model, without recognising that the organisation of the health and social services in Northern Ireland must be undertaken differently. The noble Earl presides over the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and I envisage that he will receive the deputation's request to reconsider the policy. I therefore urge the Minister and the department to listen carefully to the anxieties which, I am assured, are being voiced right across Northern Ireland. I am not certain what comfort the noble Earl can give me which we can convey to the deputation that came here from Northern Ireland.
Finally, I have a couple of straightforward questions which I mentioned in a letter to the Minister. We should like to know how many divorce petitions have been filed in Northern Ireland during each of the past three years; how many decrees absolute were granted in respect of each of those years; how many child custody orders were made in each of those years; and how many children there are in care in Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the Minister could provide that information, as we believe that it is relevant and important to a discussion of family law in Northern Ireland.
Turning to the consequential order, we are pleased to give it our full support.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. All the provisions which he has introduced are welcome. It always seems rather strange that changes in the law in Northern Ireland seem to lag so far behind those which are made in England and Wales, and Scotland. However, that means that when they come to be considered in the Northern Ireland context, they will at least have stood the test of time in this part of the United Kingdom.
Here, among other matters, we have the equivalent of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 and the Maintenance Enforcement Act of 1991. I had the privilege and responsibility of introducing the 1986 Act in your Lordships' House. It was the product of a report by the Church of England under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Seear. The Bill produced extensive debate at every stage of its progress through your Lordships' House and I recall the difficulties which we had and the need to impose the nearest one is ever likely to come to a three-line Whip on the Bench of Bishops. The Bill passed through another place without debate in about three minutes flat.
The 1986 Act in England, Wales and Scotland set men free to marry their mothers-in-law. It will not surprise noble Lords to realise that it has not shaken civilisation to its roots nor caused enormous queues at the churches or registry offices. However, it met a few deserving cases. I recall that in the weeks following the
1436
implementation of the Act, I received a fairly steady stream of small boxes of wedding cake, and I hope that the noble Earl is similarly blessed.
As to the 1991 Act for maintenance enforcement in England and Wales, which is now to be introduced in Northern Ireland, it adds to the armoury of enforcement of maintenance orders dealing with the more recalcitrant maintenance payers and giving certainty to those who are the recipients of maintenance.
I also welcome the improved mechanisms for dealing with exclusion and protection orders and the new limits on oral evidence in undefended divorce cases. Simply to read that it is now, in 1993, necessary to provide for that under the procedures in Northern Ireland, makes one realise how far behind the Province lags. In England and Wales, undefended divorces have not required oral evidence for many years. That is certainly a step in the right direction in sparing parties the ordeal of having to give oral evidence in open court. For those reasons, we welcome all these improvements.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Meston, for their welcome remarks about the order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to further developments in family law which he considered desirable. I can certainly tell him that the drafting is now complete on the children order and that we are considering arrangements for its publication.
The noble Lord also raised a number of specific questions relating to divorce in Northern Ireland. In reply, I can tell him that factually there were: 2,401 divorce petitions filed in Northern Ireland in 1989; 2,281 filed in 1990; and 2,619 in 1991. Figures for 1992 are, I understand, not yet available.
In the same years, the number of decrees absolute of divorce were: 1,812 in 1989; 1,893 in 1990; and 2,301 in 1991. The numbers of child custody orders are not available, but the numbers of children involved will give the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, an indication. In 1989, 3,014 children were involved; in 1990 it was 3,231, and in 1991, 3,795.
In 1990 and 1991, approximately 25 per cent, of divorcing spouses were childless, while most divorcing spouses had two children. In the years 1989 to 1991, no orders were made under Article 46 of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 committing children to care.
As regards the deputation on community care attending a meeting in your Lordships' House at which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was present, yes, I shall certainly undertake to see such a deputation at the appropriate time. I suggest that that should be during the consultation period, which I think will start in some two or three weeks' time. When the consultation period commences I shall look forward to seeing a deputation on this matter, but in the meantime I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that all will be well as regards community care in Northern Ireland. It is my job to convince people that that is the case and that is certainly what I intend to do when the deputation comes to see me.

1437
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for all his helpful and interesting remarks. I certainly agree with him that the provisions have stood the test of time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 256 [Musical instrument tuition]:
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 293:
Page 154, line 17, after ("pupils") insert ("(unless such pupils have special educational needs)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should tell the Committee that I interpret the phrase "having special educational needs" to refer to all children, whether or not they have a statement from the local authority, who have been assessed as having a need which requires extra provision at school if it is to be met in accordance with the code of practice.
It is clear that a number of children with special educational needs would greatly benefit from instrumental lessons. It is also clear that the parents of many children would not be able to afford them. The Department for Education tends to use as a guide to how many children with special educational needs are in a school the rather crude criterion of how many of them have free school meals. If that argument is followed, which works out not too badly, it is plain that many children with special educational needs in schools would not be able to afford instrumental lessons.
There is no need to worry that there will be an enormous number of such children. It will be entirely for the school to decide which children who have special educational needs would benefit from' instrumental lessons, whether by themselves or in a small group. But, though not enormous, the number would be considerable. However, even if the child in question was not particularly talented, he or she would gain from the lessons. There is no doubt that many children with special educational needs learn amazingly fast when they have the full attention of one teacher. Many of them enormously enjoy music and the new confidence that comes from learning to play an instrument—no matter if one does not attain world-class performance—is of great benefit. Simply
1438
being able to manage a strange instrument or play on a keyboard instrument is a great builder of confidence and the lessons themselves are enormously beneficial.
There is another reason which is quite different and is not a therapeutic reason at all. I suspect that among children who might well be classed as having special educational needs, particularly those with emotional and behavioural difficulties as well as those with sensory difficulties, lurks a very large amount of talent. I suppose we all have heard of the amazing young deaf percussionist who is a world star performer and performs entirely through the vibrations made by the percussion instruments. She would never have been able to develop in that way had she not been able to have percussion lessons.
Among other children, including particularly blind or partially-sighted children, there may be very many talented people, particularly perhaps keyboard players. There is a great mythology of blind piano tuners but there is no reason to suppose that such people would emerge as knowledgeable about the keyboard unless they could have instrumental lessons at school.
I put forward this amendment not as an enormously influential amendment but as one which will not only be useful but not particularly expensive. It might release a great deal of otherwise totally wasted talent. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has fathomed the implications of this rather unusual amending clause. Clause 256 contains what is in effect a double negative; namely, "exceptions from the prohibition". I find that rather a confusing conception. As I understand paragraph (a) which follows that phrase. it means that it includes something that can be done. It is not an exception from prohibition. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Henley can explain the matter.
If it is something that can be done, there is no need to add the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, wants to insert. Again, it would be a mistake to assume that all musical instruments appeal to every person, whether or not he or she has special needs. I am one of those people who dislike pop music. So does my very severely handicapped daughter. She loves light opera—Gilbert and Sullivan—and even traditional jazz, but she winces at pop music.
I believe that we are in a state of some uncertainty with this clause, which I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Henley will quickly remove.
Baroness David: I shall leave that point to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to sort out. It seems to me that this is not a case of listening but of participating in making music, either with an instrument or something else, which is extremely therapeutic. For some of those children—I repeat that it is not 2 per cent. but probably 18 per cent. of children who do not have statements—who may be particularly involved in this activity, especially if they have emotional difficulties or are disruptive,

1439
playing an instrument is extremely good. It is well known that it is excellent therapy. For those reasons I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Addington: I should like to support the amendment. The noble Baroness is right when she points out that a very important therapeutic effect can be derived from participation in any activity and particularly something creative, such as music, for those with special educational needs. That applies across the whole area of special educational needs and indeed the approximately 20 per cent. of children covered by that term in schools. One is giving those who have known failure an area where they can excel. I hate to have something of a confrontation with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It does not matter what type of music it is as long as the children enjoy playing it.
Lord Judd: I do not think I am alone in saying that this is probably one of the most important debates we shall have on the Bill. It is about one of the rich inheritances of this country—music. It is something in which this country excels. I believe strongly that if we are taking seriously the contribution to be made by education to the future of the United Kingdom, we should be looking at the strength in our cultural tradition of music and the rest and seeking every possible means of building on it, extending it and making it still greater.
We hear reports that European youth orchestras have had to introduce special blocks because of the strength of British applications to join them. Because of the talent produce they would be in danger of becoming British rather than European orchestras. When we have a crisis of identity which preoccupies many of us so much of the time about what is Britain, what our role is and what we stand for, music is something that we represent instinctively and well to the world. The amendments therefore are central to an important part of our lives.
I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and my noble friend Lady David for tabling the amendment. They speak with real insight, experience and commitment. They are making a stand for those things which are so important in our lives. My own view of the amendment is that pupils with special educational needs, without statements, are often the children who can most benefit from the facility; their parents and guardians are often those who are least able to afford the tuition, not least because they must make so many other special provisions for their children because of the needs with which they are confronted.
I turn to Amendment No. 293A. Currently, the Bill proposes that schools will be able to charge for music teaching where the tuition is provided either individually or to a group of no more than four pupils. By eliminating Clause 256, the amendment would prevent schools from charging for such tuition. The amendment seeks to ensure that children from whatever socio-economic background can still participate in small group or individual music tuition sessions. If the amendment is not accepted, it is likely
1440
that such music teaching would become the prerogative of children from better-off families to the exclusion of those whose families could not afford the fees. Such a policy would exclude a whole range of talent from an important school and curriculum opportunity.
Activities which are part of the curriculum should be freely and equally accessible to all pupils. Clause 256 is the thin end of the wedge in regard to charging for state education—in exactly the wrong area. The development of children's talents should not be dependent upon their parent's ability to pay.
Unashamedly I recognise that Amendment No. 293B overlaps Amendment No. 293C. I say that before the Minister candidly points it out to me. However it is only because of our strength of commitment on the subject that I hope the two will be seen as mutually reinforcing.
In relation to Amendment No. 293B, arts education and the provision of music in schools are a vital part of the curriculum that aims to provide for the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. Arts education has been adversely affected by changes in the education service in a number of ways. In general, the national curriculum demotes the place of the arts in favour of other subjects. Overcrowding of the curriculum, particularly in the last years at secondary school, led to changes last year. As we know, arts subjects are now optional at 14 while other foundation subjects remain compulsory. Schools are advised to offer arts and music as curriculum subjects post-14. We believe that there should be one compulsory arts subject for all children. But there is no requirement on schools to provide that subject choice post-14.
In addition, local management of schools and the general underfunding of the service has meant that many services which were previously provided by LEAs no longer exist. Inter-county co-operation has dwindled as a result and that has affected such activities as school orchestras, theatre-in-education and theatre visits.
There is grave anxiety that an apparent lack of commitment to arts education on the part of government has left it vulnerable to cutbacks arising from LMS, and charging policies have exacerbated it. An increase in the grant-maintained sector will only further restrict the provision of services that rely on inter-school and county co-operation.
On a practical level, the co-operation which has existed between local authorities and national bodies like the Arts Council is likely to suffer. The tasks of those bodies in encouraging high standards of performance and participation in artistic ventures will be monumental when they have to communicate with governing bodies of schools or small groups of schools. The educational experiences of children result from the co-operative efforts which have been organised effectively on a local authority basis for the past 40 years. That is the demonstrable basis of what I was describing earlier—our excellence in music.

1441
Cultural pursuits are unlikely to be maintained without the stimulus provided by many education authorities.
That leads naturally on to Amendment No. 300C—the introduction of the new clause after Clause 265. The new clause seeks more specifically to promote music in schools and exempt music provision from Clause 265. There are three aspects of music education. We need local and regional structures to support and maintain our youth orchestras, choirs and bands.
Referring back to a discussion we had earlier on the Bill, I hope that I did not misunderstand the Minister. I had the impression that she was saying that there was a choice available; that one could either have provision by the local authority on this basis or one could have the individual schools doing their own thing. She may recall that she waxed quite poetic about it. I am still looking forward to the details of the trip we shall make together. She challenged me to go with her on a voyage of exploration of cultural activities in our schools.
If I can he quite candid, the Minister misunderstood the situation. It is not an "either or" situation. The county orchestras stretch the schools. Higher standards can be established on a county basis and that has a directly beneficial impact on what goes on in individual schools because children are striving to join the county orchestra or whatever. It is a point that we must recognise; that is, that the regional structures have been supporting and maintaining what is happening in individual schools.
We must ensure also that there is access to instrumental lessons for all children, especially those whose parents cannot or will not pay. We also need a range of performance opportunities which meet the practical demands of the national curriculum. In a civilised society that cares about its children and its talent, it is not good enough to say that parents can make provision. We have been covering implicitly and explicitly how far that is true. There is an argument as to how many parents really can afford it. But what about the child whose parents choose not to afford it? Do those talents go unfulfilled? Are those children to be punished because of parental irresponsibility or lack of imagination or sensitivity? Are we prepared to settle for that in a civilised society?
It is on record in the other place that the Government believe that the Local Government Act 1972 allows a local authority to maintain a band or orchestra. Eric Forth put it clearly on 18th February when he said,
"This clearly allows LEAs which currently make such provision to continue to do so and to allow pupils who attend GM schools to participate".
That relates closely to the arguments used earlier by the Minister in another context.
The Local Government Act 1972 followed similar Acts of 1948 and 1963. All three Acts relate to the powers of local authorities to spend money to support arts and entertainments. But we need to address the education of our children, not local authority "entertainments". They are not the same and we must recognise that.
1442
The provision of music in schools forms part of the national curriculum aims to promote the cultural development of children. It should not be reliant upon a patchwork of parental contributions, commercial sponsors and trusts. Local and regional structures are needed which interlock with and—as I have described it—"stretch" the teaching of music in our schools.
Larry Westland, director of Music for Youth—whose main aim is to make sure that all children in the United Kingdom have the opportunity to make music in their communities—has called on the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that youth orchestras, bands and choirs are guaranteed the essential teaching and structure upon which their future rests. I argue that so far the Government have failed to provide those guarantees. Instead, the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, has said that the Government wish to remove LEA provision to make way for others to provide an adequate alternative.
During the Report stage debate in the other place the Minister gave examples of grant-maintained schools that were already purchasing services, including music. However, it is clear that most individual schools cannot provide the musical opportunities offered by an LEA. The Bill prevents these schools from co-operating with LEAs and denies the children in such schools a valuable part of their education. Nor can clusters of schools match the provision of an LEA-wide service. By seeking to duplicate LEA provision they will drain away many of the economies of scale that an LEA offers in terms of specialist teaching and the provision of musical instruments. Children in all schools will suffer.
The new clause does not compel a grant-maintained school to make use of LEA music provision. Its significance is that it allows grant-maintained schools to make the same value judgment as concerned organisations, such as the Royal Academy for Music, Musicians' Union, Music for Youth and the National Union of Teachers, to choose to retain local education authority services for music tuition and its related activities. It is extending the choice of grant-maintained schools to do it if they so wish rather than debarring them from doing it.
I believe it is worth turning to some of the refreshing thoughts on this subject of people outside this Chamber. Simon Rattle has said that instrumental tuition helps to create future appreciative audiences and it is a false economy to cut off the feeder supply of skilled players and listeners. Nik Kershaw has said that there should be more music in our schools, not less. Children should have the right to be taught both how to make and appreciate music. In citing the example of violinist Nicola Loud, who won the prestigious BBC Young Musician of the Year Award in 1990, Larry Westland said that she would never have started to play the violin at the age of four if it had not been for Haringey Borough Council's free instrumental teaching service.
I hope the Minister will forgive me. I do not believe that she is a Philistine; I believe that she is a committed person who cares as much about our nation as any of us. But I plead with her not inadvertently to let herself become part of a move which will remove or

1443
undermine one of the richest elements in our society. Let her bring all the strengths and passions which she so well demonstrates at the Dispatch Box to saying that we are all the time strengthening something in which we already excel. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord sings very sweetly. I hope I can sing as sweetly in response.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may be permitted to intervene. I take a very different view of Clause 256 from others who have spoken. From the point of view of those schools with which I am involved, this is an opportunity to raise additional funds for more music. There is nothing about this clause that reduces the amount of funds available for music, nor is there any intention on the part of any of the schools in which I am involved to divert funds away from the music tuition that is provided. It merely gives us the ability to put on additional music lessons for parents who are prepared to pay. In view of the economies of scale that are provided in terms of getting teachers to the schools and providing them with a decent amount of business while they are there, the clause should enable us to provide additional music for pupils who are not paying.
Baroness David: What about the parents who cannot afford to pay? Their children may be just as musical. I am disappointed. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to support this side. I am staggered. There may be additional music for some people; there may be none for some of those who cannot afford it. The situation is ridiculous.
Lord Lucas: In answer to the noble Baroness, a great number of parents at our schools are providing private music tuition for their children anyway. All this clause enables them to do is to have it provided at the school, and the advantage to the school is that the teachers who will be there can, because of the marginal savings involved, be used to provide free music lessons to pupils whose parents cannot afford to pay.
Lord Henley: I presume that the noble Baroness does not wish anyone to be allowed to pay for anything in relation to education. Those on this side of the Committee believe in the freedom of parents to pay for education if they wish, and that that should apply also to musical education.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, like other Members, quite rightly stresses the importance of music in our education. What we argue, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Lucas, is that this clause and our amendment to the 1988 Act seek to build on that and to further the opportunities for musical education for our children.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I shall not be diverted into a discussion of the merits of different types of music. My noble friend Lord Renton asked me about the wording of the 1988 Act quoted in this Bill—"exceptions from the prohibition of charges in maintained schools"—which my noble friend found rather confusing. It seems quite clear to me that what Section 106 of the 1988 Act deals with is charging. It
1444
contains a list of activities which are exempt from charging. This amendment merely adds to that list of exemptions those who may be charged if their group is less than four strong. Clause 256 extends the ability of schools to charge for instrumental music tuition from individuals to groups of no more than four pupils. It responds to calls from those concerned with instrumental music tuition to allow greater flexibility in the law.
I turn first to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. That seeks to prevent children with special educational needs from being charged for instrumental music tuition. Like the noble Baroness, I agree with her that music can be of enormous benefit to some children with special educational needs and can allow them to achieve a great deal. Certainly, we should not deny that. Some pupils with special educational needs will have received statements from a local education authority, and some will not. Where instrumental music tuition, or indeed any kind of provision relating to music, is specified in the statement as part of that provision, the tuition will have to be provided free of charge; in other words, music tuition can be built into the statement.
I also remind the Committee that pupils in maintained schools, whether or not they have statements or special educational needs, cannot be charged for any activity, including instrumental music tuition, where this is required by the national curriculum or is part of the syllabus for a prescribed public examination for which the pupil is being prepared at the school. Such provision will remain free of charge. What we are discussing is an optional activity which schools can offer or not as they think fit. As such, I can see no reason why, if a charge is to be made, children with special educational needs whose parents wish them to undertake instrumental music tuition should be treated differently from other children.
I turn to Amendment No. 293A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I presume that he was speaking to that amendment as well as the Motion that the clause shall not stand part. I presume that the aim of the amendment is to prevent children being divided into chargeable groups, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I emphasise that we are discussing merely an optional activity, not one that is part of the national curriculum or one related to a prescribed public examination. It is possible that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment will be to impede the provision of instrumental music tuition. It may be that in a school a dozen students wish to learn the violin, for example. As I read the noble Lord's amendment, that may be considered to be a common programme of tuition. As a result, the school will be prevented from charging for such tuition. The outcome may well be that provision will be withdrawn by the school on the ground that it cannot afford to offer the tuition free of charge. The school will not be able to arrange for the pupils to be taught in groups of four at a reasonably modest cost to the parents or even, at rather more cost, on a one-to-one basis. Of course, if the school did wish to provide instrumental music tuition to pupils free of charge, it would be free

1445
to do so. But the reality is that in most cases parents would have to make their own arrangements outside the school. For this reason I believe that, whereas Clause 256 is a welcome increase in flexibility, this amendment would have the reverse effect and might in fact act to reduce the amount of music tuition in our schools.
Turning to the noble Lord's other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 293B and 300C, Amendment No. 293B seeks to place a duty on schools to provide facilities for music, theatre-in-education and arts education. The first part of Amendment No. 300C seeks to place a duty on schools to provide music tuition. I perhaps do not have to remind the Committee that art and music are foundation subjects for pupils up to the age of 14. Schools are under a duty to implement the requirements and ensure that pupils should be given opportunities to undertake a balanced programme of activities. As far as music tuition is concerned, if, beyond what is required in the national curriculum, schools wish to offer pupils the opportunity to learn an instrument, they are free to do so. Many do offer such opportunities. But that must be for schools themselves to decide.
The second part of Amendment No. 300C—I should say in passing that I will not pick up the noble Lord for the fact that, as he so kindly reminded the Committee, the two amendments are incompatible—gets us back into the local authority trading discussion. Effectively, it would exempt local education authorities from the constraints which apply to the provision of music services other than to their own schools, and which apply to the provision of any local authority service under the Goods and Services Act 1970.
My noble friend has already explained the background. The Government do not believe that local education authorities should be in the business of trading with other local authorities or with public bodies, including grant-maintained schools, beyond the margin of the capacity which they require to provide services to their own schools. That point applies here as well.
Music provision is a classic case of what can happen. First, let me make one point clear. I should like to repeat what was said in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Forth, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. On the specific question of county orchestras and bands, Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives LEAs specific power to assist in enabling orchestras and bands to set up. Whether they do or not will of course remain a local decision but where they do, the law allows pupils who attend grant-maintained schools to participate without any question of a designation order under Clause 265.
As to the provision of other music services, in particular by peripatetic teachers, the pattern of provision is already diversifying. Grant-maintained schools are already making use of the private sector providers which are emerging. I could give examples, as my noble friend has done and as my honourable friend did, hut I shall not delay the Committee.
1446
In addition, as we discussed earlier, LEA services all over the country are on the road towards, and in some cases have achieved, independent status which significantly expands their power to offer services to whichever school they want, wherever they want. My noble friend quoted her own authority, Cambridgeshire, which has established the music service as a business unit and has, as a result, increased musical opportunities and musical provision in that county.
The effect of this amendment would be to inhibit the further development of ventures—my noble friend quoted the Kirklees LEA earlier—and put at risk the potential benefits to schools which arise from them. That is why I cannot support the amendment. I hope though, going back to the original amendment, that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will be satisfied with the explanation that I have given. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He has opened up some fascinating possibilities which I did not know existed; for example, if a child gets a statement he or she will have free instrumental lessons. That is yet another reason why parents will now demand statements for their children.
Secondly, he told us that if a child is taking a public examination—
Lord Henley: If I may put the record straight, I said that musical tuition could be built into the statement. This is important because I do not want the noble Baroness to think that there is any automatic provision for those with a statement.
Baroness Warnock: I perfectly understand what the Minister meant. It might be that, even so, some highly musical children could get statements and get their instrumental lessons free. That would be good.
Secondly, if a child is sitting for a public examination of which instrumental playing is a constituent part, then he too will get his lessons free. That is quite a considerable piece of knowledge that I did not have before. There are almost entirely practical O-level and A-level syllabuses for which, if a child was intensely musical and wanted to do them, he could perhaps get his instrumental lessons free if his parents could not pay. That too would be good.
But I am somewhat surprised at the total indifference to the very large body of children over the past 20 or 30 years who have been in no position to pay for instrumental lessons and who nevertheless have ended up as very considerable musicians. The principal flautist of the London Symphony Orchestra is an example. This is an enormous source of talent. I have to express deep regret not so much that this amendment will not be accepted but as to the spirit of indifference to the financial problems and the waste of talent which seems to be not confined to music. It really influences our present attitude to education—the thought that there is a vast number of children who could do better than they do both for themselves and for us as a society.

1447
I express great regret. If there is any way in future in which this question, particularly the financial question, might be addressed by Ministers, I should be extremely grateful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 293A:
Page 154, line 17, after ("pupils") insert ("save that no charge may be made in respect of such tuition where it is provided individually or to a group of pupils not exceeding four in number as part of a programme of tuition provided for pupils in the school exceeding four in aggregate.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not pursue the amendment tonight. I intend to withdraw it. In doing so perhaps I may say, not for the first time in deliberations of this kind, that my nightmare is that we are in the process of becoming a nation which knows the price of everything and the value of little. I cannot think of much that would do more for the morale of Britain than to say that we are setting out to establish that this thing in which we excel will be available to every child irrespective of social background or parental income. When the Minister says that a school might withdraw because it was too costly to provide the tuition group of 12 or whatever, surely the challenge there is to say that if we really believe in this thing and see its value to Britain, we should not put the school in that predicament. I shall withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 293A, not moved.]
Clause 256 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293B not moved.]
Clause 257 [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 154, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall act with a view to ensuring—

(a) that the premises of aided schools and special agreement schools are adequate to meet the needs of the schools and are kept in a satisfactory state of repair having regard to the health and safety of persons using them and the need to prevent deterioration of the buildings which form part of those premises, and

(b) that, having regard to other calls upon public expenditure, grants are made available to facilitate desirable alterations to aided schools and special agreement schools.").

The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 294 I shall speak to Amendment No. 295. I think it is as well that I should say bluntly at the beginning that Clause 257 as it stands is unacceptable to the Churches and, I guess, to other voluntary schools. There are two reasons. First, there is the general point that the clause alters the basis on which grants are to be paid to aided schools. It turns what has been a duty on the Secretary of State to provide grants into a power to do so if he so decides.
Some grants are already at the discretion of the Secretary of State but others are not. Grants for repairs and some alterations are mandatory. To make all grants discretionary is to put aided schools totally
1448
at the mercy of any future Secretary of State. He could decide without notice or consultation to reduce or withhold grants and aided schools would become financially throttled. They would then be forced to become controlled or grant-maintained.
We cannot agree to the handing over of aided schools to the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State. The contents of the subsections of the clause are alarming and I shall come to those in a moment. But, before I go further I remind the Committee that this clause was introduced into the Bill at the last stage in another place and so it has not yet been properly scrutinised—in fact, it has not been scrutinised publicly at all. The Churches did not have sight of the clause until 24 hours before it was tabled. It is true that there had been earlier discussions between the Churches and DFE officials on the general principles some time back but no formal agreement was then reached. So no discussion of the clause with the Churches took place before it was tabled and the Committee in another place did not consider it.
The way in which this clause was introduced is as unsatisfactory as its content is unacceptable. Therefore, I should like to hear the Government say that they will reconsider the whole clause. In case they do not say that, I have two modest, almost tinkering, amendments which may help but hardly do justice to the depth and extent of our anxiety.
My first amendment seeks to qualify the discretion of the Secretary of State, making it clear, so to speak, that it is exercised in continuing the dual system as we have known it. Something along those lines is essential if the clause is to stand substantially as it is. The Secretary of State cannot be left with unfettered discretion over whether to continue grants to aided Church schools.
Secondly, the detail of the clause causes us anxiety, if not alarm. The Secretary of State can now withhold grant, vary its rate and claim it back if the school is closed. That will complicate planning and budgeting for Church schools. It will leave us in uncertainty and reduce our assets which are there precisely to enable us to sustain and develop Church schools.
Perhaps I may give three examples. A school built in the 1960s has a flat roof. It needs replacement next year at a cost of £50,000. In 10 or so years' time it will need re-roofing again—another £50,000. Then, because of local re-organisation, the school closes. A flat-roof building as such will have virtually no sale value and the chances are that we shall have to sell a cleared site. But we shall have to return £100,000 to the Government, plus any other grants that the school may have received. So it is clear that when some Church schools close we shall not only have no sale proceeds but we shall be owing the Government money.
The second concerns insurance. At present the Government meet 85 per cent. of the cost of repairs and so an aided school insures the buildings on the basis that 80 per cent. of damage—say, by fire or vandalism—will be met by the state. That will no longer be certain and so insurance premiums for Church-aided schools, we are advised, will have to be increased by 600 or 700 per cent.
Thirdly, a local education authority may alter the age of transfer from junior schools and seek the co-operation of the local diocese; and the diocese may agree to a number of school closures, only to find that the Government aggregate together all the sale proceeds of the schools to be closed regardless of whether there is any geographical connection and reduce accordingly the grant to any aided school which may need extension because of the rearrangement. If those circumstances prevail, the Committee will obviously see that the dioceses are not likely to co-operate with any re-organisation plans put forward by the local education authority.
So my second amendment is an attempt to ensure that when re-claiming grant the lower rather than the higher of two methods of calculation is used. That is modest indeed and it does not engage with the wide-ranging menace contained in the detail of the subsections. It is just a modest token of our deep anxiety.
I recognise that the Government have a problem. They do not want to have a demand-led financial commitment in a cash-limited economic policy. I see that. There must be some limits to government expenditure on aided schools and I acknowledge that. But the details in this clause will sap the trust of the Churches and of others in the voluntary sector. Make no mistake, the Roman Catholic Church stands shoulder to shoulder with us on this and so do the Free Churches.
Department for Education Ministers have gone out of their way to commend the Church schools and to give them assurance and encouragement. We welcome that. The Government have met, and are meeting, many of our concerns and we appreciate that. But I fear that behind the warm and welcoming words of the Department for Education is the cold heart and dead hand of the Treasury. So I plead with the Government to think again.
The existing situation, despite its defects, might be better than what is proposed here. But if this clause is not amended the Government risk undermining the confidence and good will of the voluntary sector. It will be left open to the cynics to say that the Government, who have openly said that they want Church schools to go grant maintained, are going to drive them to do it through financial stealth rather than parental choice. But surely the truth is not that but that there has been healthy and productive co-operation between Church and state in education over the years. Do not let us put that at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I speak with great humility for the Roman Catholic Church in this context and I support every word that the right reverend Prelate said. We are extremely worried by this provision. It changes the whole financial basis of the partnership between Church and state which has existed since 1944. As regards premises, as the Committee will remember, currently the Secretary of State is obliged to pay 85 per cent. of the cost of repairs and maintenance. It is easy to accept that, in a situation where we are all short of money, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to commit himself to provide 85
1450
per cent. of any demand for repair and maintenance. In fact, in practice over the past few years the Churches have been very reasonable in deferring their demands where it was felt necessary to do so.
I can quite see the need to build into the Bill some provision for joint decision about priorities and about what expenditure should be made. But when that decision has been made, surely it must be absolutely clear that the state has the obligation to pay its share and not the option to pay any share it feels inclined to pay.
I now turn to Amendment No. 295 which relates to the situation where premises or equipment are sold. The amendment which we are suggesting would correct what is an iniquitous proposal in Clause 257(8) (a) and (b) of the Bill which confers on the Secretary of State the right to require repayment of just as much as he feels like having repaid; not merely the total amount of the loan or the grant which has been made, but any greater amount that he cares to name in relation to the value of the property. I feel that that proposal is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. The amount which is repayable must be related either to the amount of the grant which has been given or to the amount which is realised in the property—and to whichever is the lesser, not whichever is the greater, of the two. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: We are very fortunate at present in having Ministers in the Department for Education who are wholly supportive of Church schools of every denomination—and long may it be so. But some of us have lived through the period of the final years of the ILEA which was positively inimical to Church schools. I fear greatly that at some future point we could find ourselves in the hands of a Secretary of State who feels as the authorities of the ILEA felt in those days and who is positively anxious to discourage the growth or even the existence of schools dedicated to any form of Christian education. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend the Minister to take this point seriously.
It may be that the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate goes further than the Government would be happy to go, but I hope that something of the spirit of subsection (4) of the clause can be eliminated—perhaps by Government amendments—so that it is not left to the Secretary of State to allow a Church school to remain in working condition for the pupils who attend it.
I do not read subsection (8) (b) to give the licence to the Secretary of State that has been suggested. I hope that I can hear some reassuring words from my noble friend the Minister about the intention of the clause.
In conclusion, I return to my grave anxieties—not about the present Ministers at the DFE, in whom we are very fortunate—but about the possibility of a very different regime in the future and the use which could be made of subsection (4).
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: As far as I understand it, the matter in dispute is that Clause 257 no longer

1451
provides mandatory grant to voluntary aided and special agreement schools' governing bodies to keep their buildings in repair. We have been told that, at present, if the governing body can supply its 15 per cent. contribution, there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to supply the other 85 per cent. We have heard in very strong language that the Churches believe that it is necessary for the present position to continue in order to maintain voluntary aided school buildings.
Perhaps I may take a slightly different perspective and say that the local education authorities themselves are very concerned and, indeed, have an interest in ensuring that voluntary aided school buildings are maintained because, if the provision is not made in the schools, the provision would have to be made by the local education authorities. We have heard phrases from the Bishops Bench such as, "Sap the trust of Churches" and other strong language—language which we usually hear from these Benches. I urge the Minister to take the concerns as expressed extremely seriously.
Earl Russell: We have heard from the right reverend Prelate that the Roman Catholic Church and the free Churches stand foursquare behind the amendment. If I might box the spiritual compass, I should like to say that as an unbeliever, I do too. I am a firm believer in religious as in political pluralism. On that basis, it causes me profound alarm that the Government should have the sort of power over Church schools which is here described. On behalf of these Benches, I offer the right reverend Prelate our full support.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to pick up on something which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said about language. I admit to a sense of shock about the language used. I have become used to vigorous and honest debate, but I was shocked by the presentation of the amendment by the right reverend Prelate. He said that he thought that the intention was to drive Church schools to become grant-maintained "by stealth". I take that accusation—
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Would the Minister—
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may finish what I am saying. I take that accusation not to be a criticism of the Treasury, which was subject to a previous comment by the right reverend Prelate, but to be a direct criticism of the present ministerial team. There cannot be any other accounting for that phrase because it is myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who are positively responsible for the policy of creating grant-maintained schools.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Would the Minister accept that I said that it will be left open to the cynics to say that the Government, who have openly said that they want Church schools to go grant-maintained, are going to drive them to it? I went on to say that surely the truth is that there has been healthy and productive co-operation between Church and
1452
state. I was precisely wanting to indicate that I did not take that cynical view but the Minister, I was suggesting, must take on board the fact that there will be people who give it that interpretation.
Baroness Blatch: If I have misinterpreted the right reverend Prelate, I unreservedly apologise, but I put together both the tone and language that was used in the presentation of the amendment and coupled that with the article that was recently in the press.
Turning now to the amendment, Clause 257 replaces the existing provisions relating to the payment of grant to voluntary aided and special agreement schools. It provides a power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to pay grant to the governors of existing schools and to the promoters of new schools in respect of any expenditure incurred by them on the provision, alteration or repair of premises or equipment for the school.
The clause also enables regulations to be made which will set out how proceeds of sale of redundant school buildings will be taken into account in determining grant allocations for related new building works. It also sets out procedures for the recovery by the Secretary of State of assets provided or enhanced by grant-aid when those assets are no longer used for the purposes of the school. I shall return to those issues in a few moments.
We believe that Clause 257 introduces a simpler and more flexible arrangement for the payment of grant and removes anomalies and difficulties in the current regime—first established in rather different circumstances almost 50 years ago—which have been identified over recent years. The changes are not, in my view, as far-reaching as the right reverend Prelate has suggested. It is true that the existing duty on the Secretary of State to grant-aid repairs at 85 per cent. of expenditure is to be substituted by a power to grant-aid repairs at up to 85 per cent. of expenditure. The only other duty currently on the Secretary of State is to grant-aid at 85 per cent.—not up to, but at 85 per cent.—of expenditure a very limited category of alteration work—that required to be undertaken by the LEA to secure that the school complies with the School Premises Regulations. That duty is also converted to a power to pay grant at up to 85 per cent. of expenditure by Clause 257.
The current duties in respect of repairs and certain alterations involve an open-ended commitment on public funds which, we believe, is inconsistent with the principle that public expenditure should be constrained by the availability of resources. The Secretary of State has no present duty, but only a power, to grant-aid other expenditure incurred by aided or special agreement schools.
I should like now to turn to Amendment No. 294, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. The amendment would place the Secretary of State under a duty, when making grants under Clause 257, to act with a view to ensuring that the premises of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools are adequate to meet their needs and are kept in a satisfactory state of repair, and also that, within the constraints on public expenditure, grants are available for desirable alterations. While I

1453
have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, we consider that it is both unacceptable and, I fear, unnecessary. It is unacceptable because it is not clear to what extent it places the Secretary of State under a duty to allocate resources for repair and alteration work. It appears to return him to a duty to grant-aid such work and, indeed, to extend the present duty to fund only a limited category of alterations to cover virtually all alterations. The amendment has a number of undefined terms such as "adequate", "satisfactory" and "desirable". The result could be endless arguments over what they mean, and we must conclude that a provision formulated in those terms would leave the Secretary of State wide open to frequent legal challenge of his funding decisions. I am sure that the Committee will sympathise with my desire to avoid that.
Since 1988 there has been in place with the Churches an agreement that, should limitations on the availability of resources dictate it, there would be a rationing of grant for repair work. In the event, we have not had to invoke that agreement. Consistent with the need to protect public funds, my department also considers whether the details of repair work submitted for funding suggest that it is necessary and that it represents adequate value for money. In discussions with the Churches we have made it absolutely clear that, notwithstanding the conversion of the duty to a power, our policy will be to continue to grant-aid repairs, subject to the scrutiny by the department that I have just described. The Churches have also expressed concern that the Secretary of State may decide to contribute to repairs at less than 85 per cent., which would have implications for the amount of insurance cover governors need for their contribution. But, in response, we have also made it quite clear, and I am happy to say again in this Committee, that the Secretary of State's policy is to continue to set the rate of grant for all necessary repair expenditure at 85 per cent. and that there is no need for governors to renegotiate their insurance cover. The clause is drafted as it is to enable flexibility in the rate of grant for other expenditure, as is the case now.
As the Churches are aware, we have been considering whether we should bring forward a government amendment which would go some way towards meeting their anxieties. I have, however, been advised that it is not necessary to do so, and for the same reasons the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate is also unnecessary. The governing bodies of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools have functions which they cannot escape undertaking, by virtue of statute and common law. Those functions include securing that the school is able to serve its purpose and that the health and safety of the occupants is reasonably assured. The governors therefore have a duty to effect any repairs which are related to those functions. They may do so with assistance from their LEA, under the powers in Clause 258; from the Secretary of State; or from other sources. But, where the only assistance available is that of the Secretary of State and his clearly stated policy is that he will fund necessary repairs—and I have already said that it is—then a decision on his part
1454
not to do so (thus preventing the governors from undertaking their functions) would place him at a considerable risk of a successful legal challenge. That is the advice that I have been given and upon which our view rests that there are already sufficient safeguards in place to meet the Churches' concerns.
I now turn to Amendment No. 295 tabled by the right reverend Prelate. This amendment strikes at the heart of the provisions in Clause 257, which are a response to the general government requirement to enable the recovery of assets which have been provided or enhanced by grant-aid to charitable bodies should the assets cease to be used for the purposes for which grant was paid. We have also had extensive discussions with the Churches about this provision. It will have a very limited application, where assets of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools are not otherwise recycled for educational purposes. The assets of virtually all such schools are held by the trustees and on discontinuance are recycled for educational purposes by one of a number of measures in education or charity law. The requirement to secure recovery of grant or an appropriate proportion of the value of the assets will be restricted to property made available for school purposes which is owned by persons other than the trustees and is made available to them under a new lease or licence agreement entered into after the coming into force of the legislation. In other words, I should make it absolutely clear that no requirement for repayment will be attached to grant being paid in respect of school premises owned by the trustees. Provision to enable the Secretary of State to attach requirements to the disbursement of public funds is not new—it appears in existing education legislation and in earlier parts of the Bill.
Clause 257 provides that the baseline amount from which the Secretary of State will determine how much should be repaid to him will be the greater of either the actual grant paid in relation to the premises or the proportionate market value of the premises which is attributable to grant. Having established that baseline amount the Secretary of State will then decide how much, if anything, should be returned to him in the light of the circumstances at the time of the taking out of school use of the premises. The right reverend Prelate's amendment provides that the baseline amount would be the lesser of the two amounts which I have just described, but I am afraid that such a provision would not at all be in keeping with the protection of public funds. For example, we provide £1 million as an 85 per cent. contribution to the cost of the building of a school extension in 1994 on land not held by the trustees. In, say, 2020 the building and land are taken out of school use and we are then looking for a recovery. If in 2020 the value of the land and buildings is considerably in excess of £1 million, we would expect to have returned to us at most 85 per cent, of the actual market value rather than the amount of grant which we provided in 1994. Otherwise, the owners receive a windfall gain at the taxpayers' expense. The right reverend Prelate's amendment would enable recovery of a maximum of

1455
only £1 million in my example. That is unacceptable and I hope that he will agree with my reasons for believing so.
We intend that these recovery provisions will operate in accordance with administrative procedures. I give an undertaking now that we will consult with the voluntary-aided and special agreement school providers on those procedures and will take their views into account before they are introduced.
The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, although he is not in his seat, will know that we consulted the Churches on the provisions of Clause 257 at a very early stage and that we have had many meetings with them to discuss the measure since the introduction of the Bill in the other place. Until very recently the indications were that the Churches were broadly content with our proposals, though I recognise that some concerns remained. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will be persuaded from what I have said that their anxieties are not well founded and that the right reverend Prelate will withdraw his amendments. The changes to the grant regime are not as substantial as he believes and are certainly not, as he suggested in an article in a national newspaper early this week, a licence to rob the Churches.
Perhaps I may return to the wording of the amendment. The right reverend Prelate opened by saying that the amendment on the Marshalled List offered discretion. I certainly recognise discretion in paragraph (b), which states,
"that, having regard to other calls upon public expenditure".
But I have difficulty in finding any signs of discretion in paragraph (a), which provides,
"In exercising his powers under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall act with a view to ensuring"—
and "ensuring" can mean only one thing—
"that the premises of aided schools and special agreement schools are adequate to meet the needs of the schools and are kept in a satisfactory state of repair having regard to the health and safety of persons using them".
I have no difficulty with that. However, remembering that the Secretary of State shall act and has a duty to act to ensure that, the amendment goes on to state,
"and the need to prevent deterioration"—
with no qualification of the meaning—
"of the buildings which form part of those premises".
That is not discretion.
I am sounding intemperate and I am feeling guilty for doing so. However, I believe that there is a seriously genuine intention on the part of the department, particularly on the part of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to reach an accommodation which ensures a healthy future for Church schools, giving them all their dues.
I hope that, in the light of the assurances which I have given in trying to persuade the Committee to reject the amendment, the honourable intentions of my right honourable friend, myself and the department are accepted in the spirit in which I intended to make them.
Baroness Seear: I hesitate to intervene and to prolong the debate but I should like briefly to
1456
underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. What the proposed Bill is offering to the Churches relies on the discretion of the Secretary of State, and not on anything written into the legislation. That is the point of substance. I know that a recent High Court decision means that what is said in the Chamber is to be taken into account as regards interpretation of the legislation. But that is not the same as having the provision written on the face of the Bill. It is absolutely right that the Churches should know where they stand legally.
I accept absolutely that the present Secretary of State and the noble Baroness have nothing but the best possible intentions towards the Churches. But they, as they will be the first to admit, will not be there for ever—and I am not talking in terms of politics. Who knows who is to follow? Buildings must be properly maintained and it must be known in advance that the money will be available to maintain them. I beg the noble Baroness to think again about this amendment. That is not a great deal to ask. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, if the Churches did not provide that education, the local authorities would have to provide it and that would cost a great deal more than the 85 per cent. I beg the Government to take away this amendment and think about it again.
Lord Northbourne: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said most of what I intended to say. The right reverend Prelate and I have enormous confidence in the present Minister of State and the Secretary of State but the Bill gives powers to any Secretary of State at any time in the future. That is a very different kettle of fish.
I must admit that I somewhat misread Clause 259 and, on a second reading of it, I find it more acceptable.
Baroness Blatch: I was speaking to the amendments as though the Committee were asking me to accept them. I am more than ready to take away the amendment and to continue to talk about it because I believe that there is talking time left between now and Report and certainly between now and Third Reading.
I believe that there is no discretion in the part of the amendment which I read out. I can recognise discretion in the other part. However, in coming to an accommodation as regards the amendment, it is necessary to recognise the real world of having to manage finance and the intention not only of this Administration but also of future administrations to make sure that there is a full and fair future for Church schools. I should say to the noble Baroness that I am entirely easy about being pressed to use more time to think and talk about this matter. However, I find the present amendments unacceptable.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: First, I must put the record straight in two respects. I address my remarks in particular to the Minister. I thank her for her response. The Minister referred to an article in The Times over my name which had the title "Licence to rob the Churches". The Minister will know as well as I that editors put in headings. I accept no

1457
responsibility whatever for that headline which was inserted by the editorial authorities of The Times. Had I been consulted, I should have had one or two things to say.
Secondly, I wish to make it unmistakably clear—and I thought I did so in my opening speech—that I am not for one moment, or with any hesitation, questioning the intention of the present Secretary of State or the noble Baroness, the Minister. I have full confidence in what they have said and done and their policy in relation to Church schools. I recognise their policy. However, this Bill deals with the powers of future Secretaries of State. The present policies of the present Government are not in issue. I hope that we can be absolutely clear about that. But we must look to the future.
Thirdly, of course I shall wish to re-read very carefully in Hansard what the Minister said, much of which was reassuring. However, if I heard her correctly, she said that there would be no recoupment in the case of schools which were closed where the sale proceeds were being recycled into the educational system. That is not what the clause says and we are discussing what the clause says. I accept fully that that is the way in which the present Government will interpret the clause but a future Secretary of State may not interpret it in that way. I do not wish to be in difficulties with the Government but we do not seem able to get the Government to grasp that that is our anxiety. We are not making critical comments about the present Administration. We are talking about the terms and text of the Bill.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that she will consult further. I recognise that my amendment is not satisfactory and I shall not press it because all that I should be able to do would be to make an attempt to contextualise the discretion. Of course it could be improved. If in discussion with the Government we can find a more acceptable formula, I think that our anxieties will be removed.
However, I cannot accept the fact that the clause as it stands hands over the situation so much to the Secretary of State. I have to return to saying what I said at the beginning; namely, that, in that sense, it is not acceptable to the Churches. I wish that I could say something else, but I have to say that. Nevertheless, on the basis of the reassurances that the Minister has given, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 295 not moved.]
Clause 257 agreed to.
Clause 258 [Power of LEA to assist governors of aided or special agreement school]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 295A:
Page 155, line 38, leave out from ("to") to ("school") in line 39 and insert ("alter, etc.").
The noble Viscount said: The above amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 258, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 259 to 262 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 295B:
1458
After Clause 262, insert the following new clause:
("Voluntary and grant-maintained schools: endowments Religious educational trusts: adoption of statutory trusts
.—(1) This section applies to endowments which are—

(a) regulated by an existing scheme under the Endowed Schools Acts 1869 to 1948 as applied by section 86(l) of the Education Act 1944 or by an order, whenever made, under section 2 of the Education Act 1973; and

(b) held under any such scheme or order on trusts which provide for capital or income or both to be applicable for or in connection with the provision at relevant schools, or relevant schools of any description (but not only at a particular school or schools), in a diocese or other geographical area of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religion or religious denomination;

but this section does not apply to an endowment if or in so far as it constitutes a parish religious education fund.
(2) The trustees of any endowments to which this section applies may, by resolution complying with subsection (6) below, adopt the uniform statutory trusts as the trusts on which those endowments are to be held.
(3) The uniform statutory trusts are those set out in Schedule (uniform statutory trusts for educational endowments) to this Act.
(4) On the adoption by trustees of the uniform statutory trusts in respect of any endowments the scheme or order which regulates the endowments shall have effect as if the uniform statutory trusts are incorporated in the scheme or order to the exclusion of the corresponding provisions of the scheme or order.
(5) The trustees of two or more endowments which are held on the uniform statutory trusts may, by resolution complying with subsection (6) below, consolidate all or any of those endowments and, where they do so, the endowments shall he treated, for all purposes, as held for the purposes of a single charity.
(6) For a resolution to comply with this subsection—

(a) it must be passed by a simple majority of the trustees or, if the trustees are a body corporate or a company, by a simple majority of the members of the body corporate or an ordinary resolution of the company; and

(b) it must be recorded in the records of the decisions of the trustees affecting the endowments of the trust.

(7) Where trustees pass a resolution under subsection (2) above it shall be their duty to send a copy of the resolution to the Secretary of State.
(8) The uniform statutory trusts applicable to endowments to which this section applies shall not affect—

(a) the rights of any person under the third proviso to section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841, section 86(3) of the Education Act 1944 or section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 (rights replacing certain reversionary interests in land); or

(b) the rights of any local education authority which have arisen or may arise under paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1946 (rights in relation to school sites provided by such authorities);

except in so far as any right falling within paragraph (a) above is extinguished by an order under section 2 of the Education Act 1973 made by virtue of section 5 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987.
(9) In this section—
"company" means a company formed under the Companies Acts;
"the Companies Acts" means the Companies Act 1985, the Companies Act 1948 or any Act repealed by that Act of 1948;
"endowment" includes property not subject to any restriction on the expenditure of capital;
"existing" means in force on the day on which this section comes into force;
"parish religious education fund" includes a Sunday school fund:
"relevant school" means a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school.

1459
(10) In Schedule (uniform statutory trusts jor educational endowments) as incorporated in any scheme or order—
"the area" means the diocese or other geographical area within which the trust assets may be applied under the scheme or order, as the case may be;
"relevant school" means a relevant school at which the religious education provided for in the scheme or order, as the case may be, is or is to be provided; and
"the relevant trust assets" means the endowments in respect of which the trustees have adopted the uniform statutory trusts, including the income derived therefrom.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 295C and 323ZB. They are intended to replace the amendments of the right reverend Prelate (Amendments Nos. 297 and 298) which relate to schemes made under Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 and, more recently, orders made under Section 2 of the Education Act 1973, which replaced, but have the same effect as, schemes made under Section 86.
It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain that the schemes and orders provide for the assets representing discontinued denominational voluntary and grant-maintained schools to be vested in diocesan authorities and applied for the benefit of continuing voluntary and grant-maintained schools.
The Government's amendments are produced as a direct result of proposals which were made by representatives of the right reverend Prelate and which were shown in advance to my department. I should like, if I may, to explain first the amendments that we propose to introduce following some most helpful and very constructive advice received from the right reverend Prelate's own legal advisers in recent discussions.
Our amendments would give diocesan authorities power to standardise into a new common format the provisions relating to the endowments of closed voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools within existing schemes made under Section 86 of the 1944 Act or orders made under Section 2 of the 1973 Act. By that means, any category of voluntary or grant-maintained school within the diocese would benefit. It would of course fall to each diocese to decide the extent to which the new provisions should be adopted.
The amendments would also enable the income, but not the capital, arising under schemes or orders made in the past, or the future, to be applied by the trustees for wider purposes than at present. To explain further, orders currently made under Section 2 of the 1973 Act provide for income and capital to be applied only for the provision or maintenance of school sites and buildings. The legislation, however, is more widely drawn and provides that endowments can be used for appropriate educational purposes. The definition given to the term is,
"use for educational purposes in connection with the provision of religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned".
The amendment we propose would allow income to be expended on the provision of advice, guidance and resource materials in connection with management or
1460
education provided at voluntary and grant-maintained schools, the inspection of schools and the cost of employing staff to provide any of those services. The amendment would also put beyond doubt the power to use the funds for those purposes.
In addition, our amendments would enable the endowments which are subject to schemes or orders which provide for the endowments to be held for the benefit of a particular diocese or area, to be amalgamated so as to constitute a single charity. The benefit of this particular provision would be that it would greatly simplify administrative arrangements for diocesan boards following more stringent accounting requirements introduced by the Charities Act 1992 for individual funds.
The right reverend Prelate's amendments, Amendments Nos. 297 and 298, if adopted, would not make clear which schemes and orders could be amalgamated. Moreover, the proposed clause omits any provision which introduces a formal mechanism through which funds may be amalgamated so that it can be established properly which funds have been combined and on what trusts the combined funds are held. It is unlikely therefore that they would result in any endowments being held on sufficiently uniform trusts to be amalgamated. They would not enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in future to make orders under Section 2 so that the endowments could be amalgamated with consolidated endowments regulated by past schemes and orders. For those reasons, I fear that Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 are not acceptable.
In conclusion, our amendments would provide more flexible arrangements for applying assets included in schemes or orders made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I know that it will be of considerable benefit to local diocesan boards of education. I believe that the proposals demonstrate clearly the importance which my right honourable friend attaches to the role of the Church in the provision of education and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will acknowledge that his anxieties have been fully taken into account.
I believe that the amendments tabled in my name achieve the objective sought by the right reverend Prelate, but do so more effectively. I hope in the light of that, that Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 will not be accepted, but I beg to move Amendment No. 295B.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: After my recent encounter with the noble Baroness, I at once say how immensely grateful we are to the Government for these amendments. The amendments of the noble Baroness to which she has just spoken achieve all that we attempted to achieve and do so rather more effectively than do my own amendments, which I shall happily tear up and abandon. I wish to place on record our deep and lasting gratitude to the Minister and her officials for the discussions that have taken place and the way in which they have borne fruit. I am advised that there may be one or two minor technical matters that have to be touched up later on. But I understand that we can come back to them at Report stage. I

1461
merely want to place on record my warmest gratitude and to assure the noble Baroness that I am at one with her on this matter.
Lord Judd: I hesitate to intervene in this great reconciliation between Church and state. It is a dramatic moment at which to be present amongst noble Lords. But there is one rather curious purpose in the schedule to the clause:
"Uniform Statutory Trusts For Educational Endowments".
I refer to Amendment No. 323ZB. Money from these trusts can be applied to:
"the provision of services for the carrying out of any inspection of any relevant school in the area required by the Education (Schools) Act 1992".
Why is that? Could the Minister enlighten us?
Baroness Blatch: There is only one thing more painful to me than feeling guilty about how I responded to the previous amendments: to be asked about a technical amendment on this particular set of amendments. But my understanding—it is a lay understanding and I shall stand corrected—is that what we want to do is to give flexibility to the Church authorities to deploy these moneys in a way that makes sense to them. We shall come later this evening (or perhaps tomorrow morning) to an amendment which deals with denominational inspections as well as Her Majesty's Inspectorate registered inspections. I think it is just a flexibility in the way the moneys are deployed.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: If I may intervene, it is certainly my understanding that what we sought was that the interest from Section 2 moneys could be available to enable us to support and carry out Section 13 inspections. It was at our particular request that the clause was included, and it very much meets our anxiety.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 295C:
After Clause 262, insert the following new clause:
Religious educational trusts: supplementary provision
.—(1) Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 (special powers as to certain trusts for religious education) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), at the end (definition of "use for appropriate educational purposes") there shall be inserted the words "including, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, use for any purpose specified in Schedule (Uniform statutory trusts for educational endowments) to the Education Act 1993.".
(3) In subsection (3), after the word "dwelling-house" there shall be inserted the words "and may consolidate any endowments to be dealt with by the scheme.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 296:
After Clause 262, insert the following new clause:
("Maintenance of voluntary schools
.—(1) In the First Schedule to the Education Act.1946 there shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 6—
"This duty shall include the duty to meet all costs and expenses properly incurred by the trustees in taking the conveyance.
Until this duty has been discharged the local education authority shall hold the site and buildings as nominees for the persons to whom they are obliged to
1462
convey their interest and if at the direction of such persons the site or any part of it is sold the proceeds of sale shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 8 of this schedule.
The duty of a local education authority under this paragraph shall continue notwithstanding that the school closes, transfers to another site or acquires grant-maintained status before the duty is discharged."
(2) In that Schedule there shall be inserted at the end of paragraph 7—
"The sale of such other premises shall he deemed to be a disposition falling within section 32(7) (a) of the Charities Act 1992 (which relates to restrictions on dispositions of charity land)." ").
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment was not grouped with the previous amendments because it deals with a slightly different point. It deals with technical matters not touched on by the previous amendments.
Under the 1946 Act local education authorities are obliged to provide the site where a voluntary school is transferred or enlarged. In the case of a controlled school the local education authority must provide the land and buildings for nothing, although it is entitled to a determination if any proceeds of sale are involved. In the case of an aided school, although the LEA must provide the land for nothing, the governors must pay for the buildings. The first leg of my amendment clarifies that the LEA must pay the trustees' costs. For example, a controlled school usually has no independent funds from which to meet those costs. Therefore, clarification is needed as to where the money is to come from.
The second and third legs of the amendment maintain the duty to convey the site, even if the school closes, transfers or becomes grant-maintained. Some LEAs drag their feet over such transfers, especially if they see the prospect of a school being altered in site or status in the foreseeable future. We believe that the requirement should continue whatever the eventual future of the school.
The fourth leg deals with a technical matter in relation to the Charities Act, avoiding the need for a public notice procedure where a site is to be sold and proceeds of sale are subject to a determination in favour of the LEA.
I apologise that these are highly technical matters which are virtually beyond my grasp. But I hope that the Government will indicate whether they are happy with the intention of the amendment and will be able to come back with something along these lines or whether there is more trouble in store. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I have one small point. Can the right reverend Prelate help the Committee? It has been put to me that there has not been the fullest possible consultation between him and the local authority associations on this point. I am sure that there is a misunderstanding here, and it would be of benefit if something could be said in this Chamber tonight which would reassure the local authorities.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I readily apologise to the local authority associations if we have failed to communicate adequately with them. It is my understanding that most LEAs accept responsibility for meeting the costs in such cases and it is only in a

1463
few cases that there is uncertainty. I understand that the Government accept the general view that it is right to encourage LEAs to meet those costs. At present there is no clear indication as to who should meet the costs if no one is willing to pay them. We are seeking clarification.
In so far as we may have failed to be in adequate communication with the local authority associations, I apologise and I hope that we can put the matter straight. In the meantime I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Blatch: I know that the right reverend Prelate is concerned that current legislation relating to the provision of sites by LEAs for voluntary schools does not operate effectively and the amendment is directed at the reparation of a particular problem. We believe, however, that the law as it stands is adequate and that introducing more complex and burdensome legislation to deal with a relatively small number of cases where problems may arise is inappropriate. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept our commitment to improving administrative controls in this area because we recognise the point that is being made. We intend to monitor the success of the procedures and reconsider the need for more legislative control if they prove ineffective.
I shall now address each section of the right reverend Prelate's proposals in turn. In response to the first part of the first clause, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to provide that LEAs meet all the trustees' costs in all cases. For example, in the case of aided schools it is the governors' duty to provide the school buildings. Therefore, it follows that they should also meet the expense of conveying any buildings on the site being conveyed to them. I can confirm that we generally advise that LEAs should meet other trustees' legal costs and the majority accept that view. We do not propose at this stage to introduce legislation to require LEAs to meet these costs, however, since we would need to consult LEA representatives—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—who are likely to raise issues of detail which would have to be addressed. We are not persuaded that this is a priority for urgent attention at this very late stage of the Bill.
On the second part of the first clause, we are not convinced that making LEAs nominees for the trustees pending completion of a conveyance would provide the answer. We doubt that this would either legitimise the expenditure of charitable funds on property not held by trustees or enable trustees to sell the property if it subsequently becomes redundant. In any event I must emphasise that the completion of the conveyance is a statutory duty incumbent upon LEAs, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to introduce new administrative controls to ensure that LEAs fulfil their statutory responsibilities in this regard. Where necessary, my right honourable friend has a power to enforce compliance by means of a direction under Section 99 of the Education Act 1944.
The third part of the first clause proposes that the LEA should be under a duty to convey interest where
1464
the school transfers, closes or becomes a grant-maintained school. In the case of a school becoming grant maintained the right reverend Prelate will be aware that this has already been discussed separately in some detail by our officials and we plan to introduce an amendment at Report stage to deal with that problem. In the case of schools closing or transferring, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary in the face of the improved administrative controls proposed.
We see no objection to the final amendment which would exempt the sale of a former school site by the trustees from the requirements contained in the Charities Act 1992 to publicise the proposals and to take account of any representations.
There is a difference between delay where the arguments and the reasons put forward by the LEAs are wholly acceptable and understandable, and where the delay is through sluggish administration. We need some mechanism to ensure that we deal as much as possible with the incidence of delay due to poor administration. However, placing a provision on the face of the Bill would put a strait-jacket unnecessarily on LEAs which have genuinely good reason for the delay.
We have no argument with the objectives. We shall do what we can to meet those concerns both by informal means and by bringing forward an amendment to the third part of the first clause.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am reassured that she will come back to the matter at a later stage and that some aspects can be dealt with by improved administrative controls. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I ought to put something right on the record. I was not referring to the third part of the first clause. It was the final amendment on which I shall bring forward an amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 not moved.]
Clause 263 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 299:
After Clause 263, insert the following new clause:
Training for unqualified teachers in CTCs or CCTAs
(". In section 218 of the Education Reform Act (school etc. regulations), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) The regulations may impose requirements on persons carrying on city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts as to the training and teaching experience of persons employed as teachers at such colleges who seek to become (in relation to schools) qualified teachers; and such requirements shall have effect for the purposes of section 105 of this Act as requirements of the agreements under which the colleges are maintained.".").
The noble Baroness said: The clause provides that where a city technology college or a city college for the technology of the arts wishes to employ a teacher to follow a programme of training leading to qualified teaching status, the Secretary of State will have the same controls over the nature and duration of training as in maintained schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: It is welcome that the amendment proposed by the Minister allows the opportunity for teachers to undertake training in the city technology college employment. However, I hope that my noble friend will assure us that the training available to teachers in those schools will be of the most varied and flexible nature and will not require them to go through some of the more rigid requirements of the PGCE or the B.Ed courses which currently exist. I hope that people who have signed up to teach in the city technology colleges, who are giving the very full commitment to a teaching timetable which that requires and who have taken part in the very innovative and experimental form of school, will not be forced into the mould into which too often the existing teacher training structures force them.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may respond to that. I entirely take the point that my noble friend Lady Perry makes. I hope that she will agree that we need to draft regulations specifying the criteria which a teacher must meet to be eligible, requiring details of the proposed training, stating the length of training needed before qualified teacher status is awarded and placing a duty on the college—with which I believe my noble friend would agree—to ensure that the teacher receives the training agreed. We would, of course, consult the colleges before introducing such regulations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: It is my understanding that the new clause allows the Secretary of State to impose regulations on CTCs as to the training and teaching experience of persons employed by them, in particular the acquisition of qualified teacher status. It would be possible for teaching staff and CTCs to have qualified teacher status without accreditation through higher education or without having successfully completed any higher education.
It is rumoured that the Government plan to bring a Bill to Parliament on the training of teachers for the next parliamentary Session. Why bring this amendment forward now if such measures could be covered in any future Bill?
Finally, I put to the Minister that it has been a key achievement of the post-war period to secure an all-graduate teaching profession and parity of esteem for all teachers at each stage of the education process. I ask the Minister whether the amendment in her name would possibly undermine that post-war achievement of the all-graduate profession.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that the "achievement", as he calls it, of the all-graduate profession of teachers when the degree in question is a teacher education degree is in some doubt, particularly as to the esteem which it carries to this sector and beyond.
Lord Addington: I wish to put a question to the noble Baroness. I take it from the amendment, as it was explained, that it is designed for a special type of teacher training which is required. Does she see it
1466
being restricted to the types of TECs and colleges mentioned and that it will not be used as a way of bringing in teachers who have received inappropriate training for teaching, for example, in schools? A few words here would probably help to put everyone's minds at rest and go some way towards dealing with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that noble Lords are seeing rather more in the amendment than there is. City technology colleges are the only class of schools that are outside the schools which could take part in more school-based teacher training. It is a question of enabling them to take part in a scheme if there were one.
I wish to make two points clear. The criteria will cover all the component parts that make up a qualified teacher. It is important—and this is why I came back to my noble friend—that while we want flexibility, we also wish to ensure quality. The second point is quality. We want the most effective teachers in the schools and quality must be paramount in all things.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 264 agreed to.
Clause 265 [Provision of goods and services by local education authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 299ZA to 300B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 265 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I wish to make a brief and, I hope, helpful suggestion to my noble friend Lady Blatch. In my opinion our interminable discussion this afternoon, to which she gave such a splendid answer, could have been avoided if Clause 265 had been dovetailed with the present law, especially with Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1975. That far-reaching Act was a fine piece of drafting. It is contained in only three clauses and only one of them contains the powers that are required. That one clause is so beautifully drafted that it is very far-reaching indeed.
They do not draft like that these days, I am very sorry to say. The Bill that we are considering could have been half the length if they knew how to draft as they did then. It was one of the very first measures introduced by the Heath Government of which I was a supporter in another place. In those days drafting was considered not good enough, so a committee on the preparation of legislation was appointed of which I had the honour to be chairman. It sat for three years and we made many suggestions; most of which have not been accepted, so drafting has become worse.
If, between now and Report stage, my noble friend would ask Parliamentary Counsel to consider re-drafting Clause 265 in a way that dovetails it with the previous law as her speech so admirably did—the first of several speeches that she made on the subject this afternoon—I am sure that in the years to come users of the Bill will be grateful to her.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend and defer absolutely to his expertise in these matters. I know of his attempts, which I have to say were in vain, to reduce the amount of legislation and improve

1467
drafting. I shall of course consider his point. I could not possibly give an answer at the Dispatch Box now, but I shall take back his comments and certainly discuss them with Parliamentary Counsel to see what can be done, without prejudice of course.
Clause 265 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 300C not moved.]
Clause 266 [Abolition of requirement to establish education committees]:
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 301:
Leave out Clause 266 and insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of requirement to establish education committees in certain circumstances
When an order or orders under section 10(1) (b) of this Act are made in respect of both kinds of education in the area of a local education authority, section 6(2) of, and Part II of the First Schedule to, the Education Act 1944 (Education Committees) shall not apply to that local education authority.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment I should point out that it is grouped with Amendments Nos. 301ZA, 328ZZZA, 328B, 328D, 329ZA, 329ZC, 329ZD, 332ZB, 332ZC, 334J, 337B, 338A, 339B to 339D and 341ZA, but I do not think that I will talk about many of those.
The Bill as drafted removes the requirement for a local authority to have a local education committee. My amendment seeks to require a local education committee to administer the LEA responsibilities for education until the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached. It seems to me that the principle is right: that while there is a significant number of schools for which an LEA is responsible, it should be required to work through a committee specifically appointed for that purpose. As drafted, the Bill would allow a local authority, even if all the schools in its area are local authority schools, to handle them through social services or some other committee. I do not think that that would be taking education seriously.
I am sometimes puzzled by which department of local government looks after what. Perhaps I may digress for a moment and tell the Committee that one of my stranger duties from time to time is to consecrate the extension of a public burial ground. When I do that on behalf of a local authority I am always interested to know who will represent the local authority on such a slightly bizarre occasion. On one such occasion recently I was intrigued to be met by the local authority's director of outdoor leisure activities.
The education of children is surely a serious responsibility. All the time that a local education authority has responsibility for a significant number of schools, it should be required to have a committee properly constituted for that purpose and not work through one which has at least one eye on something quite different.
There is also the second but subsidiary matter about Church representation on local education committees. The Government intend to move some amendments in this group, including Amendment No. 301ZA, which provide for the Churches' existing statutory or regulation representation on education committees to be met on successor bodies in a new
1468
way. I am very grateful to the Government for what they are bringing forward with these amendments, although it does not meet the principal point and the principal reason why I am moving this amendment.
I have not had an opportunity to look at the amendments in detail because we did not have sight of them until they were tabled. We have not therefore had an opportunity to discuss them with the Government. However, there seems to me to be at least one query, if not difficulty, because Amendment No. 301ZA refers to a "committee". If there is no education committee, it refers to a committee appointed "exclusively or mainly" for educational purposes. I do not think that a local authority which is using another committee will in fact be appointed under those terms. I am not sure that the terminology is right. But perhaps that is a technical detail.
I welcomed the Government's amendments in principle even though there may be need to look at the detailed wording and we would value the opportunity of studying them in detail. But I still think that the main purpose of my amendment, which is to ensure education committees until the 75 per cent. trigger point is reached, ought to be seriously considered. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should like first to address Amendment No. 301. The decision to abolish the education committees would remove from Churches and other interested parties the statutory opportunity to participate fully in committees taking decisions on educational matters. The Government appear to have seen that as a problem and have therefore tabled amendments that would enable the Secretary of State to require representatives of the Churches to be included as members of local authority committees, joint committees and sub-committees concerned with education. It appears from the introduction given by the right reverend Prelate that that is his main concern, since clearly from the point of view of the Churches it is desirable for them to have representatives on the local authority committees that deal with education.
So far as concerns the local education authorities, I put forward the view that the amendment would be an improvement on the current wording of the Bill. For that reason I am happy to support the right reverend Prelate's amendment, Amendment No. 301.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 301ZA. The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to direct the appointment of representatives of the Churches to local authority committees or joint committees concerned with education. In general, the partnership between local education authorities and Churches has worked well. Why, therefore, is there a need for the new power to be given to the Secretary of State to direct or appoint such members additional to local authority committees dealing with education? Is it not simply another example of the Government giving themselves additional powers which they do not need?
Some LEAs are considering joint educational and social services committees. Will the Secretary of State for Education then require Church representatives to

1469
be placed on such a joint committee, which would have responsibility for a whole range of social services matters?
The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 prevents membership of social services committee and other council committees other than education unless one is an elected councillor for that area. Is it not something of a mire that we are entering? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's explanation.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that way about the amendment. I shall come to my defence of it in a moment. He referred to it as government taking additional powers that they do not need. It is not giving powers to the Government; it is offering flexibility to local government to organise its authorities in what it considers to be the most effective way.
I can say with some feeling that one of my criticisms of local authorities, on which I served for many years, was the little boxes in which everybody sat. So often the child who was an issue for education was equally an issue for social services and for the housing authority too. We all operated in little boxes and there was not a great deal of effective communication between the different departments or, indeed, between one local authority and another. Anything we can do to make sense of services provided for people, we should do.
Having said that, Amendment No. 301ZA gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State a power to require local authorities to include representatives of persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools on committees which deal exclusively or mainly with education.
Through the introduction of Amendment No. 301ZA, the Government continue to recognise the important role that voluntary schools play alongside others in the maintained sector of our statutory education service. The amendment is designed to preserve the special voting rights accorded under the present legislation to representatives of persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools—in practice mainly the Church of England and Roman Catholic bodies—to education committees. As the Committee will know, the related Clause 266 provides for the abolition of the requirement for LEAs to establish education committees.
We have carefully considered various representations from, and the views of, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and others, who expressed the wish that the close and valuable participation by the Churches in the local decision-making process should be preserved.
That is the Government's wish too, and the clause has been designed to preserve the important role of the Churches and other representatives of those who appoint foundation governors to local authorities' committees dealing wholly or mainly with education matters. The Committee will know that, while the Government were still preparing the amendment, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford tabled
1470
his own amendment designed, as is the Government's, to protect the position of the Churches. But the effect of his amendment would be to delay the freedom which the Government are committed to conferring upon local authorities to meet their evolving role. It would do so by postponing the repeal of Section 6(2) and Part II of the first schedule to the Education Act 1944, thus linking the Government's measure with progress made locally in going over to grant-maintained schools.
As I explained, the Government have already provided for the Churches a far greater protection. The Government's own amendment reaffirms the rights accorded under existing legislation to representatives of persons who appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools in the context of the new arrangements. The Government have thus removed the need for the right reverend Prelate's amendment, which would delay the freedoms we seek for local authorities and complicate the Government's Bill. The Government therefore intended to ask the Committee to resist Amendment No. 301.
I am impressed by some of the arguments made in this discussion. There is no argument about the objectives. We are talking about means to ends. I should like to use the time between now and Report stage to consider the relative merits of either taking the 75 per cent. trigger point or taking our amendments. Perhaps we could discuss the issue with local authorities—because there is an impact on local authority associations—and indeed the right reverend Prelate and come to an accommodation between now and Report stage to achieve the objectives that we all stand up for.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. If I may venture an opinion, I cannot see any reason why our discussions cannot take the form of accepting both amendments, but I shall not prejudge the consultations that may take place. Clearly, there is more work to be done. On the basis of the assurance and undertaking from the Minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment in order to make progress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 266 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 301ZA:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees
(".—(1) Subsection (2) below applies to any local authorities which in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 have appointed any committees exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities.
(2) The Secretary of State may by directions to any local authorities to which this subsection applies require every such committee, or any such committee of a description specified in the direction, to include persons appointed, in accordance with the directions, for securing the representation on the committee of persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the area for which the committee acts.
(3) Subsection (4) below applies to any two or more local authorities which in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 have appointed any committees

1471
exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities.
(4) The Secretary of State may by directions to any local authorities to which this subsection applies require every such committee, or any such committee of a description specified in the direction, to include persons appointed, in accordance with the directions, for securing the representation on the committee of persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the area for which the committee acts or in such area as may be specified in the direction.
(5) The power of the Secretary of State to give directions under subsection (2) or (4) above shall be exercisable in relation to any sub-committees which are—

(a) appointed by the authorities concerned or any such committee as is mentioned in that subsection, and

(b) so appointed exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging the authorities' functions as mentioned in that subsection or the committee's functions with respect to education,

as it is exercisable in relation to the committees themselves.").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 301A:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere
(".—(1) Each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
(2) A school established (whether before or after the commencement of this section) and maintained by a local education authority which—

(a) is specially organised to provide education for such children, and

(b) is not a county school or special school, shall be known as a "pupil referral unit".

(3) A local education authority may secure the provision of boarding accommodation at any pupil referral unit.
(4) A local education authority may make arrangements for the provision of suitable full-time or part-time education otherwise than at school for those young persons who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
(5) Section 9(2) of the Education Act 1944 (schools, other than nursery schools or special schools, established by LEAs to be known as county schools) shall have effect subject to subsection (2) above.
(6) Any child for whom education is provided otherwise than at school in pursuance of this section, and any young person for whom full-time education is so provided in pursuance of this section, shall be treated for the purposes of the Education Acts as a pupil.
(7) In this section "suitable education", in relation to a child or young person, means efficient education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have.
(8) Schedule (Pupil referral units) to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment on a previous occasion with Amendment No. 237ZA. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I know that this matter has already been debated and I apologise for not raising it earlier. The word "referral" is an unusual one. Is there any precedent for its use in this context? I feel bound to
1472
point out that the expression is one which many parents of children, who by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may have to have this kind of education, will never have heard of and indeed may not understand. I am wondering whether we may be able to find a more suitable term that the great mass of people can take on board more easily.
Baroness Blatch: I think that this word is a jolly sight better than "sin bin" which was the name originally given to these kinds of establishments. There is always difficulty in finding the right form of words. In the case of my own local authority, I was responsible for finding a form of words. We called it a secondary school support unit. That is precisely what it is, a place where intervention takes place and problems are identified early. Wherever possible young people are brought into these units in order to diagnose and address their problems so that they can be re-placed in the mainstream as soon as possible. I take my noble friend's point. The expression "pupil referral unit" is now in the Bill. I do not know whether anybody has a wish to change it. All I know is that if there is a debate about names, we will be here for a very long time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): As amendments to Amendment No. 301A, Amendments Nos. 301B, 301C and 301D have already been debated and not moved.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has asked me to explain that neither she nor the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, can be here and to apologise to the Committee for that.
[Amendments Nos. 301 B to 301D not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 302:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to Education (Schools) Act 1992
.—(1) The Education (Schools) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 9(6) there shall be inserted the words "but this shall not prevent the registered inspector observing any act of religious worship conducted at the school".
(3) After section 10(3) the following new subsection shall be inserted—
"(3A) The Chief Inspector shall impose a condition on the registration of any person under this section prohibiting him from conducting an inspection of a voluntary school unless the chief inspector is satisfied that the person is an appropriate person to conduct an inspection of a voluntary school and does not hold views inimical to voluntary schools generally or to the tenets of a religious denomination in accordance with which any voluntary school is conducted.".
(4) In section 13(2) after the word "means" there shall be substituted the following—
"religious worship conducted in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination and religious education given otherwise than pursuant to a statutory requirement that it be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus".").
The right reverend Prelate said: This amendment deals with the relationship between an inspection under Section 9 of the 1992 Act by a registered inspector and an inspection under Section 13 of

1473
denominational religious education. As I see it, we want to ensure that, where worship and RE are provided in accordance with a trustee or denominational requirement, worship and religious education should be inspected by those who have an interior knowledge and understanding of what is required. Worship and religious education in an aided school should therefore be inspected under Section 13. But that is not the end of the matter. We have to recognise that some Church schools and other schools with foundation governors can move close to indoctrination or a separatist tendency. It is proper therefore that the registered inspector should at least look at worship and religious education because he has a proper responsibility for the moral and spiritual development of pupils.
In any case, if, let us say, a Church-aided school is taking its religious responsibilities seriously, the religious perceptions and understanding will permeate and colour the whole curriculum, although they should not dominate it. So the registered inspector who has to inspect the school for national curriculum purposes may also need for that reason to look at, but not to inspect, the religious education and worship in order to see the integration of the work throughout the school. For that reason it is important that the registered inspector should not be out of sympathy with the stance or status of the school. Hence that part of my amendment which seeks to require that the chief inspector should make sure that any registered inspector inspecting a voluntary school should be in general sympathy with, or at least not inimical to, the principle of voluntary schools and to the tenets of the particular religious denomination of the school providing it.
In addition to that my amendment provides for one small detail because there are some aided schools, I understand, which decide to use for their denominational education an agreed syllabus. If an aided school so chooses, its religious education should still be inspected under Section 13, not under Section 9, but the wording of the 1992 Act does not catch that. So this is what I would call a technical amendment.
Those are the reasons which lie behind Amendment No. 302. There is an amendment down to my amendment with which I have no difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will be speaking to that. I thought that it might be of help just to indicate my general acceptance of what I think he is going to say.
[Amendment No. 302ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 302, Amendment No. 302ZB:
After Clause 266, At the end of subsection (4) insert ("and the school's provision for the moral and spiritual development of pupils.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Cox, in whose name this amendment stands, has asked me to speak to it on her behalf. She sincerely apologises to the Committee that she cannot do so herself but she is now in Nagorno-Karabakh on, I think, her 14th humanitarian aid mission. She had not intended to be
1474
abroad for any part of the Committee stage but this has gone on rather longer than anticipated and she has not been able to avoid her engagement.
As the right reverend Prelate said, this is an amendment to his amendment, Amendment No. 302, and extends it. Under Section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 the law provides for a new system of school inspections through Ofsted, with all schools undergoing inspection every four years. Denominational schools, be they voluntary or grant maintained, are inspected in the same way, with the exception that governors can appoint their own inspector for denominational education. These are known as Section 13 inspections and continue what has been accepted practice since before 1944, which is that the state should not interfere with denominational teaching in faith-based schools. However, there are conflicts within these provisions.
One interpretation of the law appears to suggest that Ofsted inspectors can inspect every aspect of school life, including school worship and the moral and spiritual development of pupils, but cannot inspect religious education. On the other hand, Section 13 inspectors inspect religious education but do not have an explicit duty to inspect either collective worship or the spiritual and moral development of pupils. We believe that this is unsatisfactory because it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate consideration of school worship, religious education and the spiritual and moral development of pupils. This is especially true in a faith-based school. Therefore, we are very supportive of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment No. 302, subsection (4) of which ensures that a Section 13 inspector has the explicit duty to inspect school worship.
Our amendment to his amendment, Amendment No. 302ZB, extends the inspector's duties even further, to include the spiritual and moral development of pupils. I understand that these amendments have received a great deal of support from many representatives of the Christian Church. For instance, we have received a letter from Monseigneur Daniel McHugh, Director of Religious Education of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, in which he fully supports these amendments. He also points out:
"The Government undertook at Report Stage in the House of Commons to consider bringing forward amendments to give explicit power to the Inspector appointed by the governors in Church schools to inspect the spiritual and moral development of pupils and the act of worship. The right of OFSTED inspectors to report on spiritual and moral development would remain, so providing a form of dual inspection that should meet the legitimate interests of those involved, both State and Church".
We are seeking to ensure that the report published by a Section 13 inspector is given clear official standing and influence. At present, although there is nothing to stop a Section 13 inspector inspecting school worship and the moral and spiritual development of pupils, his inspection may count for nothing officially. We are also seeking the explicit extension of the remit of the denominational inspectors to inspect and report on the moral and spiritual education of their pupils.
I confirm that we wish to see Ofsted being allowed to inspect the whole of school life and do not wish to see any restrictions placed on its brief, but if it is to be

1475
allowed this freedom in denominational schools, it seems to us very important that those schools have proper safeguards which would protect them from bias or hostile inspections. We believe that the simplest way to achieve that is by ensuring that Section 13 inspectors can produce a report of equal weight to that of Ofsted by explicitly extending to them the powers to inspect school worship and the moral and spiritual development of pupils. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's view of the matter and, if possible, her sympathetic consideration of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: There is something about the expression
"The moral and spiritual development of pupils"
which I find a little worrying. It may be just a case of my ears pricking up in the way that a dog's ears react when he sees a rabbit go past. I would like to know what the right reverend Prelate believes that that entails and possibly what the Minister does as well. It is something which I am not happy about. I hope that the right reverend Prelate can tell me exactly what he regards that expression to mean.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Perhaps I may attempt to respond to that question. I am merely picking up the requirement of the 1992 Act where a Section 9 inspector is required to inspect and report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school.
Lord Northbourne: I entirely support the principle which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, have expounded but I am not quite sure that these amendments achieve that objective. As I understand it, the Churches and everyone else I have been able to speak with on this subject, seem to agree that the most workable principle is that which has come to be described as the dual inspection. Therefore the Act should provide for the Section 13 inspectors to inspect religious worship and religious education and also to be concerned about the spiritual, moral and cultural values because they are obviously experts in those areas of concern.
At the same time I believe that many of us are concerned that there might be denominational schools where the religious inspectors were prejudiced in favour of particular unacceptable attitudes of that denomination. Therefore, it is important that there should be some kind of overseeing inspection under Section 9. Provided that there is a Section 13 inspection to cover, as it were, the Section 9 inspection, so that if there is a prejudiced inspector who takes a jaundiced view, they can put the other side of the argument, that probably covers the matter. If the right reverend Prelate's amendment were acceptable—and the Section 9 inspector who was chosen was someone who was at least not known to be inimical to the attitudes of that particular denomination—that also would probably be helpful.
It is clearly not appropriate for a Section 9 inspector to interfere with the nature of the religious
1476
education. It is not appropriate for him to report that the pupils got the list of dates of the kings of Israel and Judea wrong. However, it is appropriate for him to report if he finds that the religious education is putting across ideas that are totally unacceptable in our society. That would be reported upon. Therefore, I think that I support the amendments—I certainly support the intention behind them.
Lord Judd: This is a rare moment because I am normally in such strong agreement with the right reverend Prelate that I examine my own position when I find that I have anxieties about his propositions. But I do have anxieties because it seems to me that what we are really endorsing—we may argue about the detail—is a pluralist approach to our educational system. We are saying that within that pluralist approach there should be people who are able to reassure society about what is going on in particular schools. It seems to me that if the view began to gain ground that only the friends of a particular denomination could be the inspectors of that school, that might not be reassuring to society as a whole. This is a sensitive matter and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has put his finger clearly on the point that needs to be considered. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate could take on board the anxieties that have have been expressed and think about them with his colleagues.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has misunderstood the purpose of subsection (2) of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, which seeks to ensure precisely the reverse of what he suggested. It seeks to ensure that the registered inspector—that is, the non-denominational inspector—shall have the right of seeing in the round or in the whole all the aspects of the children's moral and social development, including the act of worship.
Lord Judd: With the greatest possible respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that I have misunderstood. The implication of what the right reverend Prelate was saying is that we must discover, as it were, the views and convictions of the inspectors as distinct from their professional competence. That is the implication because if we ask not to have involved somebody who is unsympathetic, that suggests that the professionalism of the inspector concerned could be called into question. That is a slightly dangerous road to go down because we shall find ourselves heading towards all kinds of evaluations of what is and what is not a professionally acceptable approach. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate did not intend that; but I feel those anxieties myself and I know that they have been expressed to me. Because of his general position on these issues, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate will find it possible to go away and think a little about this and perhaps talk to some of us who have anxieties to see whether these points can be met.
Earl Russell: I, too, should like to ask the right reverend Prelate one question for clarification, and I hope that he may be able to tell me what I want to

1477
hear. I hope that that might also help to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The words that concern me are "inimical to". I am sympathetic to what I think the right reverend Prelate intended by those words. In the light of the Pepper v Hart judgment, I think that he will tell me all that I want to hear if he can say that he does not intend those words to be interpreted as if they meant no more than "different from".
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am sorry if I am confusing the Committee. It may well be that the Government will say that the contents of new subsections (3A) are better dealt with by regulation in connection with the inspectorate than by trying to put it on the face of the Bill. All that we are trying to achieve is that the registered inspection of a voluntary school with a trustee should be carried out professionally by registered inspectors but that they should not have prejudices against the principles of voluntary education or of religious education. That is all that we are anxious to avoid. Provided that is avoided, I hope that the registered inspections of any Church school will be as rigorous, independent and professional as any inspection can be.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can be helpful. I share the general worry of the Churches that inspection should be sensitive to the particular ethos of Church schools and that governors' traditional rights in those areas will not be weakened. The Committee will be aware that in response to various anxieties expressed by the Churches and others on aspects of the inspection of denominational education, the Government gave a commitment in another place that we would consider all those matters further, in consultation with the Churches, and bring forward amendments in due course. I am sorry that we have not been able to do so yet, but we are close to finding a form of words which I hope to be able to commend to the Committee. I can give the Committee an assurance that our amendments will take account of the points that have been raised in Committee here also. I hope therefore that the right reverend Prelate, and other noble Lords will not press the amendments now.
The Committee will be aware that the Government were sympathetic to the view expressed in another place that the Section 13 inspector should be able to report also on how a school developed spiritual and moral values in pupils, and on acts of religious worship. Those matters too will be covered in the amendments we propose to bring forward.
The right reverend Prelate proposes also in his amendment that a Section 13 inspector should be able to inspect religious education in a school which is not statutorily obliged to teach in accordance with the agreed syllabus even if it chooses to do so. I am sympathetic to his wish that governors, where they wish to draw on an agreed syllabus in their teaching, should be able to do so while still being inspected by a Section 13 inspector. We shall bring forward an amendment on Report. It will also cover the position in schools which, although obliged to teach RE according to an agreed syllabus to all or some of its pupils, provide denominational worship.
1478
The final point which the amendment would introduce would be a requirement upon HMCI to register Section 9 inspectors as able to inspect voluntary schools only if they have demonstrated to his satisfaction that they do not hold values which are inimical to the ethos of voluntary schools. There are a number of points to make. First, HMCI will only register as an inspector someone who can demonstrate that he or she is "a fit and proper person" to inspect a school and is capable of conducting inspections "competently and effectively". Anyone showing bias during training on an HMI inspection will not be accepted. Professor Sutherland has said in his guidance that he will expect registered inspectors to be sensitive to the ethos of a school in inspecting it. The governors will be able to point out any bias in responding to the report of the Section 9 inspector which, will be the more evident if, as we envisage, the Section 13 inspection is carried out at or about the same time. If Professor Sutherland finds, on investigation, that it is substantiated, that person will risk being removed from the register.
The Committee will be aware that the reports of both inspections will be published, and governors will be expected to respond in their action plan to any criticisms made in either report and to have any complaints about an inspector investigated. If a report revealed serious worries about a school, the Bill provides for those to be followed up.
In selecting an inspector for a school, Ofsted will invite tenders from registered inspectors against a specification agreed in consultation with the school concerned. Ofsted will not award a tender for a voluntary school to an inspector where it is apparent that that inspector could not do a thorough job on a particular school, for whatever reason. In the light of those safeguards, I hope that the Committee will agree with me that it is not necessary to write a separate provision for registration to inspect voluntary schools into the 1992 Act.
I have commented partly on the amendment to the amendment already. We accept that the Section 13 inspector should be able to comment on pupils' spiritual and moral development, and I can give an assurance that the point will be covered in our amendments. I hope noble Lords will not press the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and, in particular, to the Minister. I believe that we have all the undertakings that we require and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I too am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what she has said. I want to underline to Members of the Committee opposite that I thought that I made it absolutely clear that we were not suggesting that inspectors of religious denominational schools should be favoured in any way. We saw the two things running in parallel so that the Section 9 inspectors could do their bit and the Section 13 inspectors could do their bit. I believe that my noble friend the Minister has taken the point and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Cox will look

1479
forward with great interest to the wording which is eventually produced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 302ZB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 302, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 302, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 302A not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 302B:
After Clause 266, insert the following new clause:
("Political and sex education
.—(1) The Education (Schools) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 9(4) there shall be inserted—
"(e) the extent to which the school complies with sections 44 to 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or, in the case of a grant-maintained school, with section 46A of that Act.".").
The noble Lord said: Section 44 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 prohibits in county schools and special schools the pursuit or promotion of partisan political views. Section 45 requires those schools to provide a balanced treatment in dealing with political issues. Section 46 provides that sex education in such schools is:
"given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
Section 46A makes those sections also applicable to grant-maintained schools.
So far, so good. However, there is substantial anecdotal evidence for the fact that some schools have not been following the regulations. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that schools actually carry out their obligations in this respect by ensuring quite specifically that these issues are to be inspected and reported upon by the inspectors. Whatever any of us may believe individually about the rights or wrongs of the different ways of providing sex education or political education, what must be wrong is allowing to continue a practice which rides roughshod over the sensibilities of a substantial number of parents—and it is also a concern to most—and which flies in the face of the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the 1986 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I see that the amendment stands also in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox. In her absence I wish to support it because it seems to me to be entirely sensible. In my closing comments in moving Amendment No. 302ZB I indicated that I thought it possible that Ofsted inspectors might produce hostile inspections on the religious content of the education given by denominational schools. I did so because I understand that the majority of the new Ofsted inspectors are former HMI inspectors. One must say that some former HMI inspectors did not earn an exactly glowing reputation for their promotion of Christian and other religious values. In that respect I was encouraged by what my noble friend the Minister had to say about the way in which they will be examined in that area in future.
Having been somewhat critical of some Ofsted inspectors, I hope that my support of the amendment
1480
allows me to redress the balance. I very much hope that Ofsted inspectors will be given the duty to report on the political balance offered by the schools which they inspect and as to whether sexual matters are discussed with due regard to moral considerations. I very much hope that they will carry out that duty in the spirit intended and required by the Education (Schools) Act 1992.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I find it difficult to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in the amendment which he has proposed. However, I put forward two areas of anxiety. First, is there not a danger of overload on the requirements of the inspection process? Do we want inspectors to be distracted from their main task of inspection; that is, ensuring that the standards of education in schools are as they should be?
Nevertheless, all that the amendment makes explicit on the face of the Bill is that which is already required. On those grounds I find the amendment difficult to oppose.
Baroness Blatch: The point which has just been made is extremely important. We have had a good debate in this Chamber which made clear that education should not only be about academic teaching and learning. We should be concerned in the round with the wholesomeness of young people and, therefore, the importance of underpinning education with a moral and spiritual dimension. I believe that the Committee took that seriously and we should expect the inspectorate to take seriously all aspects of inspection. There is no hierarchy with regard to one issue over another.
Any registered inspector carrying out a Section 9 inspection is required to comment, among other things, on the way a school promotes the spiritual and moral development of pupils across the curriculum. The registered inspector will state his findings in a published report, and the governors are required to publish an action plan in response, setting out the action they propose to take to remedy any deficiencies identified. In addition, in any school which offers denominational religious education, the governors are under a duty to arrange for the inspection of that denominational provision under Section 13 of the Act. The Section 13 inspector, who is solely appointed by the governors, will also be able to report on the way in which a school encourages the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils. This report, and the governors' response to it, will also be published and made widely available so that parents and others can see that the school is fulfilling its role in accordance with its trust deed or statement annexed to statutory proposals.
This public, open reporting will provide a sound basis for parents and others to judge the spiritual and moral ethos of a school. The governing body is also required by the Schools Act 1992 to include an update on the progress it has made in implementing its action-plan in its annual report to parents. This will ensure that a school's performance is kept constantly

1481
under review. The annual parents' meeting itself will give parents an opportunity to question governors about their decisions.
The independence of the new government department, Ofsted, was a crucial factor behind the 1992 Act. Its independence secures the impartiality and high professional standards of school reports, and I consider it important that we leave Professor Sutherland, HMCI, to determine what inspections should cover and how they should be reported. I would not want to seek to limit the evidence looked at by registered inspectors by over-prescriptive legislation.
My right honourable friend is also consulting on a draft revised circular on sex education in schools, which, among other things, recognises the importance of providing sex education within a moral framework which encourages family values. The Government are clear therefore that all sex education should take place within a framework which encourages pupils to consider the moral dimension of their actions. They should recognise the value of family life and understand the importance of loving relationships and mutual respect.
In addition, the National Curriculum Council has just published guidance on the moral and spiritual dimension of the curriculum. Furthermore, Circular 7/92 noted our commitment to requiring from 1993–94 that all maintained schools should include in their prospectuses a statement about the way in which they seek to secure the requirements of the Education Reform Act in this respect. There are, thus, several measures which ensure that the spiritual values of pupils are promoted and are safeguarded in addition to the requirement already on schools to comply with the Education (No. 2) Act in relation to political activity and sex education.
It is the transparency of the system now which will be the greatest possible safeguard against anxieties held by Members of the Committee. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that there is no need to write such compliance into the 1992 Act as an additional duty of registered inspectors. It is covered adequately already.
Lord Northbourne: Will the Minister confirm that she is saying that part of the duty of the registered inspectors will be to inspect compliance with that and other legal obligations?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, I am.
Lord Northbourne: In those circumstances, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 267 and 268 agreed to.
Clause 269 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment No. 303 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 303A and 303B:
Page 159, line 35, after ("54") insert ("(Making and varying joint schemes)").
Page 159, line 35, leave out ("98").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments have been spoken to with Amendment No. 166A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 303C and 304 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 304ZA:
Page 159, line 36, at beginning insert ("paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary to correct an omission from the list of orders which do not have to be made by statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I should like to ask the Minister to speak to the amendment. I believe that we should hesitate to approve it without hearing exactly what is the case for it.
Lord Henley: I was trying to speed up the business of the Committee but, no doubt, I can give my noble kinsman an explanation of the omission that we are endeavouring to correct.
Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may by order make certain provisions in relation to a school's transition to grant-maintained status. Such an order may, for example, give the new governing body of a school acquiring grant-maintained status the power to conduct its own admissions arrangements in the period before the proposals are implemented. I can assure the Committee that the matters dealt with by the orders are local administrative matters. It would be completely inappropriate for Parliament's time to be taken up in making them by statutory instrument. That burden on our time would be considerable, given the increasing numbers of grant-maintained schools.
With that explanation, I hope that my noble kinsman will be satisfied and accept that the amendment is necessary purely to correct an omission in the list of orders.
Earl Russell: I thank my noble kinsman for that explanation. I have been having a little difficulty reconciling it with the words of the clause in question. For example, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 4 states:
"Such an order may in particular—
(a) exclude or modify any powers of the local education authority or of the existing governing body".
That is a fairly sweeping power. My noble kinsman will say that that is governed by subsection (2), but, as it deals with transition, it may include a great deal which I think we in this Chamber might want to look at again. I am not at all sure how much could be done if the amendment were carried. I am not sure that I am happy about it as it stands. Can we hear a little more about restriction on what can actually be done under the amendment? That is the point upon which we need to be satisfied if we are to let the amendment pass.
Lord Henley: I thought that I had made it clear that the amendment is fairly technical. However, perhaps I may speak to the clause itself. It deals purely with the procedure for making certain regulations and orders under Bills. It sets out which provisions are exercised by statutory instruments and which are exempt. Those statutory instruments are not subject to annulment in

1483
pursuance of a resolution by either place. Debate on the status of orders and the relevant procedures is likely, obviously, to arise in this context.
Such matters have been before the Select Committee under my noble friend Lord Rippon. That committee did not comment adversely on the exceptions that we list in subsection (2) of the clause. All we are doing is simply adding paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the list.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing the Committee's attention to the provision. Perhaps I can take a different perspective from that which I usually take. Under paragraph 5(3) (b) of the schedule, there is a requirement for a,
"governing body to be consulted before the local education authority"
carries out certain matters. There may well be an LEA which might wish to do something where there should be consultation. If there is a possibility that that could be disapplied, which seems to be the position by the insertion of the exception under the amendment, then that might give carte blanche to LEAs in a way which might be inappropriate.
Lord Henley: I think that both Members of the Committee who have just spoken are making something of a mountain out of a molehill. I said that the amendment's purpose was to correct an omission. It is merely a re-enactment of what exists in the 1988 Act, where a similar order-making power is given to the Secretary of State under Schedule 5. Those orders are not required to be made by statutory instrument and, as will be the case with our Bill's provisions, can only be made on a school-by-school basis. That is the crucial point.
We are proposing the most sensible and practical way of dealing with requests from individual schools for necessary powers during the transitional period and consulting, as under present arrangements, the governing body and other relevant bodies wherever appropriate. Therefore, I hope that both my noble kinsman and the noble Baroness will be able to accept the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry. We do not want to make what the noble Lord calls a mountain out of a molehill. But he has not really commented on this phrase which is really rather alarming and which states that the Secretary of State may:
"modify any powers of the local education authority or of the existing governing body".
This is very sweeping. The fact that it existed in a previous Act does not make it any better. It may just have been overlooked in the previous Act. It is those lines which concern us. The powers are very sweeping.
Lord Henley: I am possibly being rather slow, but, as I read Clause 269, it states that:
"Any power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this Act (other than under any of the excepted provisions) shall be exercised by statutory instrument".
I really do not see what the—now three—noble Lords on the Liberal Benches are objecting to.
Earl Russell: My noble kinsman mentioned the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I agree that it made no comment on this point in the original Bill. I am not aware that this government amendment has been before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. If my noble kinsman can tell me that is has, that would reassure me quite considerably. But, failing that, I think that, in order that we should not make a mountain out of a molehill, it would be helpful if we could have a little more time to work out what this amendment really means. So, if my noble kinsman could withdraw it and bring it back at Report stage, I think that would be extremely helpful to us.
Lord Henley: I have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing the amendment. As I said, this is something that already exists in the 1988 Act. Section 269—admittedly without this particular power—has been before the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I see nothing wrong with adding something that was in the 1988 Act. It was merely omitted in error and we are putting it back into this Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 269 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
[Amendment No. 304A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 304B:
Page 159, line 41, leave out ("98").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 269, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 270 and 271 agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 304C:
After Clause 271, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Data Protection Act 1984 to local education authorities
A registration as a data user by a local education authority under the Data Protection Act 1984 shall encompass all schools maintained by that authority; and for the purposes of that Act any member of staff, governor or pupil in the service of any school shall be treated as a servant of the school to which his responsibilities or duties relate.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments deal with aspects of the Data Protection Act. Until 1991 the view had been taken that an LEA registration with the Data Protection Registrar under the terms of the Data Protection Act covered individual maintained schools. Since then, however, guidance has been issued indicating that individual schools' governing bodies and head teachers, as well as LEAs, should register if in connection with their statutory duties they keep information containing personal data as defined in the Act that can be automatically processed. In other words, three registrations are now needed at a cost of £75 each every three years, where one was previously sufficient.
Individual registration in this way is bureaucratic and costly. The Association of County Councils estimates that the national cost will be £4 million every three years, plus the ongoing costs of governor and school staff time in advice, etc.
We believe that this is largely an unnecessary system, as many LEAs use computer-based networked

1485
information systems and register their data with the Data Protection Registrar. Information in the system feeds down through area education officers into schools, with personal data and amendments flowing in both directions within the computer system. Personal data are entered only once on to the system by an authorised user. As the personal data are identical throughout the system, why should it be necessary to register the data users three times?
We believe that the Education Bill provides a good opportunity to tackle this issue. The new clause would provide for a single registration by the LEA to cover maintained schools in its area.
This is in a sense an extremely small issue in comparison with the magnitude of the issues we have debated throughout the Bill, but the Bill provides an opportunity to clear up an administrative absurdity. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the deregulation Minister in the Department of Social Security, just as my noble friend is the deregulation Minister in the Department for Education, we both appreciate the burden that the present requirement to register places on schools. We therefore have some sympathy with the arguments in favour of simplification of the present arrangements. The Data Protection Registrar has also acknowledged that there is a case for some simplification of the registration requirements. However, my colleagues in the Home Office would wish to see the outcome of deliberation on a draft EC directive presently under consideration which proposes, among other things, to bring manual records within the scope of the data protection legislation before they consider the possibility of any fresh legislation.
Although I cannot at this time provide any guarantees, I shall certainly put forward the arguments in favour of simplification of registration requirements for schools and note very sympathetically what the noble Lord has said. Having repeated that, I cannot give any guarantees. I hope that in the meantime the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am very grateful for the tone of the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 304D not moved.]
Clause 272 [Meaning of "school" in the Education Acts]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved amendment No. 305:
Page 160, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) In the definition of "primary school" in section 114(1) of the Education Act 1944 ("primary school" means, subject to regulations under section 1 of the Education Act 1964, a school for providing primary education, whether or not it also provides further education) before "further education" there is inserted "part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils or".").
The noble Lord said: This really is a technical amendment. It amends the definition of "primary school" in the Education Act 1944 and is consequential on the amendment made by Clause 272 to Section 14(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The amendment to Section 14(5) makes it
1486
clear that the education provided at primary school may include part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: Do I detect from the noble Lord's phraseology that the previous amendment was a little more than merely a technical amendment?
Lord Henley: No, the noble Baroness did not detect that. I detected that the noble Baroness and her colleagues suspected that the previous amendment was a little more than a purely technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 272, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 273 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 305A not moved.]
Clause 273 agreed to.
Clauses 274 to 276 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Distribution of functions where order made under section 10]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 306:
Page 167, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In particular, to the extent that this Schedule governs the payments to be made to any local education authority or the governing body of any grant-maintained school in respect of charges by that authority or body for the provision of board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school), the proviso to section 52(1) of the Education Act 1944 and section 111(2) to (6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (charges) shall not apply; and in this Schedule section 52(1) of the Education Act 1944 and section 111(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 are referred to as the "existing charging provisions".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I apologise for holding up the proceedings, but perhaps I may say this. Since we debated the issue many people have considered the provisions and find them tortuous. We very much appreciated the letter which the Minister sent to some of us at the time the provisions were being introduced. However, it did not clarify the position any more than the debate did. Perhaps we can have some assurance from the Minister that he and his department will seek to clarify this part of the Bill for all concerned.
Lord Henley: I note what the noble Lord says. I am sure that it will not be my department which will undertake that, but I am sure my noble friend's department will take note of his anxieties.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 307 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 167, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 309:
Page 167, line 34, at end insert:("and
( ) that where nursery places are provided they are provided within the plans of the local education authority for nursery education in the area.").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 315. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear precisely what is intended by this part of the schedule.
I take it that according to the intentions of the Bill grant-maintained schools are to provide primary and secondary education only. The funding authority is not involved in the general funding of nursery places. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that when a grant-maintained primary school provides, or applies to provide in future, nursery places in a nursery or pre-school class those places will fall within the overall plans for nursery provision which, as I understand it, the LEA will continue to be in a position to make for its area.
The purpose of Amendment No. 315 is the same. The amendments would mean that, as is the case with special educational needs provision, the planning and strategy of provision for nursery education would remain the responsibility of the LEA. It should be the duty of the local education authority to provide nursery education where it thinks fit, including in the pre-school classes in grant-maintained schools if those schools offer such provision.
The funding authority has no obligation to make any such strategic plans for nursery provision, nor any obligation to fund nursery education itself. Whatever plans the local education authority has in that area should be overriding.
Planning is obviously related to funding. It might be rational to leave all the funding to that part of the SSA which is devoted to nursery education. It is the purpose of the two amendments to clarify the Government's thinking on the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. We are deeply concerned that there is a danger that without the LEA retaining control the nursery schools receiving financial support might not necessarily meet the greatest social need in the area. That is what the LEA is best equipped to decide and determine. We believe that the amendments will help to preserve that principle. We welcome them.
Baroness Seear: We strongly support the amendment to which I, too, have put my name. We have spoken on a number of occasions of the great importance we attach to the extension and development of nursery education. However, the need for an overall plan within an area is even stronger in relation to nursery education than to other aspects of education if only because of the physical availability of nursery places within a reasonable geographical area. When one is dealing with very small children one does not wish to take them half way across a town to a place at which they will stay for only a few hours. There should be local authority oversight and a local authority plan to ensure that the all too scarce resources of nursery education are available in the most convenient places and can be used to the full.
Lord Henley: If I may, I shall deal first with the two amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness. I shall then speak briefly to the amendment in the name of my noble friend.
I note the concern of the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who have spoken to ensure that the
1488
powers of the LEA to plan the scale and location of nursery provision are not diminished by the role conferred upon the funding authority. We recognise these concerns but we believe that the safeguards that they seek are already present. I hope that I can give suitable assurances to the noble Baroness. The reason that the funding authority has powers in relation to nursery education is to ensure that where local reorganisation takes place for which it must publish proposals, it is not constrained in the exercise of that duty. Clause 92(4) of the Bill requires the funding authority, before publishing proposals for a significant change of character of a school, to consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate. The funding authority would certainly be expected to include the LEA in any such consultation for this purpose.
The LEA has the right to object to such proposals on the grounds that they run counter to the LEA's own policy for the overall distribution of nursery provision. My right honourable friend will weigh all the arguments for and against such proposals, with due regard to the wider planning function that the LEA fulfils in regard to these young children and the need to avoid placing new burdens upon them.
If I may, I shall just briefly refer at this point to my own Amendment No. 314. This is purely a technical amendment, but important nonetheless, as it makes it quite clear that the funding authority is not under any duty to provide education for children aged under five years.
We recognise the wider role of LEAs in relation to the under-fives. Nursery schools will remain a responsibility of the LEA, which will continue to be able to establish new nursery schools. The LEA will also retain overall responsibility for securing that children under five who have special educational needs are identified and appropriately placed. The LEAs will retain other functions in relation to these young children. For example, they undertake, with local authorities, periodic reviews of day care provision for young children as required by Section 19 of the Children Act. The amount of educational provision for the under-fives in their area is relevant to that review and hence the Bill enables LEAs to collect such information from self-governing schools or the funding authority as necessary. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may ask him one question. We know that the funding authority has no obligation to provide for children under five, but where there is a nursery class in a grant-maintained primary school, is it the case that the funding authority is responsible for funding the children in that class? That is one of the areas about which I have not been clear.
Lord Henley: My understanding is that if the grant-maintained school wished to do that, it would be the case. But may I just say that that is my understanding at the moment. If I am wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Warnock: I am grateful for that answer too. I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities to discuss nursery provision at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 310 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 167, line 36, leave out ("8") and insert ("8(1)").
The noble Lord said: We moved a series of amendments what seems to be some time ago, last month, concerning the provision of boarding accommodation and the purchase of independent school places. In brief, the effect of those amendments was to ensure that the existing flexibility to make such provision continues when, at stage 3, the funding agency for schools assumes responsibility in an area for securing sufficient school places.
The most substantial amendments were to Schedule
2. A number of consequential amendments were required to that schedule and other provisions of the Bill. This is purely another consequential amendment.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 312 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 168, line 9, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
("5.—(l) The duty under section 8(1) of the Education Act 1944 shall be discharged by the funding authority instead of the local education authority.
(2) In discharging that duty the funding authority shall, in particular, have regard to the matters referred to in section 8(2) (c) of that Act (provision for pupils who have special educational needs).
(3) The funding authority may provide board and lodging otherwise than at school for pupils at maintained or grant-maintained schools; and, where the authority do so, the parents of the pupils concerned shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, pay charges to the authority not exceeding the cost to the authority of the provision.
(4) Where the governing body of a grant-maintained school provide hoard and lodging at the school for pupils there, the parents of the pupils concerned shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, pay charges to the governing body not exceeding the cost to the governing body of the provision.
5A.—(1) The local education authority may continue to secure the provision of relevant education falling within section 8(1) of that Act and (subject to paragraph 6 below) to secure the provision of schools for that purpose.
(2) In exercising those powers the local education authority shall, in particular, have regard to the matters referred to in section 8(2) of that Act (which include separation of primary and secondary education, and boarding accommodation for those for whom boarding is desirable).
(3) Where the local education authority—

(a) provide board and lodging at a maintained school for pupils there, or

(b) provide board and lodging otherwise than at school for pupils at maintained or grant-maintained schools,

the parents of the pupils concerned shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, pay charges to the authority not exceeding the cost to the authority of the provision.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 168, line 14, at end insert:
(". The funding authority shall not by virtue of section 8(1) (a) of that Act be under any duty in respect of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 316 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 317.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 168, line 26, leave out ("to special schools") and insert:
("( ) to special schools,
( ) to nursery schools,
( ) where relevant education is only primary education, if the school in question is or will be a secondary school which also provides primary education, or
( ) where relevant education is only secondary education, if the school in question is or will be a primary school which also provides secondary education.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No 318:
Page 168, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) This paragraph does not apply—
( ) where relevant education is only primary education, if the school in question is or will be a secondary school which also provides primary education, or
( ) where relevant education is only secondary education, if the school in question is or will be a primary school which also provides secondary education.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 168, line 37, at beginning insert:
("Charges for board and lodging or independent education
7A.—(1) Sub-paragraph (3) below applies where—

(a) any pupil of compulsory school age ordinarily resident in the area is being provided with board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school) or with education at a school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained school,

(b) the funding authority are of the opinion that it is not practicable for the pupil to obtain admission to any maintained or grant-maintained school which is a reasonable distance from his home and provides efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have, and

(c) the authority are of the opinion that it is appropriate for the pupil to be provided with the particular board and lodging or, as the case may be, education.

(2) Sub-paragraph (3) below also applies where—

(a) any pupil ordinarily resident in the area is being provided with board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school) or with education at a school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained school, and

(b) the funding authority are of the opinion that—

(i) the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) above have been, but are no longer, met by reason only of the pupil having ceased to be of compulsory school age or sub-paragraph (1) (b) above having ceased to apply, and

1491

(ii) it would not be desirable for the pupil to cease to be provided with the particular board and lodging or, as the case may be, education.

(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies—

(a) if board and lodging is provided by the funding authority, no charge shall be payable to the authority under this Schedule in respect of the board and lodging,

(b) if board and lodging is provided at a maintained or grant-maintained school or by a local education authority, the funding authority shall pay the whole of the charges payable to any local education authority or governing body under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging, and

(c) in any other case the funding authority shall pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging or, as the case may be, the education.

(5) This paragraph does not apply in the case of a pupil for whom a statement is maintained under section 159 of this Act.
7B.—(1) This paragraph applies where any pupil ordinarily resident in the area is being provided with board and lodging (at a boarding school or otherwise than at school) or with education at a school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained school.
(2) If board and lodging is provided at a school maintained by the responsible education authority and the authority are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with board and lodging, or board and lodging otherwise than at school is provided by the authority, (but in any of those cases paragraph 7A(3) above does not apply) then—

(a) the authority may remit the whole or any part of the charges payable to them under this Schedule in respect of the board and lodging, and

(b) if they are of the opinion that, in order to avoid financial hardship to the pupil's parent, the parent should not pay the whole or any part of those charges, the authority shall remit the whole or, as the case may be, that part of those charges.

(3) If board and lodging otherwise than at school is provided by the funding authority or board and lodging is provided at a grant-maintained school or a school maintained by another local education authority (but in any of those cases paragraph 7A(3) above does not apply)—

(a) the responsible education authority may pay the charges payable to the funding authority, or any local education authority or governing body, under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging, and

(b) if they are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with board and lodging, they shall pay so much (if any) of those charges as in their opinion is required to be paid by them in order to avoid financial hardship to the parent.

(4) In any other case in which this paragraph applies (but paragraph 7A(3) above does not apply)—

(a) the local education authority may pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging or, as the case may be, the education, and

(b) if they are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with board and lodging and appropriate for him to be provided with the particular board and lodging, they shall pay so much (if any) of the fees payable in respect of board and lodging as in their opinion is required to be paid by them in order to avoid financial hardship to the parent, and

(c) if they are of the opinion that it is desirable for the pupil to be provided with education otherwise than in a maintained or grant-maintained school and appropriate for him to be provided with the particular education, they shall pay so much (if any) of the fees payable in respect of the education as in their opinion is required to be paid by them in order to avoid financial hardship to the parent.

(5) In this paragraph the "responsible education authority", in relation to a pupil ordinarily resident in any area, means the local education authority for the area.
1492
(6) This paragraph does not apply in the case of a pupil for whom a statement is maintained under section 159 of this Act.
7C.—(l) Where a pupil in the area for whom a statement is maintained under section 159 of this Act is attending a maintained or grant-maintained school, this paragraph applies if—

(a) he is provided with board and lodging at the school and either the school is named in the statement or the responsible education authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him except at a boarding school, or

(b) he is provided with board and lodging otherwise than at school and the responsible education authority are satisfied that the necessary special educational provision cannot be provided for him at the school unless board and lodging are also provided.

(2) Where the board and lodging is provided by the responsible education authority, no charge shall be payable to the authority under this Schedule in respect of the board and lodging.
(3) Where the board and lodging is provided by the funding authority or another local education authority or at a grant-maintained school or a school maintained by another local education authority, the responsible education authority shall pay the charges payable to the funding authority or any local education authority or governing body under this Schedule or the existing charging provisions in respect of the board and lodging.
(4) In any other case to which this paragraph applies, the responsible education authority shall pay to the person providing the board and lodging the whole of the fees in respect of the board and lodging.
(5) In this paragraph the "responsible education authority", in relation to a pupil, means the local education authority responsible for the pupil for the purposes of Part III of this Act.
General
7D.—(1) The following provisions shall not apply—

(a) sections 50 and 52 of the Education Act 1944 (power of LEA to provide board and lodging otherwise than at school and recovery of charges from parents),

(b) section 6(2) (a) (ii) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (payment by LEA of fees and boarding charges where pupil attends non-maintained school because of shortage of places in maintained and grant-maintained schools), and

(c) section III of the Education Reform Act 1988 (charges and remission of charges for board and lodging in maintained and grant-maintained schools).

(2) Any charges payable to the local education authority, the funding authority or the governing body of a grant-maintained school under this Schedule may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: Again, I apologise for slightly holding up proceedings, but perhaps the Minister will reassure the Committee on the Government's thinking on this rather important point. Why will the authority have the responsibility rather than the local education authority, because the local education authority has wider responsibilities, including social responsibilities, and is presumably in a better position to make a judgment?
Lord Henley: It is some time since we debated Amendment No. 71. I believe that it was on 20th April. I would rather not respond, as it were, off the cuff to the noble Lord's point. No doubt my noble friend will be prepared to write to him or perhaps he

1493
would be prepared to look at what my noble friend said when she moved Amendment No. 71 on 20th April.
Lord Judd: The concern remains. I understand the Minister's predicament. He is always particularly helpful in his responses and therefore I think we would all be satisfied if he could write to me, endeavouring to reassure me on the point that I have raised.
Lord Henley: I am sure that any letter from me will reassure the noble Lord and I shall certainly make sure that the letter comes from me and not from my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 320 and 320A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 168, line 43, at end insert:
(". In relation to any power under Chapter IV of Part II of this Act to publish proposals for the establishment of a grant-maintained school—

(a) references to establishing a school for the purpose of providing primary education include establishing a primary school which. also provides secondary education, and

(b) references to establishing a school for the purpose of providing secondary education include establishing a secondary school which also provides primary education.

.—(1) Where relevant education is only primary education

(a) no proposals may be published under section 92 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained school which is a secondary school or if the implementation of the proposals would cause the school to become a secondary school,

(b) no proposals may be published under section 101 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained secondary school, and

(c) no direction may be given under section 144(2) of this Act to the governing body of any grant-maintained secondary school.

(2) Where relevant education is only secondary education

(a) no proposals may be published under section 92 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained school which is a primary school or if the implementation of the proposals would cause the school to become a primary school,

(b) no proposals may be published under section 101 of this Act in respect of any grant-maintained primary school,

(c) no direction may be given under section 144(2) of this Act to the governing body of any grant-maintained primary school.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 322:
Page 168, line 45, at end insert:
("Boarding schools
The powers of the funding authority to publish proposals under sections 45 and 92 of this Act or to give notice of proposals under section 173 of this Act may, in particular, be so exercised as to secure the provision of boarding accommodation at boarding schools.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 169, leave out line I and insert:
("Nursery education
.—(1) No person may—

(a) publish proposals under section 45 or 46 of this Act for the establishment of any nursery school, or

(b) publish proposals under section 91 or 92 of this Act, or give notice of proposals under section 173(3) or (4) of this Act, for a school to become a nursery school.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above, proposals under sections 45, 46, 91, 92 or 173(3) or (4) of this Act may, in particular, be made for the purpose of securing the provision of education for junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years.
Other modifications of Part II").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 323ZA:
Before Schedule 16, insert the following new schedule:
("PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS
General adaptations of enactments
1. References in any enactment to the proprietor or governing body of a school shall be read, in relation to a pupil referral unit, as references to the local education authority.
2. References in any enactment to the head teacher of a school shall be read, in relation to a pupil referral unit, as references to the teacher in charge of the unit (whether known as the head teacher or not).
Modifications of enactments by regulations
3. Regulations may provide for any enactments relating to schools maintained by local education authorities (or schools including such schools)—

(a) to apply in relation to pupil referral units,

(b) to apply in relation to such units with such modifications as may be prescribed, or

(c) not to apply in relation to such units.

Registration
4.—(I) A person who is registered as a pupil at a school other than a pupil referral unit shall not, by reason only of being registered also as a pupil at such a unit, cease for the purposes of the Education Acts to be treated as a registered pupil at that school.
(2) In this Schedule, "registered" means shown in the register kept under section 80 of the Education Act 1944.
Application of Local Government Act 1986
5. A pupil referral unit is a maintained school for the purposes of section 2A(1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality).
Curriculum
6.—(1) Section 17 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (duty of LEA to state policy) applies in relation to pupil referral units as it applies in relation to county schools.
(2) In relation to every pupil referral unit, the Secretary of State, the local education authority and the teacher in charge shall exercise their functions with a view to securing that the curriculum for the unit satisfies the requirements of section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (balanced and broadly based curriculum) and of any other enactment which applies to the curriculum for pupil referral units.
(3) Each local education authority shall, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements for the consideration and disposal of any complaint to the effect that the authority, or the teacher in charge of any pupil referral unit

(a) have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred, or the performance of any duty imposed, on them by or under any enactment referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above, or

1495

(b) have failed to discharge any such duty.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not entertain under section 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944 any complaint in respect of any local education authority, being a complaint—

(a) for which arrangements are required to be made under sub-paragraph (3) above, or

(b) that a local education authority have failed to exercise their powers to secure compliance by the teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit with any such duty as is referred to in that sub-paragraph,

unless a complaint in respect of the local education authority or, as the case may be, the teacher in charge of the unit has been made in respect of the same matter and disposed of in accordance with arrangements under that sub-paragraph.
Discipline
7. The teacher in charge of a pupil referral unit may on disciplinary grounds exclude a pupil from the unit, but not for an indefinite period.
Political indoctrination, political issues and sex education
8. Sections 44 to 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (political indoctrination, treatment of political issues and sex education) apply in relation to pupil referral units as they apply in relation to county schools.
Charges
9.—(1) Sections 106 to 11l and 118 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (charges) apply in relation to pupil referral units as if the references to governing bodies were omitted.
(2) Section 111(2) (b) of that Act shall have effect in relation to a pupil provided with board and lodging at a unit as if after "that" there were inserted "for the time being".
Application of Environmental Protection Act 1990
10. A pupil referral unit is an educational institution for the purposes of Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter).
Information
11. Each local education authority shall make available, on such occasions, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed, to registered parents of registered pupils at any pupil referral unit such information about the unit as may be prescribed.
Disapplication of Schedule 2
12. Schedule 2 to this Act does not apply in relation to pupil referral units or the provision for pupils at such units of board and lodging (whether at units or elsewhere).
Children with special educational needs
13. Sections 153(1) to (3), 154 and 159(5) (b) of this Act, and paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 9 to this Act, apply in relation to pupil referral units as they apply in relation to maintained schools.
School attendance orders
14.—(1) Where a pupil referral unit is named in a school attendance order—

(a) the local education authority shall inform the teacher in charge of the unit, and

(b) if another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the unit, that authority shall admit the child to the unit;

but paragraph (b) above does not affect any power to exclude from a unit a pupil who is already a registered pupil there.
(2) The reference to a school in section 182(4) of this Act does not include a pupil referral unit.
(3) A local education authority shall, before deciding to specify a particular pupil referral unit in a notice under section 182(2) of this Act where another local education authority are responsible for determining the arrangements for the admission of pupils to the unit, consult that authority and, if they decide to specify the unit in the notice, they shall serve notice in writing of their decision on that authority.
(4) Section 183(7) and (8) of this Act applies where a notice is served on a local education authority under sub-paragraph (3) above as it applies where notice is served under subsection (6) of that section.
(5) The parent of a child in respect of whom a school attendance order is in force may not under section 184 of this Act request the local education authority to amend the order by substituting a pupil referral unit for the school named in the order.
(6) Where a child is a registered pupil at both a pupil referral unit and at a school other than a unit, the references in section 188 of this Act to the school at which he is a registered pupil shall be read as references to the unit.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 237ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 323ZB:
Before Schedule 16, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE
UNIFORM STATUTORY TRUSTS FOR EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS
1. The trustees may, after payment of any expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the trust, apply the capital and income of the relevant trust assets for any of the following purposes—

(a) in or towards the purchase of a site for, or the erection, improvement or enlargement of, the premises of any relevant school in the area,

(b) for the maintenance of any relevant school in the area, or

(c) for the maintenance of a teacher's house for use in connection with any relevant school in the area.

2. The trustees may also, after payment of any expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the trust, apply the income of the relevant trust assets for any of the following purposes—

(a) in or towards the provision of advice, guidance and resources (including materials) in connection with any matter related to the management of, or education provided at, any relevant school in the area,

(b) the provision of services for the carrying out of any inspection of any relevant school in the area required by the Education (Schools) Act 1992, or

(c) to defray the cost of employing or engaging staff in connection with—

(i) the application of income of the trust assets referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above, or

(ii) the application of capital or income of the trust assets referred to in paragraph 1 above").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 295B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 323A to 324D:
Page 209, line 20, at end insert:
(". In section 16(1) (transfer of schools to new sites, etc), "any county school or" and the words following "the new site" are omitted.").
Page 209, line 27, leave out paragraph 11 and insert:
(". In section 50 (provision of board and lodging otherwise than at school)—

(a) in subsection (1) "by them" is omitted, and

(b) in subsection (2) after "with respect to the" there is inserted "religion or".

In section 52 (recovery of cost of board and lodging otherwise than at school), in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1), "by the authority" is omitted.").
Page 209, line 39, at end insert:
(". Section 56 (power to provide education otherwise than at school) is omitted.").
Page 210, line 6, leave out ("Section 63(2)") and insert ("That subsection").
Page 210, line 22, after ("(c) (i)") insert ("after "premises" there is inserted "or on a transfer of the school to a new site" and").
Page 210, line 39, after ("1993") insert:
("( ) in the definition of "registered pupil", for "pupil registered as such" there is substituted "person registered as a pupil" ").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 323A was debated with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 323A to 324D en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 324E not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 211, leave out line 35 and insert:
(". In section 6(2) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 (payment of tuition and boarding fees for pupils at non-maintained schools)—

(a) for "the Education Act 1981" there is substituted "Part III of the Education Act 1993",

(b) for "not maintained by them or another local education authority" (in both places) there is substituted "which is not a maintained school",

(c) for "schools maintained by them and schools maintained by other local education authorities" there is substituted "maintained schools",

(d) for "provided by them" in paragraphs (a) (ii) and (b) there is substituted "provided",

(e) paragraph (a) (iii) is omitted, and

(f) at the end there is added—

"and in this subsection "maintained school" means any school maintained by a local education authority and any grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school".
In section 10 of that Act")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 326 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 327A and 328:
Page 212, leave out lines 9 to 12.
Page 212, line 24, leave out paragraph 34 and insert:
(".—(1) Section 1 of the Education Act 1964 (middle schools) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "1980" there is inserted "proposals with respect to a grant-maintained school or proposed grant-maintained school are submitted to the Secretary of State under sections 45, 46, 91 or 92 of the Education Act 1993 or proposals with respect to a county school are published under section 248 of that Act".
(3) In subsection (3), for "1962" there is substituted "1993".).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 327A was debated with Amendment No. 266C and Amendment No. 328 was debated with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 328ZZZA:
Page 213, line 32, at end insert:
("The Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
Section 101(9) (a) of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities) is omitted.
In section 104(2) (a) of that Act (teachers not disqualified for being members of committees) for "for the purposes of the enactments relating to education" there is substituted "exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of the authority's functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 328ZZZB:
Page 214, line 45, at end insert:
(". In Section 26 (exception for single-sex establishments)—
"(4) Section 23 does not apply to the provision of education in single-sex establishments unless there is discrimination by such provision over a continuous period of three years.".").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are intended to probe the Government's reaction to the case of Regina v. Birmingham City Council ex parte The Equal Opportunities Commission (14th October 1992).
Perhaps a word of background would be helpful. The background to this amendment lies with earlier legal proceedings brought against Birmingham City Council by the Equal Opportunities Commission which culminated in a judgment in this House in February 1989 to the effect that the council, as the local education authority, must not, in discharging its duty to secure the availability (for the city) of sufficient schools providing secondary education, discriminate in the provision of selective schools for girls.
The case arose because Birmingham maintained four voluntary aided boys' grammar schools with an aggregate of 390 places and two voluntary aided girls' schools with an aggregate of 210 places. That was found by this House to constitute unlawful sexual discrimination as boys had greater access to selective education than girls.
Subsequently, one of the boys' schools, Handsworth Grammar School, secured grant-maintained status. The second legal case brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission was to determine whether the provision of boys' grammar school places at Handsworth Grammar School, notwithstanding its grant-maintained status, was relevant to the duty on the city council not to discriminate in the provision of selective school places.
In the second case that was determined by the Court of Appeal on 14th October 1992 it was found that the relevant pool of school places is the pool of free places in single sex schools providing grammar school education within the area of the local education authority.
In the case of The Equal Opportunities Commission v. Birmingham City Council in the Court of Appeal where judgment was given on 14th October 1992, the court made the following comments:
"It is noteworthy that in the important paper entitled 'Choice and Diversity, a New Framework for Schools', which was presented to Parliament by the Secretaries for State for Education and Wales in July 1992, no reference was made to the requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act. This Act, and

1499
comparable legislation in the field of race relations, requires close examination when the duties and obligations of bodies responsible for the provision of public sector education are being formulated.
It seems to us that if and when further legislation in the field of education is being considered it is important that account shall be taken of:
(a) the fact that both the Secretary of State and local education authorities retain under the present legislation some overall responsibilities for public sector education as a whole"—
the Court of Appeal would presumably have included the funding authorities if the judgment had been made after the Bill was published on 30th October 1992—
"(b) the fact that the discrimination with which a court would be likely to be primarily concerned would be discrimination against an individual boy or girl or groups of boys or girls.
In these circumstances we consider that amendments should be introduced to enable the elimination of discrimination to take place in accordance with a suitable and sensible timescale. Schools and school places cannot be provided at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, account must be taken of the fact that the risks of discrimination may vary from year to year or even from term to term. Even if precisely equal numbers of places are provided at particular types of school both for boys and girls, girls may require to achieve a higher mark to obtain admission. Under the present legislation this might constitute a form of unlawful discrimination. But the disparities would be likely to vary from year to year and be due to factors over which local education authorities or governing bodies could not possibly exercise control. It may therefore be right to provide that unlawful discrimination could only be proved if over a period a pattern of discrimination could be established".
The Government have been invited by Birmingham City Council to respond to the court's observations. These two amendments are ways in which the anxieties expressed by the Court of Appeal can effectively be addressed.
The first amendment makes the provision of education in single-sex establishments by a local education authority not amount to sex discrimination unless such provision is discriminatory over a continuous period of three years. It therefore avoids the problem of an LEA being subject to a finding of unlawful sex discrimination because of fluctuations in demand for single-sex places or, in the case of selective places, fluctuations in performance between the sexes on a year by year basis, unless those fluctuations provide a continuous pattern over at least three years.
The second amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring proceedings on account of an act of unlawful sex discrimination by an LEA in the carrying out of its education functions, unless notice is given to the LEA and the Secretary of State and, where the proceedings are based on the provision of education in single-sex establishments, a period of one year has elapsed without the LEA bringing forward proposals to remedy the discrimination.
Without that machinery, LEAs are unduly exposed to the hazards of proceedings being brought in the courts by individual claimants. While at present notice must be given to the Secretary of State of such an action, the waiting period before the claim can be brought is only two months. That is not an adequate time to allow for LEAs to bring forward proposals to remedy the cause of discrimination, either in the form of proposals for the opening of a new school, the
1500
closure of an existing school or the change in the character of an existing school. For example, by a change from single-sex to co-educational provision.
LEAs must allow time for adequate consultation with parents and governing bodies and for proposals to be considered by the Secretary of State. The period of one year is designed to provide for all that to happen. It is still a tight timetable. But it is designed to prevent an LEA drawing out the process to the detriment of individuals who suffer discrimination. The objective must be to ensure the effective implementation of the law and the vital principles behind the law, rather than bringing the law into disrepute by a palpably unsatisfactory arrangement.
It would be helpful if we could have the Government's reaction to the Court of Appeal judgment, and indeed to what is suggested in the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I shall speak first to my Amendment No. 328ZZA. It is a technical amendment which marks no new departures, but merely seeks to put proposals for single-sex schools to become co-educational, made under the provisions of the current Bill, on the same footing as proposals made under existing legislation.
The Sex Discrimination Act sensibly recognises that where a school is moving from single-sex to co-educational status, numbers and provision cannot be made equal in one move. A period of transition is necessary. The Act therefore allows for a transitional exemption order to authorise admissions arrangements for the period specified in the order which might otherwise be considered discriminatory.
Rather than place on responsible bodies the additional burden of making separate applications for such orders, the Sex Discrimination Act provides that whenever proposals are made to the Secretary of State involving a change of character from a single-sex to a co-educational school, those proposals shall also be taken to be an application for a transitional exemption order. That arrangement does not affect consideration of the merits of the proposals to change the character of the school, and comes into effect only if, after proper consideration, the proposals are accepted.
The amendment extends the transitional exemption arrangement to proposals for the alteration of schools made under the provisions of the Bill. It is sensible that proposals designed to do the same thing, in this case change a school from being a single-sex establishment, should be treated in the same way, whatever body they are made by. The existing arrangements are fair and workable and should also apply to the new provisions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 328ZZZB and 328ZZZC.
I have every sympathy with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendments. Compliance with the Sex Discrimination Act brings difficulties for local education authorities (and, if this Bill is enacted, the Funding Agency for Schools) in carrying out their duties to provide school places where some of that provision is in single sex schools. Many pupils and their parents value single sex education, and, though

1501
there is no obligation for such education to be provided, many authorities do so. Where this happens the LEA has a duty under the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure equality of opportunity.
I am aware of the judgment delivered in the Court of Appeal last October in the Birmingham case in which the learned judge suggested changes to the law to secure that unlawful discrimination could be proved only if over a period of time a pattern of discrimination could be established. The court recognised that the incidence of demand for places at single sex schools might vary, and that school places could not be provided at the drop of a hat. The court acknowledged that this was a difficult area and that there was no easy solution.
The Government have given these very complex matters long and hard consideration. We hold to the principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in the Sex Discrimination Act. We recognise that our reforms have introduced new complications. To add or take away places at grant-maintained schools is beyond the control of an LEA, yet since the Birmingham judgment we must assume that authorities must normally ensure equality of access or provision in all the maintained schools in their area, including those that are grant-maintained.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment will be to require LEAs to rectify an anomaly in the provision of places at single sex schools, whether by allowing them a longer timescale or by providing that they publish notices within one year of their intention to create or take away places where an individual has brought a complaint of sex discrimination.
I do not believe that this is the best way to proceed. Even over a longer period of time, it is not easy to provide new places. It is arguably less easy to remove them, and the outcome of all the activity envisaged by these amendments may very well add to the considerable number of surplus places in the system. Our consideration of these issues in the light of the Birmingham judgment has convinced us that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is premature.
A further case is now pending in which judicial review has been sought of the decision to close Kettering Boys' School. The school is to close in August because it is no longer viable. Having considered the situation in the light of the Birmingham judgment, we have concluded that it is highly desirable to have the view of the court on whether Northamptonshire LEA are in breach of their statutory duty to ensure equality of access to single sex education for boys and girls before contemplating fresh legislation in this complex and sensitive area. I understand that the appellant is seeking to have the hearing expedited, but it will not be heard in time for any changes to be made—if any are necessary—in this Bill. Given the sensitivity of this subject, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Judd: I take the last point made by the Minister. I am grateful for the sensitive way in which she has replied. I notice that she does not reject the amendment out of hand but suggests that it is premature. I believe that there is a good deal to be considered in what she said. I hope that, depending on
1502
what happens in the courts, she will be ready to look again at what we have put forward in the amendments to see whether if the need arises in future something may be done to meet it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.328ZZZC not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No.328ZZA:
Page 215, line 3, at end insert:
(".—( ) Where under section 173(2) (b) of this Act a local education authority serve notice of proposals for a maintained special school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only, the responsible body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the Secretary of State of a transitional exemption order, and the Secretary of State may make such an order accordingly.
( ) Where under section 91 of this Act the governing body of a grant-maintained school publish proposals for the school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only and Part II of this Act has effect with the modifications in section 96(2) to (7) of this Act in relation to the proposals, then—

(a) paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1975 Act shall not apply unless the proposals require the approval of the Secretary of State, and

(b) in any other case, the governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the funding authority of a transitional exemption order, and the funding authority may make such an order accordingly.

( ) Where under section 92 of this Act the funding authority submit to the Secretary of State a copy of proposals for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only, then—

(a) if the proposals require the approval of the Secretary of State, the governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by him of a transitional exemption order, and

(b) in any other case, the governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the funding authority of such an order,

and the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the funding authority may make such an order accordingly.
( ) Where proposals made by the Secretary of State under section 221 of this Act—

(a) are for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only, and

(b) have effect as mentioned in section 223(3) of this Act, the responsible body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the Secretary of State of a transitional exemption order, and the Secretary of State may make such an order accordingly.

( ) Where—

(a) by reason of section 249(4) (b) of this Act any proposals for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only may not be determined until the Secretary of State has made his determination with respect to any proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status, and

(b) the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status and the proposals for the school to cease to be such an establishment are approved (with or without modification),

paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1975 Act shall not apply but the new governing body shall be treated as having applied for the making by the Secretary of State of a transitional exemption order, and he may make such an order accordingly.
( ) In this paragraph—
"responsible body" has the same meaning as in section 22 of the 1975 Act,
"the 1975 Act" means the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and
"transitional exemption order" has the same meaning as in section 27 of the 1975 Act,

1503
and references to proposals for a school to cease to be an establishment which admits pupils of one sex only are references to proposals which are or include proposals for such an alteration in a school's admissions arrangements as is mentioned in section 27(1) of the 1975 Act (single-sex establishments turning co-educational).").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No.328ZZA was spoken to with Amendment No.328ZZZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch Match moved Amendments Nos. 328ZA and 328ZB:
Page 215, line 30, leave out from ("for") to end of line 31 and insert ("the words from "special arrangements" to "1981" there is substituted "section 155 or (Exceptional provision of education in school or elsewhere) of the Education Act 1993".").
Page 216, line 7, leave out paragraph 69 and insert:
(". In section 14 (approval of school premises)—

(a) in subsection (1) (c), after "school" there is inserted "or the transfer of a school to a new site", and

(b) subsection (4) is omitted.

In section 16 (provisions supplementary to sections 12 to 15), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the transfer of a school to a new site—

(a) if the transfer is authorised by an order under section 16(1) of the Education Act 1944,

(b) if at the time of transfer the school is intended to return to the existing site within three years, or

(c) if in the case of a county school the new site is in the same area and the local education authority are satisfied that it is expedient that the school should be transferred to the new site either because it is not reasonably practicable to make to the existing premises of the school the alterations necessary for securing that they conform to the prescribed standards or in consequence of any movement of population or of any action taken or proposed to be taken under the enactments relating to housing or to town and country planning.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 328ZA was spoken to with Amendment No. 237ZA and Amendment No. 328ZB was spoken to with Amendment No. 171ZC. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 216, line 18 at end insert:
("70A. In section 30 (governors' annual report to parents), in subsection (1) (a) after "report" there is inserted "including in particular steps connected with—

(i) the quality of education provided by the school,

(ii) the efficient management of the financial resources made available to the school,

(iii) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school".").

The noble Baroness said: The grouping list shows this amendment as having been debated. After a little checking, I am satisfied that it was not in fact debated. I have mentioned this to the Government and Opposition Front Benches, so I hope that it has not taken them too much unawares.
This raises the subject of the governors' report and, in particular, the issue of quality. The aim of the amendment is to produce a new way of improving quality assurance in schools by requiring the governing body to give specific attention to certain key
1504
issues on a regular basis. The amendment seeks to expand the reporting requirements in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Section 30(1) of that Act provides that a school's articles of government shall provide for a report to be made each year containing a summary of the steps taken by the governing body to discharge its functions. It is here that I propose the insertion of the amendment. The steps are described as in particular those connected with:

"(i) the quality of education provided by the school,

(ii) the efficient management of the financial resources made available to the school,

(iii) the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school".

The section in the 1986 Act goes on to provide that the report should be as brief as is reasonably consistent with the requirements as to its contents. A later subsection provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, make amendments to the subsection to which I have just referred.
It might be said that, given the ability of the Secretary of State to make amendments, the information that I propose should be included in the reports could be required by such an order to be included. Though many Members of the Committee have objections to such clauses, this is at least one occasion when perhaps it might not be objectionable. However, I should like to see whether we can deal with the matter in the Bill now.
The three subject areas which I have mentioned are not new either in content or in the way in which they are worded. They are taken from the 1992 Act where they are part of the definition of the duties of the chief inspector and the registered inspectors. Each four-yearly school inspection has to be conducted with regard to these three criteria and to educational standards. The inspection report will then need the governing body to produce an action plan. We have already referred on a number of occasions to the governors' action plan. Thereafter, there is an annual obligation on the governors to report in the following three years on the extent to which the proposals set out in the action plan have been carried into effect.
The amendment proposes two main improvements. The first is to give governing bodies a stimulus to consider the breadth and the balance of the curriculum that they are providing. There are requirements for league tables. The governors' attention is drawn each year to particular kinds of outputs. There may be a better balance between consideration of educational achievements shown in league tables and the quality of the education provided. One should not separate the two considerations. The 1992 Act also covers financial efficiency. The amendment seeks to allow scope for the school's efforts to achieve improvement in financial efficiency to be reported, though what we are principally concerned about is not outputs. It is the quality of education provided—in other words, inputs.
Secondly, the amendment is intended to direct the governing body towards a little self-criticism and self-improvement and to help to avoid any complacency between four-yearly inspections.
The action plan, and the requirement to report on the steps taken following the action plan, may mean that there are other problems which may be emerging. It is intended that these amendments would require the governors not to be subject only to the tunnel vision of what is within the action plan. It is not intended that these requirements be cumbersome; they are merely to prompt governors to reflect once a year on what they have actually done.
Perhaps I may make a personal comment in that regard. The primary school whose governing body I chair has recently been preparing its annual report to parents. We realised that we had become so concerned with reporting the required detail that we were not seeing the whole in a very clear fashion. The minutes of the meeting reported my comment that we had come up with rather a bland document. The author of the report sent me note saying that that was not surprising given the constraints on what has to be within the report.
I hope that this amendment may win some sympathy from the Minister. There may be other means of giving effect to it, but it is worth raising the issue. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Section 30 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires the articles of government of every local authority-maintained school to provide a governors' report to parents. The report must contain a summary of the steps taken by the governing body in the discharge of their functions during the period since the last report. That summary will clearly include references to all main actions that the school has taken during the previous year.
Among the specific requirements of the annual report is the provision of information on public examinations. The Education (Schools) Act 1992 which this House considered last year, also contained provisions to extend the list of contents of the annual reports. That power could be used, for example, to make the reports include details about national curriculum assessment, pupil routes and attendance.
A further requirement is that the report must set out the steps that have been taken to strengthen community links. We believe that all schools should have very close involvement with the community and should be required to account for the way in which such links are being forged. The report must also contain a financial statement indicating in general terms how the fund made available to the governing body by the local authority in respect of its budget share under LMS has been used and how any gifts to the school have been applied.
It must also reproduce or summarise the financial statement provided to the governing body by the local education authority. The criteria quoted in the amendment—for example, those referring to a pupil's spiritual and cultural development—will already be familiar to many. They are the criteria to be used when schools of all kinds are inspected by registered inspectors or, in the case of denominational schools, by denominational inspectors.
1506
Following those inspections the governing body will be required to produce an action plan. It will then have to record in its annual report progress on the action plan. If the action plan is not complete, it will have to return to this issue year on year until the parent body is satisfied that the information is at an end. The governing body is then required to make the report available to parents.
A school's annual report is not, however, the only method by which its performance can be reported back to parents. The governing body is also required to hold annual parents' meetings. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss both the governors' annual report to parents and how the governing body, the head teacher and the LEA have carried out their responsibilities in relation to the school. These parents' meetings therefore give parents the opportunity to comment on a wide range of matters concerning the conduct of the school, including the quality of education at the school and the school's financial management.
However, they are not merely talking shops. Parents are given positive powers to influence the conduct of a school. If enough parents are present at the meeting, they may pass resolutions on any matters which may properly be discussed at the meeting. The governing body, head teacher and LEA are then required to consider any resolutions passed by the parents. The outcome of that consideration must then be reported in the next governors' report. Your Lordships will therefore see that the existing arrangements for LEA-maintained schools, along with the inspection arrangements, already cover the ground dealt with by the amendment. So I do not believe that it is desirable to overload the Bill with a mass of detail, much of which repeats existing arrangements.
Earl Russell: I am not sure that the Minister has quite taken on board the point of my noble friend's amendment. I would not go quite so far as to say that the link between quality and performance indicators is, like the resemblance to any living person, purely coincidental. But the overlap is not total. The noble Baroness might take the point better if she were to consider the story of Sir Alec Clegg as a junior teacher, teaching his first O-level class. He bounced triumphantly into the staffroom, saying that he had achieved passes with 27 out of 28 of his class, only to get the reply from the senior teacher, "In any sensible system, Clegg, you'd have got the sack for a result like that".
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour that is leading me to take exception for a second time this evening to an interpretation of what I have said. If I had said that the only information imparted to parents was examination results, I could clearly not only be criticised, but would deserve to be criticised. However, we now have a system where all the information about a school: what it teaches; how it teaches; its policies for special needs and for every aspect of school life—moral, cultural, spiritual, academic, mental and physical—is made available to parents. There is an annual meeting at which parents

1507
are given an opportunity not only to discuss, ask questions and to criticise, but also to pass resolutions. We also have informal apparatus, such as parents coming into schools for parents' evenings and to meet tutors and form teachers. I do not believe that there has ever been a more exposed system which allows parents to have as much information as they like. So to come back to me and to say that I was saying that the result of one examination can somehow depict all of that is to put a gross misinterpretation on what I said.
I entirely understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was saying. I believe that I have covered quality. It is a judgment to be made by parents in the three years between annual inspections, but when annual inspections are made, they cover not only academic and public examinations but all other aspects of the school also. So there will be a properly objective assessment of the quality of the school. On the efficient management of financial controls, I have already said that a financial summary is made available to parents. I believe that spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is also covered.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not think that the Minister has done a great deal more than repeat a good deal of what I said when moving the amendment. I take her point about what is already provided, but I do not think that her reply has really addressed my anxiety that the sight of the wood may be lost for some of the trees, which is something that underlies this and about which I retain anxiety. However, it is late and I shall read what the Minister has said. I have had the section of the 1986 Act open by me as she has spoken and have followed her references. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.328B:
Page 216, line 20 at end insert:
(". In paragraph 1(3) and (4) of Schedule 2 (constitution of appeal committees) "or of any education committee of the authority", in each place where it occurs, is omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: This was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 328C, 328D and 329:
Page 216, line 29, at end insert:
("The Value Added Tax Act 1983 (c. 55)
In Note (2) of Group 6 of Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 (meaning of "school" for purposes of determining whether provision of education is an exempt supply) for "1981" there is substituted "1993".").
Page 217, line 15, at end insert:
(". In section 5(4) (b) (appointment of parent governors by governing body) the words after "by the authority" are omitted.").
Page 217, line 41, at end insert:
(". In section 47 (abolition of corporal punishment), at the end of subsection (6) (b) there is added "or by the funding authority or a local education authority under paragraph 7A or 7B of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1993".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 329ZA:
Page 218, line 5, at end insert:
(". In section 38 (duties of local education authority and governing body in relation to appointment of staff)—
( ) in subsection (4) (c) the words after "to the post" are omitted, and
( ) in subsection (6) (b) "or (4) (c) (ii)" is omitted,
and any provision made by virtue of subsection (4) (c) (ii) of that section in the articles of government for any county, controlled, special agreement or maintained special school shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was debated with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 329ZB not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 329ZC and 329ZD:
Page 218, line 41, after ("omitted") insert:
("( ) in paragraph 7(7) the words after "by the authority" are omitted.").
Page 218, line 44, at end insert:
("The Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)
Section 1(1) (j) of the Local Government Act 1988 (defined authorities) is omitted.
In Schedule 2 to that Act the words from "A joint education committee" to "1944" are omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 329ZA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 329A:
Page 218, line 44, at end insert:
(". In Schedule 3, in paragraphs 7(c) (1) and 8(d) for "or" there is substituted "and".").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to make possible both oral and written representations at exclusion appeal hearings. The procedure for exclusion appeal hearings is regulated by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. That sets out that authorities must choose between making oral and written representations. That has been interpreted liberally for several years, so that, for example, the LEA has often been allowed to submit a written representation of the case ahead of the hearing, which has been available to parents, and has then been represented in person at the hearing to go over the written statement and answer questions in front of the panel and the pupil's parents. That has been widely regarded as a fair method of handling such hearings. It gives parents time to examine the LEA's or governors' case ahead of the hearing, but also gives them the chance to hear the case made orally. This is particularly helpful for parents who are not confident with written English.
The legality of that practice has, however, been thrown into doubt by an ombudsman's decision (Rotherham, 1992) which ruled that allowing the LEA to make both written and oral representations was maladministration, given the letter of the law. The technical grounds for the finding are difficult to challenge. The commonsense reason for challenging that development is more straightforward. It seems very likely to lead to proceedings which are more, not less, difficult for parents to prepare for, follow and

1509
participate in. Natural justice would appear to be reduced. The only way to put the commonsense approach on a firm legal footing is to amend the original legislation. No convincing account of the reasoning behind the original wording has been forthcoming since the Rotherham ruling.
It has been suggested that there may be a need to safeguard against LEAs introducing new evidence at a hearing which should have been shared earlier. However, the local authority associations' Code of Practice On Procedure for appeals committees, which may be cited by the ombudsman states:
"if any of the parties intends to raise matters or produce documents at the hearing which are not covered by the statement of decision [i.e. the initial decision to exclude] or the notice of appeal, these should he submitted to the clerk to the appeal committee in good time before the hearing. If substantial new issues are raised for the first time at the hearing … an adjournment may be necessary to allow any party taken by surprise to consider the issues".
Observation of that guidance should safeguard against any unfair advantage arising as a result of the proposed change. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am indeed sympathetic. The Government believe that two considerations should be paramount when holding an exclusion appeal hearing. First, the emphasis should be on the need for an early decision to be made in the interests of the child involved. Secondly, in the interests of common justice and a full and impartial hearing of the facts, all parties should be entitled to present relevant facts, both orally and in writing.
The Government find no difficulty in accepting the principle of the amendment, but we should like the opportunity to reflect further on its ramifications, notably in terms of ensuring that—in the interests of a fair hearing—the pupil and his parents enjoy identical rights to those now proposed for the LEA.
If the Committee is content, therefore, we shall consider the matter further, in order to determine how best to give effect to the principle of the amendment. For example, it may not be necessary to introduce a further amendment to the Bill: Schedule 3 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 already contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend the schedule by order. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me time to reflect upon what he had to say.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am encouraged by the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 329B and 329C:
Page 219, line 14, leave out ("(4) (a) (standing advisory councils on religious education)") and insert ("(standing advisory councils on religious education)—
( ) in subsection (4) (a)").
Page 219, line 16, at end insert ("and
( ) at the end of that section there is added—
"(13) The council shall send a copy of each report published by them under subsection (9) above—
1510

(a) in the case of a council for an area in England, to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and

(b) in the case of a council for an area in Wales, to the Curriculum Council for Wales." ").

The noble Viscount said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 276. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 330 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 220, line 21, at end insert:
(". In section 111 (charges for board and lodging at boarding schools)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "at the expense of" to the end there is substituted "there shall be payable in respect of the board and lodging by the parent of the pupil concerned (in the case of a school maintained by a local education authority) to the authority and (in the case of a grant-maintained school) to the governing body charges not exceeding the cost to the authority or governing body of providing the board and lodging",

(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) and the words following it there is substituted—

"(b) the local education authority for his area are of the opinion that education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have cannot otherwise be provided for him,

then, where the school is maintained by the local education authority for his area, that authority shall remit the whole of the charges payable under this section and, in any other case, that authority shall pay the whole of the charges payable under this section to the authority which maintains the school",

(c) for subsection (3) (b) there is substituted—

"(b) the local education authority for his area are of the opinion that education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have cannot otherwise be provided for him",

(d) subsection (4) is omitted, and

(e) in subsection (5)—

(i) for "a local education authority" there is substituted "the local education authority for the pupil's area", and

(ii) in paragraph (b), after "payable" there is inserted "to another local education authority or" and "provided under arrangements made by the authority" is omitted.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 221, line 12, at end insert:
(". In Schedule 2 (curriculum and assessment councils) in paragraph 8(1) (payments for members) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(b) shall, as regards any member of the Council in whose case the Secretary of State may so determine, pay or make provision for the payment of such sums by way of pension, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of him as the Secretary of State may determine."").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 332 is a technical amendment and amends Schedule 2 to the Education Reform Act 1988 to bring the method of payment for the Curriculum Council of Wales members into line with those agreed by the Committee earlier this week in respect of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 332ZA and 332ZB:
Page 221, line 31, leave out from ("omitted,") to end of line 35.
Page 222, line 25, at end insert:
(". In section 13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (voting rights of members of committees)—

(a) subsection (2) (b) is omitted,

(b) for subsection (5) there is substituted—

"(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent the appointment of a person who is not a member of a local education authority as a voting member of—

(a) any committee or sub-committee appointed by the local authority exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of the authority's functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their Capacity as a local education authority,

(b) any joint committee appointed by two or more local authorities exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of those authorities' functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as local education authorities, or

(c) any sub-committee appointed by any such committee or joint committee exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging that committee's functions with respect to education,

where that appointment is required by directions given by the Secretary of State under section [Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees] of the Education Act 1993 (power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees).",

(c) subsection (6) is omitted, and

(d) in subsection (7) for "education committee or sub-committee of an education committee" there is substituted "committee, joint committee or sub-committee appointed for the purpose mentioned in that subsection".

In Schedule 1 to that Act (political balance on local authority committees) in paragraph 4—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) the definition of "education committee" is omitted, and

(ii) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee, their" is omitted, and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee or" is omitted").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 332ZA was spoken to with Amendment No. 266C. Amendment No. 332ZB was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 332ZC:
Page 222, line 26, leave out ("the Local Government and Housing Act 1989") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 333A and 333 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 223, line 2, at end insert:
(". In section 10 (interpretation) in subsection (1) after "immediately before it became a grant-maintained school" there is added "or which was established in pursuance of proposals published under section 46 of the Education Act 1993 and either any trust deed relating to the school or the statement required by paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to that Act
1512
provides for religious education for pupils at the school to be given in accordance with the faith and practice of the Church of England".").
The right reverend Prelate said: I understand that the Government may not have had time to give full consideration to the amendment. It is a small technical amendment. It brings the Diocesan Board of Education Measure into line with the Bill where there are new Church grant-maintained schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy in principle with the proposed amendment. It simply includes new Church of England grant-maintained schools in the definition of Church schools covered by the diocesan boards. Will the right reverend Prelate allow me to inspect the wording between now and Report? I accept the principle of the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that in doing so she will glance also at the wording of Amendment No. 333. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 334ZA not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 334ZB:
Page 223, line II, at end insert:
("139A. In Schedule 2 to that Act there is inserted—
"(k) a course provided for persons with profound and multiple learning disabilities at an institution designated by the Secretary of State."").
The noble Lord said: I shall attempt to be brief in moving the amendment. It is a small but important amendment. It is proposed to include the kind of courses provided at the Orchard Hill further education centre and other equivalent institutions for those with profound and multiple learning disabilities among Schedule 2 courses dealt with by the further education funding council. The students who take those courses have great difficulty with the basic skills required to relate to other people and to society as a whole. It is very important for such students because it enables them to have a far better quality of life than they would otherwise have. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to comment favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment seeks to add to the duties on the further education funding councils under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Under the Act, the funding councils have a duty to secure full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds. They also have a duty to secure part-time education for those over compulsory school age and full-time education for those aged 19 and over of the kind listed in Schedule 2 to the Act. LEAs have the duty to secure all types of provision not covered by the scope of the duties on the councils. The duties on both the funding councils and LEAs embrace provision for those with learning difficulties. The amendment would add to the funding councils' duties provision for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties at institutions designated by the Secretary of State.
It is important to be clear that we are not debating the importance of provision for students with profound and multiple learning difficulties. I agree

1513
with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that for such people that provision is an absolute lifeline. The Government have no doubt about the value of provision for these students. Nor are we debating whether there should be a duty to secure this type of provision. The Government are clear that there should be such a duty and we have provided for that under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
What we are debating is whether this duty should lie wholly with the further education funding councils. As I have explained, the Further and Higher Education Act provides that any type of further education provision that is not subject to the duty applying to the funding councils is automatically subject to the duty applying to LEAs.. I do not accept that making provision for certain students the responsibility of the funding councils will give it higher status. Nor do I accept that giving a duty to the funding councils rather than to LEAs will make it more likely to be discharged. The duty on.LEAs is no less strong than on the funding councils.
I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary. It would simply transfer to the funding councils part of the responsibilities which the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 at present leaves with LEAs. But a duty is a duty: it is equally strong whether the funding councils or the LEAs have to discharge it. Of course, it is for the funding councils and LEAs to determine what provision they should support in pursuit of their respective responsibility. But they cannot ignore the needs of students with learning difficulties. Both the council and LEAs have a specific duty to have regard to the requirements of these students.
We understand the anxiety which lies behind the amendment. But it would be quite difficult for an LEA with Schedule 2 responsibilities to determine that a young adult has such profound and multiple learning disabilities that he should be the responsibility of a funding council rather than an LEA. That may give rise to a disagreement as to how profound are the disabilities. It would be extremely undignified to have internecine battles as regards how profound are the person's disabilities. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the duty to provide such education should rest with one body or another. The 1992 Act provides that the responsibility should rest with the LEAs.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. She made several points which bear further consideration. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): If Amendment No. 334ZC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 334.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 334ZC:
Page 223, line 20 leave out paragraph 142 and insert:
(".—(1) In section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (schools inspection), in subsection (7) for "section" there is substituted "Act".
(2) Schedule 2 to that Act is amended as follows.
(3) In paragraph 1, for the words from "body" (at the end of the definition of "appropriate authority") to the end there is substituted—
""inspection by a member of the Inspectorate" means a section 9 inspection carried out by a member of the Inspectorate or an inspection under section 2(2) (b), 3(1), 6(2) (b) or 7(1),
"member of the Inspectorate" means the Chief Inspector, any of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England or, as the case may be, Wales and any additional inspector, and
"section 9 inspection" means an inspection under section 9,
and for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, special measures are required to be taken in relation to a school if the school is failing or likely to fail to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education."
(4) For "an inspection" in paragraphs 2, 3(5), 4(1), 5(1), 6 and 7 there is substituted "a section 9 inspection" and for "Every inspection" in paragraph 3(1) there is substituted "Every section 9 inspection".
(5) For paragraph 9 there is substituted—
"9.—(1) Where a section 9 inspection by a registered inspector has been completed, the inspector shall make in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report.
(2) Where the inspector is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school he shall submit a draft of the report of the inspection to the Chief Inspector.
(3) If the Chief Inspector so requests, an inspector who has submitted a draft under sub-paragraph (2) shall provide the Chief Inspector with such further information as the Chief Inspector may specify.
(4) The Chief Inspector shall inform an inspector who has submitted a draft under sub-paragraph (2) whether he agrees or disagrees with the inspector's opinion.
(5) Where—

(a) the Chief Inspector informs the inspector that he disagrees with the inspector's opinion, but

(b) the inspector remains of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school,

the inspector may not make a report expressing that opinion unless the terms in which he makes the report are substantially the same (except as to the statement required by sub-paragraph (7) (b)) as the draft or as a subsequent draft submitted to the Chief Inspector under this sub-paragraph.
(6) Where a subsequent draft is submitted under sub-paragraph (5), the Chief Inspector shall inform the inspector whether he agrees or disagrees with the inspector's opinion.
(7) A report made by a registered inspector who is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school shall—

(a) state his opinion, and

(b) state whether the Chief Inspector agrees or disagrees with his opinion.

(8) If a report of an inspection of a school by a registered inspector is made in circumstances where—

(a) he is of the opinion that special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school, but

(b) in the latest report of an inspection of the school, the person making the report stated that in his opinion such measures were required to be taken and either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

the person making the report shall state his opinion in the report.
9A.—(1) Where on the completion of any inspection of a school under section 2(2) (b), 3(1), 6(2) (b) or 7(1) by a member of the Inspectorate, he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, he shall—

1515

(a) prepare in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report, and

(b) state his opinion in the report.

(2) If on the completion of any such inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate in circumstances where—

(a) he is of the opinion that special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school, but

(b) in the latest report of an inspection of the school, the person making the report stated that in his opinion such measures were required to be taken and either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

the member of the Inspectorate shall prepare in writing a report of the inspection and a summary of the report and state his opinion in the report.
(3) A report of a section 9 inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate shall, if he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, state his opinion.
(4) If a report of a section 9 inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate is made in circumstances where—

(a) he is of the opinion that special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school, but

(b) in the latest report of an inspection of the school, the person making the report stated that in his opinion such measures were required to be taken and either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

the member of the Inspectorate shall state his opinion in the report.
9B.—(1) The carrying out of a section 9 inspection shall be completed by the time allowed under sub-paragraph (2) and the making of the report required by paragraph 9 shall be completed within the period allowed under sub-paragraph (2).
(2) The time, and the period, allowed shall be such as may be prescribed, subject to any such extension of the period as the Chief Inspector may consider necessary to make; but the total period allowed must not exceed the prescribed period extended by three months.
(3) The Chief Inspector shall give notice in writing of any extension under sub-paragraph (2) to—

(a) the inspector,

(b) the appropriate authority, and

(c) the Secretary of State, except in the case of a maintained nursery school.

(4) This paragraph does not apply to a section 9 inspection carried out by a member of the Inspectorate.
9C.—(1) In the case of a report of a section 9 inspection of a school, the person making it shall without delay—

(a) send a copy of the report together with the summary of it to the appropriate authority for the school, and

(b) if it states that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken,in relation to the school, and either that person is a member of the Inspectorate or the report states that the Chief Inspector agrees with his opinion, send a copy of the report and summary to the Secretary of State.

(2) In the case of a report of an inspection of a school made by a member of the Inspectorate which is required by paragraph 9A to state that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, the member of the Inspectorate shall send a copy of the report together with the summary of it to the appropriate authority for the school and to the Secretary of State.
(3) In any case, copies of the report and summary shall be sent by the person who made the report to the Chief Inspector (unless the report was made by a member of the Inspectorate).
(4) In the case of—

(a) a special school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained special school, or

(b) an independent school approved by the Secretary of State under section 178(1) of the Education Act 1993 (approval of independent schools for children with statements),

the appropriate authority shall without delay send a copy of any report and summary sent to them under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) to the funding authority, or any local education authority, if the authority are paying fees in respect of the attendance of a registered pupil at the school.
(5) The appropriate authority shall—

(a) make any report and summary sent to the authority under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) available for inspection by members of the public at such times and at such place as may be reasonable,

(b) provide a copy of the report and summary, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment of such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply), to any person who asks for one, and

(c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the summary as soon as is reasonably practicable."

(6) For paragraphs 10 and 11 there is substituted—
" 10.—(1) Where—

(a) a report of a section 9 inspection of a school, or

(b) a report of an inspection of a school made by a member of the Inspectorate which is required by paragraph 9A to state that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school,

is sent to the appropriate authority they shall prepare a written statement of the action which they propose to take in the light of the report and the period within which they propose to take it.
(2) It is the duty of the appropriate authority to prepare the statement within the period allowed by this sub-paragraph, that is—

(a) such period as may be prescribed, or

(b) if, in the case of any report where the person making it states that he is of the opinion that special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, and either that person is a member of the Inspectorate or the report states that the Chief Inspector agrees with his opinion, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the urgency of the case requires a shorter period, such period as the Secretary of State may direct,

but this sub-paragraph does not relieve the appropriate authority of any duty to prepare a statement which has not been performed within that period.
(3) Where such a statement has been prepared by the appropriate authority they shall, before the end of the prescribed period, send copies of it—

(a) to the Chief Inspector,

(b) to the Secretary of State, except in the case of a maintained nursery school, and

(c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to such other persons (if any) as may be prescribed.

(4) In the case of—

(a) a special school which is not a maintained or grant-maintained special school, or

(b) an independent school approved by the Secretary of State under section 178(1) of the Education Act 1993 (approval of independent schools for children with statements),

the appropriate authority shall, before the end of the prescribed period, send a copy of any such statement

1517
prepared by them to the funding authority, or any local education authority, if the authority are paying fees in respect of the attendance of a registered pupil at the school.
(5) The appropriate authority shall—

(a) make any statement prepared by them under this paragraph available for inspection by members of the public, at such times and at such place as may be reasonable,

(b) provide a copy of the statement, free of charge or in prescribed cases on payment of such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply), and

(c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the statement as soon as is reasonably practicable.

11.—(1) This paragraph applies in circumstances where—

(a) in a report of an inspection of a school the person who made it expressed the opinion that special measures were required to be taken in relation to the school,

(b) either that person was a member of the Inspectorate or the report stated that the Chief Inspector agreed with his opinion,

(c) a statement has been prepared under paragraph 10 or the period prescribed for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph has expired, and

(d) if any registered inspector or member of the Inspectorate has made a later report of an inspection of the school, he did not express the opinion in the report that special measures were not required to be taken in relation to the school.

(2) Regulations may make provision with a view to securing that any measures taken by the appropriate authority for improving the standard of education at the school are monitored in accordance with the regulations by such persons as may be prescribed.
(3) The regulations may, in particular, provide for reports to be made by such persons and at such intervals as may be prescribed.
(4) The regulations may authorise the Secretary of State to require the Chief Inspector to conduct further inspections of the school and prepare further reports of such inspections.
(5) In respect of cases where any report prepared in pursuance of a requirement imposed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above—

(a) states that, in the opinion of the person who prepared the report, special measures are required to be taken in relation to the school, but the grounds for that opinion are substantially different from the grounds for the opinion in any preceding report by a registered inspector or member of the Inspectorate, or

(b) states that, in the opinion of that person, special measures are not required to be taken in relation to the school,

the regulations may make provision corresponding to any of the provisions made by this Part of this Schedule."
(7) For paragraph 12 of that Schedule is substituted—
"12.—(1) Where an inspection of a school is required
under section 9 but the Chief Inspector is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to secure that the school is inspected by a suitable registered inspector, he shall secure that it is inspected by a member of the Inspectorate.
(2) Where an inspection is conducted by a member of the Inspectorate by virtue of this paragraph, this Act shall have effect (unless the context otherwise requires)
1518
in relation to the inspection as if the member of the Inspectorate were a registered inspector.
(3) If the Chief Inspector so elects in the case of any inspection of a school by a member of the Inspectorate under section 2(2) (b), 3(1), 6(2) (b) or 7(1), that inspection shall be treated for the purposes of section 9(1) and (2) and this Part of this Schedule as if it were an inspection under section 9 and the member of the Inspectorate were a registered inspector".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment ensures that all schools which are subject to regular inspection under Section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 but are not covered by Chapter I of Part V of the Bill are subject to equivalent provisions. Chapter I extends the Schools Act provisions, particularly in respect of the reporting process for those schools found to be at risk.
The schools covered by the amendment are non-maintained special schools, independent schools approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 178 for pupils with statements, city technology colleges (CTCs), city colleges for the technology of the arts (CCTAs) and maintained nursery schools. It is right that they should all be subject to the same regime in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: This must surely be sent to the Guinness Book of Records as the longest amendment ever: there are six pages of it. It gives us an insight into the disarray of government education policies. Only a year after the Education (Schools) Act 1992 was enacted and before the relevant section has been implemented, the Government have to bring forward a six-page amendment to a Bill which is a mere 225 pages in length. Further, having tabled the amendment, three days later the Government tabled a replacement. In fact, I am glad to say that there appears to be only one change and that is of a minor technical nature to paragraph 9C(2).
However, the amendment has some interesting elements. In new paragraph (3) at the beginning of the amendment the concept of,
"an acceptable standard of education"
is introduced; but it is introduced without a definition. I wonder whether the Minister can give a definition for the record. Such a "standard" would be acceptable to whom?
The amendment does not appear to require that a grant-maintained special school report should he sent to the former maintaining LEA, although an independent special school will have to send its inspection report to all LEAs that send children to the school. Why that discrepancy? What sort of nonsense does that make of the LEA continuing to plan special educational provision? It would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten the Committee on those points.
Earl Russell: Late government amendments always put us in something of a dilemma. If the Government do not move them they are accused of being inflexible; but, if they do, they are accused of giving us a great load of stuff which we do not have time to consider. I have some sympathy with the Government in that connection. However, will the Minister consider

1519
whether, with hindsight, it might have been wiser to defer tabling the Bill until some of those questions had been worked out.
Baroness Blatch: First, I must admit that it is a very long amendment and obviously very complicated because it covers a very important Act. As I said, it is simply bringing such schools into this part of the Bill—that is, Chapter I of Part V. These are the legal requirements to ensure that all the aspects are covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me for a definition of "acceptable standards" and to whom schools would be accountable. It will be for Ofsted to determine, as it has done for all other schools, acceptable standards. It will be the inspectorate, through Ofsted, that will be making that judgment about schools.
The amendment, with appropriate modifications, makes directly parallel provision to that in Chapter I of Part V. Paragraph (5) substitutes four new paragraphs for the existing paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Schools Act. They parallel Clauses 194 to 197. They require a report to be written of every Section 9 inspection. They also require a registered inspector who is of the opinion, following an inspection, that the school is at risk, to get the agreement of the chief inspector to that opinion.
The new paragraph 9A requires a member of the inspectorate, who is of the opinion, following an inspection, that a school is at risk, to state his opinion in a report. The new paragraph 9B enables the chief inspector to extend the period for producing an inspection report by up to three months.
Paragraph 9C deals with the distribution of inspection reports and requires that at risk reports are sent to the Secretary of State.
Paragraph (6) parallels Clauses 198 and 200. Clause 198 requires the appropriate authority for the school to prepare an action plan for all inspection reports. It extends the Schools Act to require an action plan where a report made by a member of the inspectorate concludes that special measures need to be taken in relation to the school (the Schools Act requires this only in respect of inspections by registered inspectors). Clause 200 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision, by regulations, for monitoring the implementation of statements prepared in response to an inspection report of an at risk school. The regulations may also provide for further inspections by the chief inspector.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Midnight
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke moved Amendment No. 334A:
Page 223, line 20, at end insert:
("(aa) at the end of paragraph (6) there is added—
"(c) headteacher and chairman of governing bodies shall be invited to the meeting described in paragraph (6) above" ").
The noble Baroness said: There is a problem with the wording in this amendment. I believe it should read:
"at the end of paragraph (6) there is added—
"(c) headteacher and chairman of the governing body shall be invited to the meeting described in paragraph
1520
(6) above".
As with my earlier group of amendments, this amendment seeks to ensure effective communication to enable best practice in schools. When the inspection team is talking to the parents, the chairman of governors and the head teacher need to hear what is being said. They need to hear; they do not need necessarily to speak at that meeting.
Hearsay is dangerous. If the parents seriously criticise the school, the chairman of the governing body and the head teacher have got to hear the accusations eventually. It is surely preferable for them to hear the actual words and not a second-hand version.
I know that it could be argued that parents might be inhibited. If they felt strongly enough and knew that they were not going to be challenged in any way at the meeting, I believe that they would speak out. It is, however, possible that parents could be misinformed. I have known plenty of examples where children have, in self-defence, maligned a teacher and either told a fib or a whopping lie. There must be proper safeguards for parents. But governors and head teachers are also entitled to fair treatment and should at least be given a chance to hear what it is that they are accused of.
Finally, if the chairman of governors and the head teacher are there at the meeting between the parents and the inspection team to hear complaints, they are then in a position to take steps without delay to put right the cause of the complaints, if those complaints are indeed well founded. The aim must be, as I have said before, to achieve the most effective, fair and just
My noble friend the Minister was sympathetic to my earlier amendments. I trust that her sympathy will extend to this amendment also.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I must admit that I am a little confused. My impression was that if the previous amendment had been accepted, we should not be talking to Amendment No. 334A. Perhaps the Chairman could give us some guidance.
Viscount Astor: I believe that what the noble Lord says is correct. But the Committee may find it helpful if my noble friend the Minister quickly gave her reply to the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I too wanted to say something on the amendment. I must admit that I have here a brief which is supportive of the amendment as put forward, but from my experience of working as a governor and knowing plenty of people who have children at primary schools, I do not agree with the purpose of the amendment. I think that parents will be inhibited from speaking out frankly if the head teachers and the governors are there. I can think of several schools in my locality which I know well where I know the parents and know that they would be inhibited. So I am afraid that, although I appreciate exactly the thinking behind her amendment, from my personal experience I do not believe that it is well founded.
Baroness Blatch: First of all, perhaps I may say that I am incredibly impressed by the patience of my noble

1521
friend who has sat all day to put this one amendment so late. I also say to her that I realise why we are talking to this amendment out of that grouping, separately. It is rather different from the other amendments in the group. I can confirm to my noble friend that I am doing all that I can to meet her wishes in respect of the other amendments.
This is a happy note on which to reach the end of the Committee stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Some of us who are in public life, either in local authorities or in this illustrious Chamber, tend to forget how intimidating even a classroom teacher can be. A head of department or a head teacher can be very intimidating. For that reason it is important that parents are given an uninhibited opportunity to say simply what they think about the school and whether they have any anxieties.
The Government consider it important that parents with registered pupils at the school, including any parents who are staff or governors, should have the opportunity to meet the inspection team, in the absence of those with direct responsibility for the school. The purpose of the meeting is not to pursue individual complaints or to pursue a vendetta against any particular member of staff but to give inspectors a general impression of how parents perceive the school and whether they have any worries. This is consistent with the Parents' Charter's promise to give parents more information about their schools and to involve them more in the educational process.
There will be plenty of opportunity for the inspection team to meet governors and staff during the inspection and that, together with the meeting with parents, will provide background to the team's in-depth observation of all aspects of the school. The important point is that registered inspectors will be required to report not on what they are told, but on what they find in a school. Reports will be produced in accordance with HMCI's published framework of inspection which will ensure a consistent standard is applied across the country. Registered inspectors will, in addition, report their findings to governors at the end of the inspection and before the report is published.
A registered inspector will have a substantial amount of evidence before him when reporting on a school's achievements. Professor Sutherland has made it clear that there will be proper professional safeguards. That underlies my noble friend's anxiety. The revised Framework for the Inspection of Schools will contain a code of conduct for the registered inspector governing, for example, their relationships with parents and with the school's staff. The Handbook for Inspection of Schools will contain specific guidance to the registered inspector on the conduct of the parents meeting. It will include such matters as the ground rules for discussion, which will among other things make the naming of staff or pupils inadmissible, and advice on how the registered inspector should interpret the evidence he or she obtains from such meetings. A registered inspector would be unlikely to give undue weight to possibly malicious criticisms voiced at a meeting where teaching staff are unable to respond. It is certainly not
1522
our aim in providing for a meeting solely between parents and a registered inspector to drive a wedge between staff and parents. We think that the meeting is much more likely to provide positive feedback and, in some cases, improve communication between school and parents.
I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that, even given her underlying worries, the professional concerns of staff are safeguarded.
Baroness Brigstocke: I thank my noble friend very much for that very full reply, particularly at this late hour. She has given me some comfort. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 334B:
Page 224, line 5, at end insert:
("The Charities Act 1993 In Schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1993 (exempt charities) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
"(da) the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority;".).
The noble Viscount said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 266C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 334C to 334F:
Page 224, line 10, leave out ("the case of a governing body of a grant-maintained school") and insert ("relation to a grant-maintained school the governing body of which were").
Page 224, line 15, leave out from ("Chapter") to end of line 16 and insert ("the instrument and articles so made—

(a) shall have effect as if they contained such modifications as may be required by an order under section 276 of this Act, and

(b) shall (as so modified) have effect as if made under and in accordance with Part II of this Act.").

Page 224, line 22, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("required by an order under section 276 of this Act").
Page 224, line 24, leave out ("An order under section 276 of this Act") and insert ("A commencement order").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 334C to 334F. These are technical amendments to Schedule 17 of the Bill which makes transitional provisions for certain provisions in the Bill. The first three amendments relate to provisions to deal with instruments and articles of governance at the schools incorporated under the ERA. The first is purely a drafting amendment. The second two deal with making of instruments and articles for schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 334G and 334H:
Page 224, line 25, after ("code") insert ("or the transitory grants code for Wales").
Page 224, line 36, leave out from ("paragraph") to end of line 37 and insert:

(""commencement order" means, in relation to England, an order under section 276 of this Act and, in relation to Wales, an order under section 3 of this Act,

"the old grants code" means sections 79 and 80 of the Education Reform Act 1988 as they apply in relation to England, and

1523

"the transitory grants code for Wales" means sections 81 to 86 of this Act.").

The noble Viscount said: The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 334C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 334J:
Page 224, line 37, at end insert: ("Education Committees etc and Members of those Committees
—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies to—

(a) any education committee established in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944, and

(b) any sub-committee of any such committee appointed in accordance with paragraph 10 of that Part,

which is in existence immediately before the commencement of section 266 of this Act.
(2) Any committee or sub-committee to which this sub-paragraph applies shall, for the purposes of any enactment, be treated as if it had been—

(a) appointed at the commencement of that section—

(i) in the case of a committee, by the local authority, or

(ii) in the case of a sub-committee, by the committee appointed by the authority,
in accordance with section 102(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, and

(b) so appointed exclusively or mainly for the purpose of discharging such of the authority's functions with respect to education as are conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority or, as the case may be, the committee's functions with respect to education.

(3) Sub-paragraph (4) below applies to any person who is immediately before the commencement of section 266 of this Act a member of an education committee or sub-committee of such a committee appointed for a term of office.
(4) Any person to whom this sub-paragraph applies shall, for the purposes of any enactment, be treated—

(a) as if he had been appointed at the commencement of that section as a member of a committee or sub-committee appointed as mentioned in subparagraph (2) above for the residue of that term, and

(b) if he was a member of an education committee or sub-committee by virtue of directions given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 5A of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1944, as if he had been appointed at the commencement of that section as a member of a committee or sub-committee appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above by virtue of directions given by the Secretary of State under section [Power of Secretary of State to direct appointment of members of committees] of this Act.").

The noble Viscount said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 335 to 337B:
Page 225, column 3, leave out line 22.
Page 225, column 3, line 46, leave out ("13").
Page 227, column 3, line 15, at end insert:
("In section 16(1), "any county school or" and the words following "the new site".").
Page 227, column 3, line 16, at end insert:
("In section 50(1) "by them". In paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 52(1), "by the authority".").
Page 227, column 3, line 16, at end insert:
Section 56.").
Page 227, line 32, at end insert:

("1948 c. 40.

The Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948.

In the First Schedule, the entry relating to section 56 of the Education Act 1944.").

Page 227, column 3, line 33, at beginning insert:
("Section 6(2) (a) (iii).").
Page 227, column 3, line 40, leave out ("paragraph 4") and insert ("paragraphs 1 and 4").
Page 227, line 46, at end insert:

("1972 c. 70.

The Local Government Act 1972

Section 101(9) (a).").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 335 was spoken to with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 335 to 337B.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 338 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 338A:
Page 228, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert:
("In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, in subparagraph (3) "or of any education committee of the authority" in each place where it occurs and in sub-paragraph (4) "or of any education committee of the authority" and "by more than one".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 339 and 339A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 339B to 341B:
Page 228, column 3, line 48, at beginning insert:
("In section 5(4) (b) the words after "by the authority". In section 38, in subsection (4) (c) the words after "to the post" and, in subsection (6) (b), "or (4) (c) (ii)".").
Page 228, column 3, line 55, at end insert:
("In Schedule 2, in paragraph 7(7) the words after "by the authority".").
Page 229, line 1, at end insert:

("1988 c. 9.

The Local Section Government Act 1988

Section 1(1) (j). In Schedule 2, the words from "A joint education committee" to "1944".").

Page 229, column 3, line 17, at end insert:
("In section III, subsection (4) and, in subsection (5) (b), "provided under arrangements made by the authority".").
Page 229, column 3, line 17, at end insert:
("In section 220(2), the word "and" immediately following paragraph (bb).").
Page 229, line 29, at end insert:

("1989 c. 42.

The Local Government and Housing Act 1989

In section 13, subsections (2) (b) and (6). In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, in sub-paragraph (1) the definition of "education committee" and, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee, their" and in sub-paragraph (2), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "ordinary committee", "education committee or". In Schedule 11, paragraph 4.").

Page 229, column 3, line 30, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 6 and").
Page 229, line 31, at end insert:

("1993 c.

The Charities Act 1993.

In Schedule 2, paragraphs (e) and (g).").

Lord Judd: This brings us to a total of 258 government amendments laid during the deliberations on the Bill in this House alone. Of the total, one was even laid after the schedule it was to have amended had already been considered. Three were withdrawn, two on Clause 1 and one because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford had not had sufficient
1526
notice. The Bill has 276 clauses. The average rate of amendment by Ministers is therefore virtually one per clause.
Rushed, ill-considered, hastily drafted legislation, after little, sometimes no, consultation, cannot make for good government. We shall need to take the Report stage of our proceedings very seriously indeed.
Earl Russell: It might perhaps underline the point if I could ask whether it was the intention of the noble Baroness to move Amendment No. 340 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor: There is a misprint on the Marshalled List. That amendment should be in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 342 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Citibank International Bill [H.L.] (formerly Citibank Europe Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.