Lords Sitting of 28 March 1994

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

Madagascar: Cyclone Geralda
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What aid they are giving to Madagascar to assist its recovery from the effects of Cyclone Geralda on 2nd and 3rd February.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have provided aid worth around £312,000 in total. That includes contributions to the non-government organisation, CARE, for its emergency relief programme in Brickaville, our share of the European Community's relief efforts and the local purchase of five tonnes of dried fish for distribution to those worst affected by the cyclone.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that a special relationship exists with that country, dating back to the last century, which was brought about largely by our missionaries in the early 1820s, the desire for closer ties and the signing of a treaty of friendship and commerce on 27th June 1865? Should not Madagascar's appeal be considered more sympathetically by the Government than is the case at present?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have helped Madagascar in a number of ways, both in giving it meteorological information before the cyclone and in responding to Cyclone Geralda in the way that I have described. We have helped with the dangerous situation brought about by Cyclone Litanne which hit the Brickaville area on 16th March. Last Friday Cyclone Nadya fortunately passed over the north side of the island and did not do as much damage as the previous cyclones. However, since last weekend a damage assessment mission has been present in Madagascar to give further assistance. We respond immediately to Madagascar's urgent needs and we also run a technical co-operation programme there; and, I am glad to say, we have excellent relations with that country.
Lord Judd: My Lords, although noble Lords will be glad to hear about the relief that we have been able to supply, will the Minister not agree that, after devastating events of that kind, it is very often the reconstruction over a longer period which is the most demanding challenge of all? Will the Minister tell the House a little about what we and our partners in Europe are doing in that respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it seems that we are almost in the lead there. The Community has committed some £890,000 in support of NGO activity
828
by CARE. We have monitoring missions in the area affected and, together with the European Community and the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs, we shall do what is necessary to help. However, I ask the noble Lord to remember that they are an able people. While they may need a little help, we do not need to do everything for them.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Cyclone Geralda was the worst cyclone since 1927, with winds gusting up to 220 miles per hour over a width of 500 miles? It left many families homeless, caused widespread flooding and destroyed harvests? It is a very special case.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is a disastrous situation. I do not dispute any of my noble friend's facts about the devastation. We have targeted our response to the worst affected area, as wished by the Government of Madagascar. We have offered more help as it is needed. That is why we have an assessment mission there at present which is led by the British ambassador, representatives of the UN and representatives of CARE. We shall do what is needed, however bad the situation may be.

Anti-Semitism
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider implementing the recommendations relating to education in the January 1994 report of the Runnymede Commission on anti-semitism.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government share the commission's view that racism and anti-semitism are serious issues. The Government have pursued a range of measures in support of racial harmony, including action on initial and in-service teacher training; the provision of opportunities within the national and basic curriculum; and the development of model syllabuses for religious education in consultation with representatives and leaders of various faith communities including Judaism. Those are all areas included in the commission's recommendations.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and sympathetic Answer. However, does she agree that the report by the commission, of which I was a member and which was chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, demonstrates how sensitive and complex are the issues involved in teaching the Jewish religion? Can she offer help to teachers who must deal with those issues, many of whom have no knowledge or training in that subject?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give assurances that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will take those anxieties into account when drawing up

829
religious education syllabuses and when working with the leaders and representatives of faith groups. I can say also that current aspects of Jewish history—for example, the history of the Holocaust—will be dealt with through the national curriculum. It is important that integrity is sustained throughout all those areas. Grants for education support and training will fund the training of teachers so that they are more comfortable with the subject and better informed about it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that now we are living so demonstrably in a multi-ethnic society a tremendous challenge faces the whole educational system in preparing our young people to make a positive success of a nation which is so rich in variety? In that respect, can the Minister say more about her plans for religious education as distinct from teaching religion so that children understand each other's different faiths and approach multi-culturalism in a positive frame of mind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the information about religious education has been circulated for consultation. I do not believe that the time allocated to me for the Question permits me to give a full answer. The noble Lord is well aware of the documents that are in the public domain at the moment. However, he is absolutely right: it is a challenge. One of the reasons why the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is working so hard is that there has been rather a woolly approach to multi-cultural education in this country. It is not a great melting pot. It is important to retain and sustain the integrity of each faith group. That is the objective of the work being carried out by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned me by name, I feel that I must declare an interest in the Question as I had the privilege to chair the working party which produced the report on anti-semitism. The working group consisted of Moslems, as well as Jews and Christians. Sadly, from an historical point of view, the Churches have to admit that they must bear a fair share of responsibility for anti-Judaic teaching. However, in recent decades, a great deal of good work has been done to correct the errors of the past and much of that work is summarised in a pamphlet entitled, A Fresh Way of Thinking: Guidance for the right teaching of Christianity in relation to Judaism, which is to be published later this month. Is the Minister willing to make the availability of that pamphlet known to teachers of religious education in schools? It would help teachers as well as preachers to avoid some of the worst pitfalls.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, without having had sight or sound of the document which the right reverend Prelate is offering to me, it is difficult for me to answer that question. However, if it is at all helpful, I can tell him that we have a mechanism for making schools aware of such documents through a publication called Schools Update which goes to schools and deals with all
830
matters of education. We could certainly use that vehicle for bringing the pamphlet to the attention of teachers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real message to be given in respect of anti-semitism that it is not merely unpleasant and sinister, but that it is also factually false and not to be believed in by any sensible and intelligent human being?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. It is absolutely true that accuracy is important. There has been too much interpretation both as regards history and multi-racial education. I believe that we should make every effort to ensure that we help our teachers to be more accurate and objective in handling this very sensitive issue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should also like to declare an interest as I am a Runnymede trustee. Will the Minister bear in mind another Runnymede publication, the Equality Assurance report, published last year, which, far from being woolly, was a practical guide to teachers on how to combat religious and racial prejudice in our plural, multi-cultural society?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's remarks. I shall certainly make it my business to read the report. Again, if we find it useful, it can form part of the bank of literature designed to help teachers.

Opposition Spokesmen, House of Lords: Remuneration
2.47 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked the Leader of the House (Lord Wakeham):
Whether he will refer to the Senior Salaries Review Body the remuneration of Opposition spokesmen in the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, salaries are paid from public funds to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip in your Lordships' House. The Government have no plans to extend that or to refer the matter to the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in the light of that somewhat discouraging reply, does my noble friend agree that there is scope for misinterpretation in that it might be thought either that the Government are not anxious to have the most effective scrutiny of legislation in this Chamber—which is the main justification for the existence of the House of Lords—or that they wish to have such scrutiny, which involves a great deal of hard work, on the cheap, quite apart from the normal activities of Back-Benchers? Does that not suggest a mean mindedness which, as we all know, is totally out of character as regards my noble friend?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly have no desire to lessen the scrutiny that takes place in your Lordships' House and which I have cause to respect

831
However, I am not entirely sure that all the scrutiny that we have had in recent times has come from the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for declaring my interest in the matter. It is very rare to see a Question on the Order Paper which is so sensible, so objective, so perceptive and, indeed, so forward looking and analytical in the way in which it has been approached. Is the noble Lord aware that I would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Manes ford, that if he tables a Motion to the same effect, I should be delighted to second it?
However, there is a serious point involved. Many of my noble friends on the Front Bench perform their functions in the House at considerable financial cost to themselves. Even if the noble Lord the Leader of the House has set his mind totally against paying a salary to Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, would he be prepared to enter into discussions about ways in which their legitimate expenses might properly be paid? I have in mind the expenses they incur because of their position on the Front Bench rather than the expenses they incur merely through being Members of the House.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition wants to discuss this matter with me, I am always open to have discussions with him. However, I should point out that the Short money, which has been designed to assist Oppositions in performing their parliamentary duty, was only recently uprated on 4th November 1993 by 35 per cent. An additional travel allowance worth £100,000 was also made available and an annual uprating linked to the RPI. Those allowances are for both Houses of Parliament but they are also designed to help noble Lords in their work.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord gives his mind to casting any of these benefits on the official Opposition, he should remember that the Liberal Democrat Leader and Chief Whip do not get a penny.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am aware of that, but I have no plans to change that situation at present.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, although I support the thoroughly sensible proposal of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, will my noble friend the Minister consider referring the matter of the underpaid junior Ministers in this House to the appropriate body, in view of the fact that most of them are just at the age when they have heavy family expenses and their pay is poor?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I appreciate the point my noble friend makes as regards junior Ministers in this House. As I explained to the House on 29th November 1993, when we debated the Ministerial and other Salaries Order, all Lords Ministers, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip, receive the cash equivalent of the two-stage increase that was awarded in another place. That was slightly different from the previous position in that they received the same cash increase as opposed to the same percentage increase. Therefore there was a differential
832
but that differential will not increase. That is a slight improvement, but I know it is not as good an improvement as my noble friend seeks.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is worth considering whether Ministers should be subject to performance related pay and that we might call upon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to adjudicate and determine how many qualify for that?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps 1 could offer my services as an adjudicator. On that basis, I believe: that the pay of Government Ministers would exceed any indications that have come from any quarters. However, I do not believe that that could be afforded.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the Short money was increased to cover Opposition spokesmen, this would have to apply to another place? If we are to increase anything, we should increase the Short money. I believe that it would be wrong to include Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in this measure if one does not show any consideration for the Liberal Democrats. I believe we would find ourselves in a dangerous situation if we were to pay anyone who sits on the Front Bench a salary. The money we are discussing should come out of the Short money.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend this far: the idea that we should pay Opposition Front Bench spokesmen for being on the Front Bench and representing their parties in this House would have implications for the equivalent spokesmen in the House of Commons who do not receive such remuneration. The idea that is proposed would constitute a significant change and we need to give a great deal of thought to it. I am not sure this is the most opportune lime to give these matters further consideration.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some eight years ago the late Lord Ponsonby and I paid a visit to the Senior Salaries Review Body to discuss this subject? We were given a sympathetic hearing by that body, but the difficulty was to define precisely who on the Front Bench should receive remuneration. If there had not been that difficulty, I believe that the body would have recommended some form of remuneration. Will not the noble Lord give thought to this matter and reconsider it?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as is often the case, the noble Lord frames his question in a wise way. One of the difficulties that would have to be faced is that of making a distinction between those who make part-time contributions and those who make relatively full-time contributions. Some of the infrequent visitors to your Lordships' House make speeches of profound significance and importance. Some who are more regular contributors to our debates also make speeches of profound significance and importance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend therefore accept that the proper running of this House requires there to be an effective Opposition Front Bench and that to hold an effective place thereon makes it

833
impossible to have a full-time job? There is therefore justice in considering means by which some recognition of the lack of earnings is made as people suffer greatly from that lack of earnings, particularly during their peak earning years when they are trying to form a basis for their retirement pension.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I recognise that there is a case for this remuneration. However, I believe that the present time is not the time to make a change. I cannot add much to what I have already said. I recognise there is a case but I do not believe that this is the time to pursue it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in continuing to give urgent consideration to these matters, will the noble Lord give the House an undertaking that at the same time he will ensure that effective comparisons are made with the salaries and expenses of Members of the European Parliament, most of whom do far less work than even the least frequent attender here?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I had no doubt that if I did not make that comparison, the noble Lord would and your Lordships would benefit from his remarks on these matters.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I declare a sort of non-interest in the light of what the noble Lord has just said. He relies greatly on Short money. Has the noble Lord considered the possibility of Short money being specifically allocated to your Lordships' House? At the moment we depend very much on trickle-down, which is a rather slow process.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, in 1987 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended in its 24th report that there should be a special allocation of Short money for your Lordships' House. Discussions were held then—I was at that time the Leader of the House in another place—between the parties as to the best way to deal with this matter. I believe it was agreed that it was probably better to let the parties organise the matter and to allocate money to them for them to allocate between their Members in the Lords and in the Commons, as there are different ways of allocating it. I believe that that was how the matter was settled on the previous occasion when this matter arose. However, it is of course possible to settle the matter in a different way.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that on this side of the House our interest in Opposition remuneration is purely altruistic and that we anticipate no pecuniary benefit here? We wish only to see noble Lords opposite continuing to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. The Opposition have certainly had some years to reflect on this matter and I hope that that situation will continue for a number of years yet.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as parliamentary memories are so short, will the noble Lord ensure that when Short money is written it has a capital "S"?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that few of us have forgotten that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, used to spell his name with a capital "S". He was the Leader of the House in another place when the original Short money proposals were put forward. I always spell it with a capital "S". Oppositions of both parties have a great deal to be grateful to him for.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, may I clarify two points? First, as I understand it, Short money is available for resources for Opposition parties, such as research, secretarial assistance and so on. It is in no sense intended to be remuneration. Secondly, my noble friend drew an analogy with the other place. Members of the other place are paid a salary for the performance of their parliamentary duties, which include duties on the Opposition Front Bench, while Back-Bench Members of this House are not paid any salary, nor should they be. Does my noble friend recognise that there is a feeling in this House that the issue should be further considered? We should be glad of some guidance as to how we can ensure that such further consideration takes place.
Lord Wakeham: My Lord, I recognise the strength of the points that my noble friend raised. There are plenty of methods open to him. He does not need me to show him the ways in which he can demonstrate his interest in and enthusiasm for the subject. He is quite right to say that the Short money is intended for the payment of research costs and expenses and not to pay salaries for Opposition spokesmen. He is quite right to say that Members of another place are paid a salary. We have to consider all these matters very carefully because, as my noble friend said in the last part of his remarks, the question of payment for service in your Lordships' House is a fundamental issue and something which I would not favour.

Housing Benefit
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to alter the present system of housing benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Society Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last year a fundamental review of social security. The review includes housing benefit.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the amount of money paid in housing benefit across the board this year now totals £8.8 billion? If any changes are to take place, instead of diminishing resources for such a purpose would it not be sensible to transfer some of that huge sum of money into a house-building programme to provide low-cost housing for people at the bottom of the social scale so

835
that they will have a home for the foreseeable future? Once the £8.8 billion is paid out there is nothing left. It just disappears.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can confirm the figures quoted by the noble Lord. As I said, we are carrying out a fundamental review of social security because spending is growing rapidly. It is important that resources go to those most in need while at the same time ensuring value for money. We are looking carefully at housing benefit and will consult widely prior to making any decision. The Government's policies are designed to focus resources on the most needy. That has been achieved by shifting resources away from direct subsidies in the form of lower rents, which help everyone regardless of need, in favour of personal subsidies in the form of housing benefit, an income-related benefit, which is targeted at those tenants who need help to pay their rent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister answer the specific point that I made in relation to transferring some of this huge sum of money into a house-building programme for houses for rent?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, housing associations are now the main providers of new low-cost housing for rent and sale. Public resources of more than £1.5 billion will be available to them in 1994-95, resulting in some 58,000 new homes. The noble Lord makes an interesting point. As I said, we are considering all the issues and will consult widely before taking any decision.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us what the Housing Act 1988 has added to the cost of housing benefit?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords, I cannot do so easily.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Government's homelessness review proposes that homeless families should in future go into private rented accommodation rather than council housing? Does he also accept that it costs £14 more a week to place a family in private rented accommodation than in council housing, given the additional cost of housing benefit? That being so, will the social security Minister tell us how he hopes to cut the cost of housing benefit when his honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for housing, is pushing it upwards?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government's proposals in relation to homelessness set out in the Department of the Environment's consultation paper offer a new approach to the allocation of local authority and housing association tenancies based on real need, not on whether somebody happens to fall within a rather broad definition of homelessness. The Government's proposals envisage a continued safety net for families and vulnerable individuals who find themselves without anywhere suitable to live through no fault of their own. Of course we consult closely with the Department of the Environment on these matters.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister now be kind enough to answer my question? What will be the additional cost in housing benefit following the homelessness review? How does the Minister for Social Security hope to cut it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have to wait until the end of the review to see what the figures are.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the Government's housing policy consist of a double whammy against homeless people and people who require houses? Does the noble Viscount agree that, first, the number of publicly owned houses has been reduced and they are not being replaced as they should be; and, secondly, as a result, rents in the private sector are being pushed up, making it difficult for people to pay rents in the private sector and also placing an additional burden on the social security budget?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the independent rent officer service determines reasonable market rents for housing benefit subsidy purposes. We believe that public funds should not subsidise people who choose to live in unreasonably large or expensive accommodation We have encouraged local authorities to raise their rents closer to market levels. We believe that to be a better system because subsidies should go to those who need them and not to everybody.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Foreign. Ministers' meeting in Ioannina.
Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]: Division No. 1
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in Division No. 1 on Thursday, 24th March, the number of those voting Content is recorded incorrectly. The Contents were 134, not 133.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Teacher Trainer Agency]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert:
("and generally to secure that teachers are well fitted and trained to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.'').
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment gives the agency a general objective to ensure that teachers are well fitted and trained to promote the spiritual, physical and other aspects of pupils'

837
development, and to prepare them for adult life. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for identifying the case for such an amendment through one of his own at Committee stage. I hope that he will find that the points he raised in Committee are reflected in the amendment before the House.
Noble Lords will notice that this is a detailed and prominent amendment to Clause 1. It complements but also extends the existing objectives, such as that to contribute to raising the standard of teaching. The amendment will require the agency to take account of spiritual, moral and other imperatives in pursuing all of its objectives.
The amendment follows a path first taken in Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. That section, and a similar provision in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, with which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was also associated, have helped to pinpoint the importance of ethos and values in our schools. It is entirely right that that strain of thinking should also be present in the agency's approach to its work. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in welcoming the amendment I should like to mention the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is at this moment presiding over a Victorian children's party to draw attention to the unfriendly nature of work at the Palace of Westminster so far as concerns the family. He deeply regrets the fact that he cannot be here to thank my noble friend for this receptive response to his concerns.
My noble friend has made clear that the spiritual, moral, social, cultural and physical development of pupils is at the centre of the concern for those who train them for their professional careers and must be seen to be so on the face of the Bill. Therefore it is proper that the provision should be inserted at line 21 as one of the objectives of the agency in exercising its functions. Many of us would prefer the provision to be inserted as paragraph (a) rather than paragraph (e); nevertheless it is good to have it in the Bill. For too long the preparation of teachers to teach has been taken as training in its strict sense, whereas it is education.
When I embarked on a career in education as a teacher my father, who had been a don at Oxford for many years, said, "I can only tell you two things that you ought to know about the profession. First, it is the most exhausting profession there is; and secondly, you cannot teach people you do not like". I took that with a large pinch of salt. I tried as hard as I could not to dislike anyone I sought to teach. However, I discovered that where I failed I could go on training them although I could not teach them. I could get them to learn the proper responses, but I could not develop in them any empathetic response to their subject.
We are fortunate that the amendment is in such a prominent place on the face of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will accept the apologies in absentia of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is engaged in such worthwhile service.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the amendment and all the particulars in the
838
clause are precisely those factors which ought to be on the agenda of a general teaching council rather than a training agency?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment. It is particularly timely for two reasons which I shall highlight and ask my noble friend to comment on. First, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, last week the adult literacy and basic skills unit produced a disturbing report. A study of 21 year-olds indicated that a large number felt themselves lacking in the basic skills of numeracy and literacy. If one extrapolates from that number the relevance for a larger population, it means that several million adults in our country believe themselves inadequately prepared in numeracy and literacy.
Even more disturbing is the fact that among those who did not feel lacking in basic skills, significant numbers were lacking in such skills. That points to a further 2 million adults in the population. Will my noble friend give some assurance that in its reference to preparing pupils,
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life",
the amendment ensures that those serious problems are addressed with regard to the basic skills of numeracy and literacy?
Perhaps I may highlight and commend other areas and seek my noble friend's assurance. During Question Time, reference was made to an important circular on the teaching of religious education, in particular the way in which leaders of different faith communities had agreed ways in which they would like their faiths taught, respecting the integrity of their faith. I understand that the matter is at the consultation phase. When that circular is agreed, in whatever final form, will it form the basis of the preparation of teachers for teaching faiths in ways with which the leaders of different faiths are content?
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, give my support to the amendment. Can my noble friend assure us that the content of the clause will be reflected in the criteria for accreditation of the courses of initial training? In the past there has been mixed and variable success in initial training for some of the issues highlighted in the amendment. Does the last part of the amendment which states,
"to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life",
relate to those opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of working life? There has long been a lack of success with regard to initial training working well with industry and commerce, and reflecting the concerns of future employers of the pupils in the methods and contents of the teaching.
It has long seemed to me that there is a strong case for employers—industrialists and commercial people —to be much more involved with initial training, and to be more closely allied to the institutions and, in future, the schools in which teachers are to be taught. I hope my

839
noble friend will give some assurance that those issues will be borne well in mind with regard to the criteria for the accreditation of the courses.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister, most respectfully, whether there is riot a defect in the amendment, apart from the question of religious education, to which my noble friend Lady Cox referred. I am worried that the provision could be implemented without specific reference to the teaching of children with special needs who have learning difficulties. Express reference is made to that in Amendment No. 24 to Clause 5 on the functions of a funding agency. Is it not appropriate that the need for specialised training of teachers as regards children with learning difficulties should be expressly acknowledged in Clause 1? It may be said that it is part and parcel of Clause 1 (1) (b) or Clause 1(2) (c), as one of the routes of teaching. However, in view of the importance of the subject, acknowledged by the excellent regime laid down in Part III of the previous Education Act, perhaps further consideration might be given to the issue.
Assessment for children who have special education-al needs may well provide for the school to cope with the learning difficulties—that is the ordinary school, not a special school. A statement may also make special demands on teachers at a school other than the specialist teachers. I refer to speech therapists, educational psychologists, and what have you. If such provision is made for a child with learning difficulties, the art of a teacher is more than ever the task of teaching that child how to learn.
I have taken a hide of your Lordships' time for it is a subject of our common concern. Some of us who were backward beyond belief in certain subjects remember with gratitude how a patient teacher could teach us to learn and send us on our way at least with a school certificate. But had we been assessed or statemented children with special educational needs, I wonder what would have become of us without a teacher trained to teach such children.
I shall listen with attention and respect to what the Minister says. In principle I support the amendment. The Minister may say, "The measure is covered by other statutory provisions". Even if that is so, perhaps consideration could be given to a more comprehensive amendment by the Government to Clause 1 at Third Reading.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. However, I wish to comment on a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He said that the amendment supplied the educational element in teacher training. I agree. But it is curiously out of step with the mechanism that the noble Baroness proposes for the training of teachers.
Teachers will be trained—not educated, but trained —in school. They will learn the craft of teaching. However, the amendment provides that they have to be taught,
"to promote the spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
Can anyone envisage teachers in an ordinary school teaching teacher trainees such matters? Therefore, I
840
agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton: the measure provides the educational side of teaching. However, that side cannot be met in the set-up which the Government propose.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks about special needs made by my noble friend Lord Campbell. I have read carefully the 1993 Act, as no doubt he has. My noble friend Lady Blatch has tabled an amendment to provide for someone in the agency who has special knowledge of the subject. However, perhaps she will reassure me that under Clause 4(5) (c) the institutions which will provide the special training for the teachers who must teach children with special needs will be adequately provided for. If that provision remains, the matter is adequately covered. I notice that an amendment has been tabled which will remove the provision, which of course I shall resist when the time comes.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he confirm his reference to Clause 4(5) (c), which I cannot find?
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am sorry, I read the line number. I refer to Clause 4(2) (c), which reads:
"any other institution or body designated by order of the Secretary of State".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in joining others in welcoming the general thrust of the amendment I hope that it will not be seen as too churlish or cynical if I examine its wording a little more closely. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend for clarification as to exactly how she believes the wording will be interpreted by the teacher education fraternity.
My doubts are inspired, as I have mentioned previously, by my experiences during 10 years as the representative of commerce on the Council For National Academic Awards. As many noble Lords are aware, it was the validating body for more than half the teacher education courses in the country. When 1 joined the CNAA in 1983 it had the responsibility for validation and accreditation to the Secretary of State It was my view that CATE (the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education) was brought into being in 1984 because my noble friend Lord Joseph, then Secretary of State for Education, had reached the same conclusion that I had reached; that the CNAA was not doing its job at all well.
As I visited the courses and validated them, my difficulties, which relate specifically to this amendment, were inspired by the aggressively anti-Christian and anti-religious nature of the attitude that we brought to our validation. I have mentioned previously in your Lordships' House, and will say so again on the occasion of this amendment, that nearly all our courses had an exaggeration —I would call it an academic bias, although I am not sure that one would use the word "academic" about these courses —towards issues of gender, race and class.
In 1983, never having been in the world of education apart from some rudimentary schooling, I was surprised and even shocked to learn the extent to which politics —and in this area the politics of the Left—had entered

841
into education. Indeed, when my honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave asked me to join the CNAA in 1983 it was supposed to be an honour to represent commerce on that body. I said to him, "How long do you think it will take? How much time will it take per annum?". He said, "It meets four times a year so it will take four days a year". It was when I got inside teacher education that I decided that it had to take very much more of my time and for two or three years it became almost full time.
I had thought that politics stayed out of education but I was wrong. The Centre and the Centre Left and Right of British politics obeyed those honourable rules and stayed out of education. But that left a vacuum. The Left or the hard Left entered education and nowhere was that more successful than in our teacher education courses. I am aware that in speaking like that one is accused of seeing the Loch Ness monster. All I can say is that I did walk the shores of Loch Ness and that that is the monster I saw. I am sure that the influence came out of the sociology courses and related activities of the 1960s, but they took a deep root in our teacher education courses.
I went on many validation exercises and read a great number of course profiles in considerable detail. As I shall be doing in respect of later amendments today, I must ask this of those who want school-based teacher education to be strongly influenced by higher education: how many of these courses have they validated personally and how much time have they spent talking to the students who are taking them?
With specific reference to the amendment, I have no difficulty with the laudable intention of promoting the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of pupils. However, because of the situation that I have described there is a real dearth of teachers in the system who have the ability and the ambition to promote those laudable characteristics. My difficulty with this amendment—and it is one that I should like my noble friend to dwell on when she replies—is with the words "social" and "cultural". How will social matters be promoted in future by the teacher-training fraternity? It seems to me to open not just the possibility but a firm invitation to the culture of which I have been speaking to concentrate on matters of gender and class in a way that the courses already do. I do not want to see that confirmed in this amendment.
Likewise, I have some difficulty because in the hands of our teacher educators there could be ambiguity in respect of the word "cultural". It seems to me that nowhere has more damage been done to race relations in this country than in the aggressive promotion of one-sided, anti-racist policies throughout our teacher-training courses. Our guidelines, which we followed for many years, required the promotion of issues of gender and class and, as far as the word "cultural" is concerned, of anti-racist policies to, in the jargon that we used, "permeate the whole curriculum". That was our aim and that is what we achieved. In supporting the amendment generally, I wish to be sure that we are doing nothing to further those unworthy aims.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too welcome the amendment; not on political grounds, as my noble friend has done, but on educational grounds. In doing so I wish to make a small point that has not yet been made. One of the problems of implementing in schools the educational policy on religious education, sex education, health education and in other areas is the fact that many teachers do not know how to handle such issues. Quite often teachers who are not qualified in those specific subjects do not know how to handle them, particularly when they crop up unexpectedly.
Education, particularly at secondary level, has to be divided into subject areas with specialist teachers. But opportunities to help young people in the areas covered by this amendment crop up unexpectedly when any subject at all is in hand. It may be reading, maths, geography, science, history or whatever. Teachers need to know just how to use the situation which crops up unexpectedly to put over a bit of teaching. That is not at all easy. It requires education and training.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made the point that he has often made during discussion on this Bill; namely, that it is about training and not about education. That is a distinction that we must not make. One cannot train teachers without educating them. Training teachers is all about education. The argument has been used to support all sorts of points. But a blurring of the two is absolutely unavoidable. Teachers not only need to know enough about the subject to be sure of their ground when the opportunity crops up, but they also have to have the craft skill (to use the noble Lord's words) to use the opportunity when it crops up to get a discussion going and make various points. That must be part of the agency's remit. It must make sure that teacher training courses include those aspects.
Although one may learn the subject away from a school, it has to be said that the way to learn the craft side of teaching is to watch experienced people doing justice to the subject, taking the opportunity when it crops up and using it well, and then practising doing that oneself. I believe the noble Lord would agree that that craft aspect can only be learnt in schools. It cannot be done anywhere else. That is well known.
I agree with the noble Baroness who said from the Liberal Front Bench that this matter should be on the agenda of the general teaching council. Of course it should. But highlighting it with this amendment on the face of the Bill is of extreme value. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that the particular skill of bringing in a subject as it crops up under other subjects will be encouraged and will be possible.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I welcome the addition to this clause. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I served on the Council for National Academic Awards, and latterly on its teacher education committee. I too have paid visits of validation. There are times when I hardly recognise the description that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gives of what was happening in teacher education. I believe that there were indeed some places where there was an overemphasis on matters of gender and class. But my

843
general impression of the teacher education committee of the Council for National Academic Awards was that it was doing an excellent job of work, one from which my own profession, namely nursing, benefited greatly. In our most recent syllabuses this matter of the spiritual care of patients—and therefore the spiritual education of nurses—was put at a very high level. Yet we have found that, as nurse-teachers have taken that up, they have not been able to give any definition to what is meant by spiritual or moral education. I believe therefore that there is a great need for teachers to be educated in what is meant by spiritual and moral education.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. But I have two points to make. First, I take it that the words "spiritual", "moral" and others are adjectives which modify "development of pupils". Can the noble Baroness confirm that that is her reading of the matter? Therefore the points raised by her noble friend Lord Pearson simply do not apply. It has to do with the development of pupils rather than society and culture in the sense in which he used the words. I also ask the noble Baroness if she will clarify whether she really means the amendment to read in the precise way that it does. It refers to "teachers". That is all. It does not refer to "new teachers" or to the teachers for whom we understand the new body to be responsible. In other words, as it stanch, the amendment looks flawed in terms of what I understood the noble Baroness was trying to do. Can she confirm that the agency is not responsible for all teachers in the sense of this amendment. Alternatively, could she bring another amendment before the House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps it is easier if I take the last point first. It is pertinent to much of what was said during the course of this debate. This is one piece in the jigsaw. We hope that it completes the jigsaw, in that the 1988 Act makes it central in Clause 1 to all teaching. The 1992 and 1993 Acts refer to it so far as inspection is concerned and so far as the development of the 1988 Act is concerned. Now we are talking about those teachers for whom the agency will be responsible. It is related to the functions of the agency. If the noble Lord has any improvement on the wording he may like to come back to it on Third Reading. If the national curriculum requires that these matters be addressed, it is important that teachers who are trained to deliver the national curriculum should be aware of them.
I thank my noble friend Lord Elton, who spoke first in the debate after myself, for his warm comments. I thank him also for speaking in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—who informed me that he would not be here today. He is to be involved with the committee on the family, which is an all-party Back-Bench committee, and therefore has very important business to attend to this afternoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, thought that the words in the amendment ought to apply to a general teaching council. The House well knows my views about 4 general teaching Council. The establishment of a general teaching council as proposed on a number of occasions in this House would not necessarily impact on
844
the professionalism of an individual teacher in the classroom. These words in this Bill will indeed impact upon individual teachers in training to deliver education for our young people.
My noble friend Lady Cox asked whether basic skills and basic literacy would be covered. Again, I have to refer to the analogy of the jigsaw. That is another piece in the jigsaw. There is the national curriculum; the system of assessment and testing; and inspection. All of those will make sure that those basic skills are covered.
My noble friend Lady Perry asked about the meaning of the last sentence, and the preparation of young people for work as well as for adult life. Indeed preparation for adult life subsumes the importance of work in adult life.
My noble friend Lord Campbell pointed to a defect in the amendment and asked whether it could be implemented without reference to children with special needs. It could not, in that the whole of this Bill and the work of the agency would be directed at teachers who were to be concerned about the needs of all children —which again would subsume the importance of serving the needs of children with special learning difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, made reference to the point that teachers are to be trained, not educated. We are talking here particularly—I believe this is what the noble Lord hinted at—in relation to school based teacher training. We are talking about young people who have been through the school system, who have done their GCSEs and A-levels, who have gone into higher education and have achieved a higher education degree; then they do one year's postgraduate training, either in a higher education institution or together with a higher education institution and school, or indeed solely in school. We are not talking about uneducated people. All aspects of their training and preparing them to do a very demanding job have to be attended to by the agency.
I am not absolutely certain of the point that was being made by my noble friend Lord Radnor. I wonder whether we could talk about it. If there is a deficit in the amendment, perhaps I could address it at Third Reading.
My noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, were both concerned about life under the CNAA and life as it was in teacher training. I cannot believe that any Member of this House would set his face against an understanding that there is good, bad and indifferent teacher training just as there are good, bad and indifferent teachers and good, bad and indifferent people working in any walk of life.
Again, with reference to the jigsaw, what is absolutely essential is that teacher training reforms, the criteria for teaching training, the national curriculum reforms, systems of assessment and testing, the publication of information, inspection systems and the requirement of schools to publish in a very clear way information to parents should all come together to make sure that we have more of good practice than of poor and indifferent practice.
I was asked how the social part of the amendment would be implemented. Again, it will deal with matters such as citizenship, responsibility, understanding of constitutional government and so on. They will all help

845
young people to live competent, confident and, if I may use the word, wholesome lives—in other words, making sure that they understand that whatever action they take usually impacts on someone around them—and will inform a proper respect of their role as they move in adulthood.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the very important point of blurring. There is a positive blurring in this area because it includes subject competence as well as teaching young people. There is the moral and spiritual underpinning of education and, as I mentioned before, citizenship—young people working together and understanding the world into which they will move after school.
I have already dealt with the special needs aspect and probably also with all the individual points.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt her. There is one point that I would have raised had my noble friend not been so nimble on her feet as she began her concluding remarks. It seems to me that there is one word that is notably lacking in this amendment; namely, "intellectual". Surely learning and indeed teaching should be an intellectual adventure and not simply a mental adventure. I hope that at Third Reading it may be possible to introduce that concept into the Bill as well as all the others, which we very much welcome in this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is subsumed when one takes all those aspects together. I shall make sure, as I always do, that between now and Third Reading I shall look carefully at what my noble friend said. However, I believe that this amendment is consistent with the 1988 Act and the 1992 and 1993 Acts. I am grateful for the positive comments that have been made and hope that the House will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment 'agreed to.

European Union: Qualified Majority Voting
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should now like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary as follows:
"The new presidency proposal which I brought back last night is for a transitional arrangement before a root and branch review of qualified majority voting in the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference. In this transitional period the presidency and all members of the Council will be legally bound to work for an agreement on the basis of a 23 vote minority. No specified time limit is set, though the Council will be expected to reach a decision on the basis of a 23 vote blocking minority within a reasonable time.
846
"Let me explain more fully. There was a constructive discussion at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers at Ioannina at the weekend. The presidency has circulated a compromise proposal to resolve the issue. I have placed a copy of this text in the Library of the House. The presidency has asked all member states to tell it by tomorrow evening whether or not they can accept this proposal.
"The Cabinet will discuss this question at its meeting tomorrow morning. Let me explain the nature of the compromise which has been proposed and on which we shall have to take a decision tomorrow.
"The original presidency proposal was for a blocking minority of 27, to apply from 1st January next year, to last indefinitely, without any restriction or qualification. What it now proposes after discussion and argument is as follows.
"First, a transitional arrangement between the date of accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden and the end of the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference. At the IGC, there will be a root and branch review of the system of qualified majority voting, including not only the weighting of votes between countries as agreed at the Brussels European Council in December 1993 but also the threshold for agreement, i.e. the definition of 'majority' and 'minority'.
"Secondly, the proposal is contained in a legally binding decision of the Council. This requires the presidency, with the assistance of the Commission, to do all in its power to reach agreement on the basis of a 23 vote minority, taking 'any initiative necessary' to achieve that objective.
"Thirdly, there is no time limit for this procedure, though once all initiatives are exhausted, the Council will be able to take a decision on the basis of a blocking minority of 27.
"There have been three misconceptions which I should like to correct. First, we are not talking here about any threat to the UK's veto. The most important decisions in the European Union can only be taken by unanimity. These include the power of the Commission and the European Parliament, the amount of money available to the European Union and foreign and security policy initiatives. That is and remains the position. Even where the treaty specifies qualified majority voting—for single market legislation, for example—the UK retains the right to continue discussions indefinitely when our vital national interests are at stake. That right—the so-called Luxembourg Compromise—is not affected by the debate over QMV.
"Secondly, a change in the treaty to create a 27 vote blocking minority is not always contrary to our interests. For example, reform of the common agricultural policy, which still consumes 52 per cent. of the European Union's budget, will be more easily achieved with majority voting.
"Thirdly, some have asked why this difficult issue has been addressed now. Why could the QMV issue not have been left alone? The answer is that the treaty specifies the level of the qualified majority at 54

847
votes out of 76. Had the treaty been unamended, the qualified majority would have been 54 votes out of 90—a blocking minority of 37. I am not sure that many in this House would have supported that. The issue had to be tackled.
"I cannot prejudge the view which the Cabinet will take tomorrow. There are still matters on QMV which deeply concern the Government, particularly in the social field where measures have been taken against our interests, sometimes on a questionable basis. The presidency proposal is a compromise and one which the Cabinet will need to weigh carefully.
"I am sometimes asked whether qualified majority voting is more or less important than the enlargement of the Union to include Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway. The answer is that there are major British interests at stake in both. We want enlargement to go ahead while adequately protecting our interests on QMV. That is what the Cabinet will aim to do tomorrow."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I am a little surprised that I did not receive the usual courtesy of a copy of the Statement before it was made. As I understand it, the Government are making a Statement in this House although the matter was raised as a PNQ in the other place.
My first reaction to what the noble Baroness said is that it is a great pity that the Government did not recognise that the time to raise this issue would have been the Inter-Governmental Conference of 1996 rather than now. My second reaction is that I have very little sympathy for the position in which the Government find themselves. It is entirely of their own making and nobody else's. They raised the issue, they raised the stakes on the issue and I have no doubt that they were told what the result would be if they did. They persisted and went to a conference of the Council of Foreign Ministers over the weekend and predictably they have come back with what they have.
All that the Government have succeeded in doing is incensing our prospective allies in the four new applicants and infuriating our existing partners. They created the maximum of confusion with the minimum of effect. Confusion is a perfectly legitimate diplomatic weapon if one wants to confuse one's enemies. But here we have been confusing our friends. Frankly, it has been one of the most crass pieces of British diplomacy certainly that I can remember and of which I am conscious.
I presume it was a clever wheeze no doubt thought up by the same person who thought of the phrase "back to basics" in some governmental conference or conclave. It was probably said, "Wouldn't it be a good wheeze to have a good argument about the voting in the Council of Ministers? That is sure to help the party". It has not helped at all. They have tried to put a Band-Aid on a gaping split. It is time that the Government recognised that their party is savagely and irredeemably split on this issue.
848
The Government's handling of the whole affair has been a national disgrace. It is not often that [ can say that I have been ashamed of the way in which our Government have been behaving. But the way this matter has been handled, particularly over the past week, is frankly shameful. Whatever one thought of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—one thought about her a great deal when she was Prime Minister—at least one felt that she believed what she was saying. She had a firm point of view which she argued with consistency and commitment. No one knows what this Government's position is on many issues. If this is meant to be a government at the heart of Europe, heaven save us all from a government on the periphery.
The priority in this issue, which I hope the Government now recognise, must be to secure enlargement. That is the main priority, which has been the expressed priority of the Government for a long period of time. It is certainly our view that that is the point on which the Government should be concentrate-ing. I hope that the Cabinet recognises that tomorrow and clears up this sorry mess.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I begin on a non-controversial note. When I first heard, to my surprise, that this Private Notice Question had been accepted for Answer in another place and would therefore come here in the form of a Statement, I felt a stab of sympathy. I can imagine how unwelcome to the Government that decision must have been this morning. Midmorning information—mostly occurring on a Monday—that one has an unwelcome PNQ is the sort of chorus of doom which accompanies ministerial life. Having said that, I am bound to turn to something a little more controversial.
The Statement of the noble Baroness was more obfuscating than clarifying. One had to be a careful listener to realise that she was about to defend a move to 27 votes rather than sticking at 23 votes. which was the figure constantly mentioned at the beginning. But it is also the case that the indefensible position which the Government created for themselves--nobody else created it—over the past three weeks has been not merely unwise, but incomprehensible. To engage in a battle for a worthless piece of ground which cannot be won, and in the course of losing the battle to achieve the maximum of ill will and endanger the Government's major previously proclaimed British policy objective, is not patriotism; it is an inability even on a clear day to see two inches ahead of one's nose.
It endangers the policy objectives for the following reasons. Mr. Major's contention, "Britain at the heart of Europe", has long since become a bad joke. Since then, as I understand it, enlargement has been Britain's major objective. We are currently engaged in the easy move to enlargement—the EFTA four. My guess is that as a result of the shenanigans of the British Government we shall probably lose two of those four and maybe three. But this is a preface to the difficult but still more important step, which is the enlargement of the Vi seg rad 3, or 4 as they have now become. That is still more important for the stability of the continent and the

849
reputation of the European movement. Yet having made such a meal of the easy bit, that in itself has become substantially less likely.
The arguments deployed in this matter are some of the most horrifyingly bad that I have ever heard. For a British Government to argue that, on an unlikely combination, 41 per cent. of the population of Europe —or at any rate the governments of the population—might be overruled when that Government have been overruling 58 per cent. or 59 per cent. of the British population where all the unwanted, undesirable, ill-thought-out legislation mostly amended by your Lordships' House has been imposed upon us, is fantastic. I hope that the Government are capable of realising that, because they seem incapable of realising the most obvious of facts.
Furthermore, it points straight to the Germans having 15 votes to our 10 when we come to discuss these matters in the future. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that these rivallings—for such they are—have nothing to do with British interests in Europe and everything to do with the internal politics of the Conservative Party. They are a desperate effort by the Prime Minister to preserve his own skin at whatever the cost. Those who are equipped to step into that skin are not behaving very edifyingly either. If ever a government looked past their sell-by date, it is this one. At the centre is that most pathetic of all spectacles; that is, a weak man trying to behave like a strong man and as a result looking even weaker.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I understand it, since this was an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would not normally have been given the text in advance. I received it only moments before I entered the Chamber and would have shared it with him had I found him.
I turn to the points in hand. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that if we had known that the issue was coming up, surely we should have solved it long before. I can only say that we always knew that the issue would arise, as with previous enlargements. The issue has been around for a number of months. The Foreign Secretary made our position clear on the institutional aspects of enlargement, including qualified majority voting, in his evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee as long ago as 23rd November. The matter was discussed again in December. It has not suddenly arisen.
Nevertheless, throughout that time it has been necessary to look after the needs of this country. If there is one point I can emphasise to your Lordships, it is that we have benefited considerably from the weekend at Ioannina. The original proposal was 27 from 1st January 1995, indefinitely. Now the decision of the Council, which will be legally binding, requires the Commission and the presidency to work for agreement on the basis of 23, taking "any initiative necessary" to achieve that.
As I said in repeating the Answer to the PNQ, there is no time limit after which a decision would be forced through on the basis of 27. All 12 nations acknowledge
850
that the position is temporary and it must be reviewed in 1996. I happen to believe that the debate was valuable not just for the safeguards we appear to have secured but also in changing the terms of the 1996 debate so that it can deal with the enlarged community (which I am convinced there will be); it can deal with the needs of further enlargement. That is something to which we should certainly be turning our minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was wrong when he said that we have put the current enlargement in jeopardy and made the Visegrad enlargement less likely. It is up to the Community to grow with time, and I am convinced and know that that is exactly what the Government are working for.
This has not been an easy period, but I know from first-hand knowledge that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has done what is best for Britain. What he is recommending to the Cabinet is most certainly the right balance between looking after our interests with a 23 blocking minority and allowing enlargement to go forward.
4 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would my noble friend be slightly surprised to hear me say that I agree with much that was said by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, on the tactics with which this negotiation has been conducted? Does she not agree that it seems a little odd to say that we have an arrangement by which discussion can go on indefinitely until an issue has been resolved on the basis of a blocking mechanism of 23 but that we have an ultimatum that we must make up our minds on this issue by five o'clock tomorrow evening? The two things do not seem to gel well together. Does she further agree that if the Government were going to give overriding priority to the admission in the near future of the four applicants, they should have known that they could be turned over on any particular matter in the negotiations? Did it not only confuse the issue when our right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made it sound as though he was going to stand absolutely firm on 23 as opposed to 27 votes and then it seems has conducted a negotiation which I do not think has quite come out in that manner?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, not for the first time I find it hard to agree with my noble friend, particularly when he seems to put agreement with political opponents before loyalty to his own party.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I find it very hard, when I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has indeed worked all this time to get agreement on the basis of a blocking minority of 23, to take what my noble friend has just said. The fact that no time limit is set for a decision to be forced through on the basis of 27 is an important gain; the fact that we have enlarged the decision to be taken in 1996, by which time we hope the EFTA countries will be members of the European Union, is a gain. Above all, the thing that has worried my noble friend for so many years—that we will still have the Luxembourg Compromise—is a vital

851
agreement which is still there. That is what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has achieved. I do not believe that my noble friend is right to say, as he did, that he could agree with the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has presented a Statement today which she says comprises the recommendations of the Foreign Secretary to be made to the Cabinet tomorrow. It would seem to me—and I do not know how far I share this feeling with other noble Lords—that not only was she doing that but she was at the same time indicating in advance what the Cabinet decision was likely to be, because there was a strong advocacy of the course recommended by the Foreign Secretary.
During these many months since Maastricht I have been wondering, and still wonder, when the Government will have the courage to say no to something that is proposed by the Brussels Commission and followed out into the Council by its faithful servants —the Dutch, the Belgians and the Luxembourg ones. I have been wondering when they would ever say no. It may well be that tomorrow the Cabinet will say no and insist on the terms forecast by the Prime Minister himself as the essence on which he would take his stand on behalf of the United Kingdom. I hope that that will still prevail. But in the absence of any indication at the moment, will the Government please bear in mind that even as the noble Baroness is talking here this afternoon the Brussels bureaucracy is still making plans together with the European Parliament for yet further concessions to be made at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, to which she has referred? Will the noble Baroness give the House some indication as to the point upon which the Government in this field, which is vital to the United Kingdom, are prepared to take a firm stand for the United Kingdom as distinct from making concession after concession in some of the weasel words, I regret to say, in which the communiqué has been presented to the House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord should understand that the recommendations which the Foreign Secretary is putting to the Cabinet tomorrow come not only from him but from his 11 colleagues in the Council of Ministers. That is the basis. Therefore, in accusing me of advocating this solution, I am simply saying that I believe that this is a way forward. It will be entirely up to the Cabinet whether or not it accepts that way forward.
The noble Lord went on to ask when the Government would say no. He knows full well that we have indeed referred the difficult questions on the working time directive to the European Court of Justice because we believe that the directive was taken on the wrong basis. It should not have been taken by majority voting. He asked when else we had said no. We said no to the social chapter. That was why we negotiated the social protocol.
Most noble Lords have looked forward to enlargement. I believe it is right for the European Union that we should continue to look forward to enlargement,
852
but not at any price. That is why I believe that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has come back from the meeting in Greece with a sensible proposal which is workable and which allows us to change the terms of the 1996 debate, which is something for which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has often. argued.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether, as there is apparently to be a Cabinet decision tomorrow, a further Statement will be made in your Lordships' House tomorrow afternoon embodying and reporting that decision?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend for certain whether that will be so but I have a funny feeling that I might be standing at this Dispatch Box tomorrow afternoon, too.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I, at any rate, welcome the fact that her noble friend Lord Tebbit was prepared to pay attention to his common sense, to his conscience and to his loyalty to this country rather than to party advantage when he asked relevant questions of her from the Dispatch Box this afternoon? Is she further aware that it is still not clear to many of us exactly what has been agreed? Have the Government agreed to 27 votes being the blocking minority, or is the figure 23? Whichever it is, from when does it operate? If the Commission and the Council are going to examine the matter further between now and 1996, will it then be possible, if 27 votes has been agreed, to go back to the 23 votes which apparently has not been agreed? If the agreement reached has been so good, will the Minister say why the Foreign Secretary has had to come back and consult the Cabinet about it? If he had achieved what the Cabinet had said it wanted to achieve, does the Minister agree that he would not have needed to consult the Cabinet again and could have signed any agreement yesterday? Finally, can the noble Baroness say exactly who is "Monsieur Oui" now, the "poodle of Brussels"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe as I believe your Lordships' House and the other place believe, that it is in the United Kingdom's interest to secure enlargement. That has long been a united purpose of both our Houses of Parliament. The Government are not yet in a position to agree what was a proposition brought back by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday following his discussions with 11 colleagues. If it is agreed tomorrow then the proposals which have been made would begin at the time of enlargement —in other words, there would be no change right now.
Perhaps I may recap for the information of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. First, the original proposal was 27 votes. We now have a proposal from all 12 Foreign Ministers that the decision of the Council will be legally binding and will require the Commission and the presidency to work for agreement on the basis of 23 and, I quote from the document, taking "any initiative necessary" to achieve that. Secondly, there will be no time limit after which a decision will be forced through on the basis of 27. All 12 acknowledge that this position

853
is temporary and will have to be reviewed in 1996. As I said some moments ago, by then we hope that Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland will be members of the Community.
We still have the Luxembourg Compromise where vital interests are at stake. I believe that is why the Foreign Secretary is putting this recommendation to the Cabinet. He agreed with the Cabinet before he went to the meeting in Greece that he would return to the Cabinet with the detail of the discussions. That is why he did not give agreement in Greece and neither did any of the other 11 Ministers. The matter will go to the Cabinet and a decision will be made.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are behind her a number of noble friends who have a great deal of sympathy with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the very difficult negotiations in which he has found himself taking a leading part? There will also be a measure of sympathy with him in the fact that his position has been made much more difficult by a lot of opportunistic posturing on the part of those who might have held their tongues for a little while.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I rarely remember a time when there was so much opportunistic chuntering from people who do not even really understand the detail of this matter. I speak for some within my own party.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: My Lords, I am sorry to be stupid, but I am trying very hard to understand. Could the Minister tell us what figure will operate between the accession of the new members and the review conference of 1996? Will it be 23 or 27?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it will initially be 23 with no time limit to it. That means it will be 23. I say "with no time limit" because the proposal which my right honourable friend put to the Cabinet is that the decision of the Council would require the Commission and the presidency to work for an agreement on the basis of 23. No time limit is set on the basis of achieving it at 23.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the treaties contain no reference whatever to a blocking minority, it is not at all surprising that there should be a degree of confusion in this matter. But what the treaties define are the number of positive votes required to pass a proposition. Having said that—I believe that that is what underlies a great deal of the exchanges which have gone on—perhaps I may make this point. It is not uncommon for a particular country to take a strong line and then, as a result of a protracted period of negotiation, to accept some sort of compromise. We are not the only country to take that line.
At the end of the day what matters is that the Community goes ahead together. We now have a reasonAble chance that that should be the position; namely, that if the proposition which is now being considered by Her Majesty's Government, the Cabinet,
854
or whoever takes the final decision, is accepted, then it follows that enlargement can go ahead. Enlargement is more than just being a policy that the Government have supported. It is a policy of immense advantage to the European Union as a whole and to this country in particular. What is more, we have to look forward to the end of this century and the early years of the next when the peace, stability, security and prosperity of Europe as a whole is going to depend on the Community enlarging its frontiers to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
So what we all ought to do is not so much rake over the embers of the past, but turn our minds to the future and to devote our efforts to constructing a sound and durable future.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as time is short, perhaps I may say that I agree in principle with what my noble friend said. Enlargement is a very important matter for the whole Community, particularly for this country and for many others who want to apply in future.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government have been so very stubborn about reducing the size of the arithmetical blocking fraction for the enlargement of the EFTA countries when they were perfectly ready to accept the normal enlargement of the fraction for the accession of Spain, Portugal and Greece?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have always believed that we should not allow majority voting to bulldoze minority interests, but to build on consensus. I believe that we did that in the case to which the noble Lord referred. We must make sure that we are able to resist unwelcome proposals.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister repeat—perhaps in other words—the answer which she gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle? If it is the case that, until 1996, 27 continues to be the figure
Noble Lords: My Lords, the figure is 23—
Lord Beloff: My Lords, no. We were told that 27 continues to be the figure. In that case it is not so much a compromise because it would suggest that the other countries have totally given way to the British position. I cannot believe that that can be the case. Therefore, can we know exactly what happens if a proposal is made between now and 1996? Which blocking minority is valid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the original proposal was 27 from 1st January 1995. It is perfectly true that the treaty says 27, but what was proposed yesterday and what my right honourable friend has put to the Cabinet is the decision of the Council, which is legally binding, which would require the Commission and the Presidency to work for an agreement on the basis of 23, with no time limit.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do the Government take the view that the Luxembourg Compromise is now legally binding?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Luxembourg Compromise has never been legally binding, but it has always been accepted. We still have the Luxembourg Compromise where vital interests are at stake.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report on Clause 1 resumed.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Membership, &c. of the agency]:
Lord Dainton Lord Dainton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, after ("whom") insert ("at least two shall be members of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the sole intention of Amendment No. 3 is to assist the functioning of the teacher training agency by ensuring that standards of judgment in policy making and in the allocation of resources in the teacher training agency are of the same high quality as those used by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, thereby helping to ensure that the activities of the teacher training agency which it supports will give better value for money. Perhaps I should say in passing that the money involved is not negligible. It amounts to about £150 million per annum.
It seems to me that the arrangements proposed in the Bill as it now stands do not ensure that. To explain how that comes about I am afraid that I shall have to take your Lordships back to the Second Reading debate last December and to our debates in Committee on Part I on 10th March.
I then adduced general arguments to show that to transfer the responsibility for the funding of teaching and research in education from the higher education funding councils to the teacher training agency would have certain deleterious effects—I am sure that they were not intended. Prominent among them is the fact that, whereas at present educational studies have to compete for money with studies in other subjects, such as science or medicine, both at the funding level—that is, within the funding council—and at individual university level, under the Bill as it now stands, those healthy competitions at such informed levels will not occur. I also pointed out that, for the same reason, it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to arrive at an appropriate sum of money to allocate to the teacher training agency which would stand the test of time.
I cannot stress too positively that formula funding, which the Minister considered would solve some of the problems, is not driven exclusively by counting student heads. Even as far as teaching alone is concerned, in building up the grant for a university the unit of resource, which is the sum paid for one full-time equivalent student year, not only differs in, for example, non-science subjects as compared with science, but it can also be varied. Indeed, the Higher Education
856
Funding Council for England has already—for very good reasons, I have no doubt—decreased the non-science unit of resource quite significantly. There is no doubt that the funding council could also vary it up or down for any subject category in the future.
In fact, the higher education funding councils build up the grant for each university by a process of summation of elements such as those for all academic subject categories. The grant also takes account of the demands which a given level of activity in each category of subject makes on other departments—for example, in those courses where a student is taking English with education or chemistry with education:, there are many such examples—as well as the demands which are made by that educational course on central facilities such as libraries.
When each university is notified of its allocation (reached in that way), it is, however, told and reminded firmly that the total sum for that university is a block grant. That means that it is for the university to dispose of internally as it wishes. That internal allocation of resources among the various activities involves intense competition—again at the university level—depending upon, among other factors, each university's distinctive academic policy. That is an essential feature of academic autonomy.
More could be said, but I think I have said enough to show that establishing the teacher training agency, to which this House agreed in Committee and which it therefore considers has merits, also has serious disadvantages. For brevity, I summarise them as follows: first, under the arrangements of the TTA, there will be a lack of desirable competition at the highest and best informed levels between the teacher training agency for resources for its restricted purposes and for those resources which will be allocated by the funding council in other academic subject areas.
Secondly, there will be a lack of desirable competition for resources at the institutional level--by which I mean the university level—for the reasons that I have explained.
Thirdly, to the extent that a university receives funds from, and is therefore accountable to, the teacher training agency for part of its work, there could well develop among those staff and others who are financially supported from the TTA source a sense of peculiarity and separation from university staff in other fields. A belief would soon grow that the criteria of standards would differ between those two fields and, consequently, intellectually and practically valuable connections of teacher training with areas of teaching and research cognate with other subjects would suffer and some academic coherence would be lost.
That difficulty could, of course, be partially overcome if the allocations to university departments by the teacher training agency, which the Minister correctly said on 10th March would be on a formula basis to departments, were made according to formulae which were the same as presently used by the higher education funding council both for teaching and research in this field. That would clearly be advantageous, but it would not be enough because it would not be a complete
solution because teaching and research in education would still not benefit from internal university competition for resources.
Amendment No. 3 is designed to minimise those disadvantages by making two members of the higher education funding council (with all their background knowledge of the procedures used there and all their knowledge of the differences between subjects) members of the teacher training agency. In my view, that would ensure some degree of conformity of standards of assessment and research across all higher education areas, including educational studies, and would retain some considerable degree of desirable competition between education and other subject categories at the national level. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification. As drafted, it looks as if a member of the HEFC has to be chairman. Is that the intention?
Lord Dainton: My Lords, no, it is not the intention.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is unfortunate that we are discussing this—
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I shall not keep the House long. There is just one point I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said in favour of the amendment. It has become recognised, I think, in the course of our debates, that educational research, which is one of the responsibilities of the new agency, is a multiple thing; that is to say, some of it relates to classroom teaching and its methods, and some of it relates to wider questions of how education is organised and financed and its relations with other aspects of government policy. One might wish to alter the balance between the two because it could be thought that one or other was pursued inadequately in this country. If responsibility for teacher education is hived off completely through being given to a separate body, then the problems involved in discussing such an issue will become harder to solve.
The proposal that there should be overlapping membership is fairly straightforward and simple. I am sure it is not intended that one of the members should necessarily be a chairman. In fact, it would be peculiar because they have great responsibilities of their own in the funding council. I hope that the amendment is acceptable.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if we are to proceed with the establishment of a teacher training agency, I have heard nothing in our deliberations so far to suggest that that should be in total isolation from what higher education has to contribute to the quality of the preparation of our teachers. It seems to me that whether or not one is thinking of education itself as a discipline—the insight, the analysis, the reflection, the educational psychology, and the rest—it is tremendously important that that teacher training agency should have a natural dialogue
858
with higher education about the immense responsibili-ties that it will be carrying. It is not a case of the immediate sphere of the discipline of education in its narrow sense; it is about the subject matter of education.
I should have thought that it was a pretty forlorn prospect for our children if the agency responsible for preparing their teachers was to conduct its activities in some way separate from all the research and latest thinking going on in higher education about mathematics, history, science, and all the other subject disciplines which are the substance of education. We can make all sorts of formal arrangements for ensuring that there is some sort of liaison, but all of us who have been in real situations know that there is no substitute for constant human dialogue for those carrying responsibility in different spheres. Therefore I beg the Minister to take this wise amendment seriously and to see that it becomes a creative and positive contribution.
In support of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and what I thought was a powerful introduction of the amendment, I recall the question asked in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—it is not the first time that I have been impressed by his wisdom and experience during our deliberations—who has of course carried the responsibility in the past of Secretary of State for Education. The question put by the noble Viscount as being the one question that we had to ask ourselves is: will the Bill enhance the status of the teaching profession or will it not?
My contention is that to insist upon proceeding with the establishment of an agency, devoid of a natural human link with those involved in higher education, will lead inevitably to a diminishing of the standards of the profession of teachers and of education. I am therefore delighted to have heard the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and supported powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I am glad to put these Benches and myself firmly behind it.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am in favour of the amendment. As the Minister knows, I was unable to be present for the first two days of the Bill's Committee stage. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House shares the objective of doing whatever we possibly can through the Bill, and through other measures which may arise later, to improve the quality of teacher training and education. Although I would hesitate to agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, when he criticised the quality of teacher education, it is true that there have been islands in this country where the standard has not been satisfactory. Equally, there have been areas of high standards of education in many of our university departments of education. Through my experience of chairing the National Commission on Education, I was very impressed by the quality of some of the education that I saw being provided for our teachers of tomorrow.
Much of that education is already helping to meet the spiritual, moral, cultural and social issues so eloquently referred to on the first amendment we discussed this afternoon, leading to the development of the character and ability of the young people whom those teachers

859
teach. Of course in the past few years, there has been a striking change in that the teacher training colleges increased slowly but progressively the quality and standard of education provided and sought, very properly, the validation of their degrees by the universities and the former polytechnics. Many departments of education are now working in close partnerships with schools.
There are many in your Lordships' House, I am sure, who will regret that the proposal relating to the possible establishment of a joint teacher training committee of the higher education funding councils was not accepted in Committee. I cannot however forbear mentioning the article published just this morning by Mr. Michael McCrum, the former headmaster of Eton, now Master of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, and former chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council, where he says how important it is to recognise that whereas practical experience in classroom technique and learning by example from senior teachers in schools is a crucial part of the education of our teachers of the future, it is in the university departments of education and other comparable bodies where the subject content of teacher education, the legal knowledge and the awareness of the latest research findings, are to be found that help to nurture and nourish the quality of that teacher education.
I was glad to read in Hansard that the Committee on the Bill, in its wisdom, passed an amendment which would make it binding that teacher training being conducted in schools would be validated or carried out in partnership with a higher education institution. That is a crucial issue. Mr. McCrum went on to say in today's article that even one of the most prominent and well known of our independent schools had been involved in the education of teachers although the primary purpose of schools is to teach children and not to teach teachers. That particular school had found that the workload involved in educating trainee teachers proved so excessive that the school had reluctantly felt bound to withdraw from the scheme.
The amendment, although in many ways not as good as would have been the establishment of a joint teacher training committee, goes a long way towards meeting many of the concerns that have been expressed by some in your Lordships' House. I hope that it is one that can be accepted.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the proposal in this amendment that at least two members of the teacher training agency should be members of the Higher Education Funding Council is one way of addressing the fact that educational research is multifarious, as my noble friend Lord Eleloff said, and that there are other interests involved in educational research apart from the teacher training agency. I accept that, but this is only one method of trying to square that circle. I believe that there is a better way in which to achieve that; namely, as I propose in Amendment No. 17. That does not disturb the existing arrangements for funding educational research except in specified cases. I believe that that is a superior way of dealing with the matter. If this
860
amendment is accepted, it will lead to many crossed wires and much confusion as to where responsibility lies.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, there is another amendment—I believe that it is Amendment No. 16 —which deals with research and, therefore., this matter would naturally arise on our discussions on that amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, as a non-educationist, perhaps I may be forgiven for intervening in the debate. I do so in the hope that on this occasion my noble friend will find it possible to answer the questions which worry me, which she did not manage to do in Committee.
This Government set up the Higher Education Funding Council last year and I believe that [ am right in saying that the council for England became fully operational only in April of last year, which is less than 12 months ago. Therefore, my first question is to ask what the funding council has done or not done that it now deserves to have its neck so summarily wrung.
My second concern is that the teacher training agency will be manned by the nominees of the Secretary of State. I have two worries in that regard: first, it means that the Government will be entirely responsible for teacher training and will be responsible for anything that goes wrong; and secondly—and this is a problem which worries their supporters more than their members—whether the Government ever think about the use which will be made of such proposals by a successor government of a very different mind and of different habits.
I hope that noble Lords opposite will forgive me for dwelling on that point for a few moments. Many Members of the present Government have never been in opposition. They have not faced the frustration and dismay of seeing measures carried out by people to whom they are opposed. I believe that this proposal is one more step along the path of the Government saying, "We are in office; we shall remain in office; we shall continue with these appointments; and there is no fear that somebody else will use them in a very different way in future".
I conclude my remarks by reiterating what has been said very much better by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in moving the amendment. Since the Government had their way in Committee and defeated a similar amendment, I hope that on this occasion they might allow the possibility that they are wrong to have some place in their thinking. I hope that they will accept this extremely modest compromise. That would be an act of grace on their part which I should welcome.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have come round to the view, unlike my noble friend, that the establishment of a teacher training agency is a sensible approach which will bring about much needed change, provided that it is given the power to do the job properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, explained the reasoning behind his proposal that two members of the

861
funding council should also be members of the agency. I believe that many of us have discussed the use of such a device and have also had experience of it. I have had experience on a number of occasions of committees on which there was cross-membership. It looks good but I believe that it limits to too great an extent the co-operation that can be brought about by the two bodies. I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect the two members to be mandated to have a point of view. He would merely expect that they would bring their understanding as members of the funding council to bear on those various issues.
I doubt whether that would be effective; and I say that based on my experience. I can understand the thinking behind the amendment but I do not believe that it would work in practice. There is a larger problem which is addressed by Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. We must discuss that in more depth when we reach those amendments. Those amendments deal not only with the question of research and how that may be handled in the Bill but they deal also with the question of what should be the responsibilities of the agency beyond initial teacher training.
I do not imagine that we shall resolve that issue today. I hope that we do not because there is movement in that regard; but we shall return to it later. I do not believe that Amendment No. 3 will be effective and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will reflect on the matter. I ask him to think about the responsibilities that those two people would have and what they could offer. Any member of the agency who is involved in higher education would have the same knowledge. It is inconceivable that the agency would exclude from its membership people experienced in higher education. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that, because that is basic to our view of the amendment.
I do not believe that this amendment is the right way forward. I hope that we shall have an in-depth discussion on this important issue when dealing with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 is in my name and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that that amendment raises different issues from those which arise on this amendment. Indeed, I believe that the two amendments are perfectly compatible.
Amendment No. 16, and Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, deal with issues involving research and higher education. But Amendment No. 3, which we are discussing now, involves making a connection between the work of the Higher Education Funding Council and the work of the teacher training agency. It is what one might describe as the Howards End amendment. It demands that those two should connect. The two bodies will have to understand each other's activities in a great many fields other than just those of higher education. If the communication between the two is not adequate, there will be confusion.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that there is no suggestion that anybody should be mandated to express a particular point of view. What is at stake is the availability of particular
862
information. To that end, this is a practical, small and helpful amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will accept it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was rather puzzled when my noble friend Lord Peyton spoke of the HEFC having its neck wrung because it is only having some of its powers removed and it will go on running about for a long time. However, I hope that my noble friend will tread with some delicacy on this issue because plainly in principle it is right that the two organisations should be closely in touch with each other and that their policies should be in accord with each other.
I must remind noble Lords of the practicalities involved which have not been mentioned so far. That is why I have risen to my feet. We are talking about a body consisting of about eight to 12 people. The amendment would pre-empt the appointment of two of those members—that is, one-quarter of the whole body. If such a body is to work, it is necessary to bring into it all the numerous interests—which is more than eight or 12 —by some other means than prescribing perhaps one-quarter of the total number of places.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I also believe that the amendment is taking us even further away from the original spirit of the Bill; namely, to increase the number of routes into teacher training and to bring about much more professional and school-based teacher training. The amendment that was passed two weeks ago moved that way as regards higher education. However, when thinking about the membership of such a body, the amendment would, as my noble friend said, pre-empt those two places. Moreover, bearing in mind the spirit of the Bill, there are many other people who might legitimately be considered appropriate and, therefore, the options should be kept as wide as possible. For example, some later amendments which might find favour with your Lordships are those referring to denominational position and/or special needs. To give two places to higher education seems to me to be extremely pre-emptive.
In so far as one of the purposes of the movement towards the change in teacher education is to make opportunities for more professionally based practician education for graduates in school-based policies and to open school-based apprenticeship training schemes for those graduate students who would like that kind of professional practice, I believe that there is a strong case for having representation by practising or recently retired teachers and also those representing academic subjects. The higher education lobby itself—to be slightly provocative for a moment—is not always totally disinterested.
Perhaps I may also draw a parallel with one thing that has been worrying me ever since the other amendment to which I referred was passed. When my own profession of nursing began to move directly into higher education, very often the higher education institutions had their own agendas and interests and were not always directly in favour of the professional practice and the professionalism of my profession as such. I was chairing the health studies committee of the Council for National Academic Awards at that time. When that profession

863
moved into higher education, in some of those courses the higher education representatives had their own staff interests and their own funding interests to such an extent that some of the courses that I was asked to validate were totally unacceptable in terms of the amount of clinical competence that was left on those proposals.
I am very worried that, if the particular proposals for teaching move into higher education institutions, the very valuable apprenticeship aspect and the autonomy of the schools over the professional practice aspect of the new training schemes may be severely eroded. If we have two representatives of the Higher Education Funding Council on the agency it will, again, tilt the balance away from the schools and away from the new schemes in the direction of that particular party to those partnerships. I very strongly resist that pre-emption of those two places in the way suggested.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out the phrasing of the proposed amendment. I believe that it reads, as set out at present, that one of those people would be the chairman. That would be an even further move in the direction I suggested and one about which I would be deeply unhappy. As I said, I am unhappy about the proposed pre-emption. I very much hope that noble Lords will not accept the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment. If higher education is to be involved in teacher education and training as the Minister has assured us on numerous occasions it will be, and as this Chamber determined two weeks ago through the amendment which was passed, I think it most important that we look at the matter from the point of view of the institutions involved.
The Higher Education Funding Council already makes very considerable demands on universities in terms of administration, in terms of the way it requires information and in terms of the standards that it imposes. If we were then to have a second body which, quite independently, was funding its own part of higher education and imposing different standards and different requirements, the universities would be in an absolutely impossible position.
It is essential that the new agency and the Higher Education Funding Council should work together and co-operate in the matter so that there is as much convergence in their methods as is possible. Therefore, I believe that the first priority on the membership of the teacher training agency should be that it has representatives from the Higher Education Funding Council. I hope that that would not obviate co-operation at other levels. I believe that it would ensure co-operation at that level and the provision of information which could be shared by the two bodies.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to the healthy competition between departments, by which I take it he means the continuation of the current practice of some universities of raiding the budgets of their teacher training departments to move the money over to other activities. One of the great things that the teacher training agency
864
will do is to prevent that practice completely; it will bring with it the independence and status that we now enjoy in further education which has preserved many of those institutions from the depredations of their local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also referred to the separation—that is, the disbenefits, as he sees them, of the funding to the teacher training departments coming from a separate source. Universities, schools and further education colleges at present deal with funds from many different sources. I simply do not believe that they value one source less than another; for example, that they regard a researcher funded by ICI as having lesser status than one funded by the Government. If anything, surely it is the opposite.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to the debate. I have grave doubts about the wisdom of the amendment now before the House. All professions—and teaching is, above all things, a profession—have two quite separate sides to the training which is necessary to become a professional. I have been trained in more than one profession, but, as I said, they all have two sides. First, there is the academic side which must be dealt with on purely academic lines. For example, if you are a lawyer you have got to know some law —strange as it may appear, and unpopular as it often is. However, you must also know how to cross-examine a witness and how to address the court. Moreover, you must know how to advise on evidence or draft a pleading.
It is the practical side that requires attention. I agree that teaching is exactly the same mutatis mutandis—and, there are a good many mutandis—as any other profession. There is a purely academic side which ranges from education as a subject to the actual subject competence that you are going to teach, whether it will be mathematics, science or history. However, there is also the practical side regarding how you handle your pupils. To pre-empt two places and say that they must come, above all things, from the funding council of the academic side seems to me to beg almost every question that there is to be begged.
I have grave doubts about the wisdom of travelling down the road suggested, even if one of the two most eminent professors not on the funding council proves to be one of the eight or 12 members nominated by the Secretary of State. As for the fear expressed by my noble friend Lord Peyton that a Labour government would be so corrupt as to put its own nominees into a place of authority, looking at the Benches opposite I like to think that that is quite unthinkable. However, they would probably be able to do so even if the amendment were accepted.
5 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wish to refer to the wording of line 1 of page 2 of the Bill. Should not "less" be written as "fewer"? I was always taught that "less" applied to quantity whereas if one is talking about numbers one should use "fewer". As we are discussing an Education Bill, it seems worth making that tiny point.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, as I cannot speak after the Minister has spoken, I rise to speak now. I believe there are two questions here. One is: how can teachers be trained so they can teach as well as they can be taught to teach? The other is: how can one raise the teaching profession in society to bring it to the level of all the other professions so that it will attract the right kind of young man and young woman? At present I suppose that many universities do their part of teacher training pretty badly. In my day they performed that part of teacher training pretty badly, if they did it at all. However, some universities perform that function well. The question before us, surely, is whether we should build on those which do it well and establish whether we cannot encourage many more to do it well, or whether we must cut them out.
When I was young I was told always to keep a hold of nurse for fear of something worse. I believe this teacher training agency is worse than the universities. Therefore I would keep hold of the universities. We will never reach a situation where teachers are respected in the way that doctors and lawyers are unless teachers are associated with universities. I am not clear what the amendment states as I have hardly read it, but I believe I will have to vote against it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend raised a point that goes wide of the amendment. We are talking here about membership of the agency and not about the content or the nature of training. That is dealt with through certain criteria and the way in which the agency has to operate. There will be amendments later which address the particular concerns of my noble and learned friend. It is disappointing that we are not dealing with this amendment together with 15 amendments that follow. We are talking about the membership of the agency. Somehow or other this amendment has pre-empted the debate on what will follow.
My noble friend Lord Elton made a point that I was going to make at the outset; namely, the body we are discussing comprises between eight and 12 members. Noble Lords are talking about filling between 16 and 25 per cent. of the available places from just one interest group. From what I have heard, noble Lords appear to be ignorant of the fact that we will take into account teacher trainers, academics, who are not involved directly with teacher training, and teachers and lecturers. It is simply inconceivable that we would have a board without higher education input.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a similar point when he said that somehow or other higher education was being ignored. However, those involved in teaching and lecturing, teacher trainers and also academics who are not directly teacher trainers all comprise categories of people who will need to be taken into account when these appointments are made. In appointing members to this body, I imagine that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education will consider carefully the case for overlapping membership of the two bodies we have discussed. We expect them to work closely together and joint membership would be one way of securing that.
866
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to ring-fencing leading to fragmentation. Universities commonly receive funding from a whole range of sources. As regards research, for example, many receive funds from the research councils as well as from the funding council and that does not appear to have led to fragmentation. If it has, there have been no complaints about it from noble Lords in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also addressed the issue of assessment. Assessment in teacher education is largely a function of Her Majesty's inspectorate and will continue to be so under our proposals. There is no question at all of downgrading that aspect. The funding council was more than happy to use Her Majesty's inspectorate's full report as the main source of assessment evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, also referred to competition for funds. Ring-fenced funds for teacher training will not be able to be spent on other disciplines. I have no worries about that. The agency will make sure that funds go to high quality provision. The competition will arise between institutions which deliver the provision. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the comment that there was no higher education representation on the agency or representation from those with knowledge of higher education. There could be no question of establishing a body without members who were knowledgeable of and about higher education. Indeed Clause 2 makes all this clear when it refers to the experience that would be required. We shall be strengthening those references in later amendments which, as I have said, unhappily, are not grouped with this amendment. However, that is not the same as overlapping membership.
I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Anything that improves the grammar of an Education Bill will be taken seriously. My noble friend Lord Peyton admonished me for not dealing with his questions in Committee. However, I have considered the entirety of what was said in Committee and I confirm that I answered his questions although I may not have referred directly to his name in the course of debate when answering them. On this occasion he asked what the Higher Education Funding Council had done wrong. It has done nothing wrong but it does not have the combination of powers which we believe will increase standards and efficiency as regards the funding of schools as well as higher education and as regards the promotion of the Teaching as a Career Unit and the accreditation of institutions. That will be an important and valuable role. I repeat what I said in Committee. This agency is subsuming the role played by the Teaching as a Career Unit, the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and that part of my department which is involved directly with teacher training, none of which came under the umbrella of the Higher Education Funding Council.
My noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lady Cox were concerned about ambiguity in the amendment. I hope I may be presumptuous and answer that question on behalf of the proposer of the amendment. I do not believe there is ambiguity here. If one considers it as a whole, it is tolerably clear that the one who is to be chairman is one of the 12 and not of the

867
two Higher Education Funding Council representatives. My noble friend Lord Beloff made the point that Higher Education Funding Council members are busy people. That is indeed so, and it would therefore be impossible to know in advance whether two of those members would be free to be members of both bodies. That is another flaw in the amendment. We are talking about busy people and if they were not prepared to take membership of two national bodies under their belts, there would be vacancies on the agency and that would be unthinkable.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about joint information. That is an important point as regards links between these two bodies. The provisions for joint working in Clause 9 are designed to ensure that necessary flows of information occur as well as other joint activity whenever the council and the agency can see value and benefit from that arrangement. It is important not just that the board members of each organisation should come together formally but that the two bodies should work together for the benefit of promoting good teacher training.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to his friend Mr. McCrum. He also referred to the experience of Eton and said that schools were not the place for teacher framing. He gave an example of some of the difficulties which could arise. I submit the analogy of a patient lying ill in a bed surrounded by a number of medical students. Such a patient may well think that a hospital is no place for people to learn their trade. However, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would argue that a hospital is a proper place for medical students to learn their craft and to be educated in the whole business of being good doctors. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has also said that once a lawyer has the subject of law under his or her command, he should receive practical training in applying that knowledge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, was anxious about the one-way membership from the HEFC to the teacher training agency. I would have more respect for that argument and the incredible efforts being made to promote the amendment if there had been a clamour for a member of the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education to be a member of the Higher Education Funding Council, but I do not remember any pressure for teachers to become involved in a world which almost totally controlled teacher education.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky made a point that I would have made. We must not confuse the amendment to include two members of the HEFC among the members of the agency with the debate that we shall have later on research. While that is an important subject they are very different issues.
I am anxious that we should not write more and more detailed rules into the Bill. We need to allow the best people for the job to be chosen at any particular time. We cannot always guarantee that there will be those who are willing and able to be members of both bodies. If no current funding council member had the time or inclination to serve also on the agency the Secretary of
868
State would have to remove a member from the council and appoint somebody who was willing to do so. Is that what the noble Lord wishes?
Those objections would be powerful even if only one member of the agency was at issue, but since the amendment would require two joint members the difficulties would be doubled. The scope for meeting the increasingly detailed requirements which your Lordships wish to see in Clause 2 while at the same time finding two places for existing funding council members would be very limited. I hope that, on reflection, noble Lords will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I thank her for making it clear that the amendment is not concerned with research. We should be clear about that. That subject will be dealt with later under Amendment No. 16.
I can assure the House that I never had in mind—and I hope that no one had in mind—the notion of mandating people from one committee to another. In my experience that never works.
I have seen this work, and I have seen instances where it has not worked. I have seen the flaws. I shall mention two bodies which are different in their characteristics—the Old University Grants Committee and its successor bodies, on the one hand, which are responsible for a great deal of research in universities, and what was the Council for Scientific Policy, of which I was chairman, and its successor body the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, on the other. Later the cross-membership which existed, in particular with the chairman of the University Grants Committee being a member of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, was lost. Everyone is agreed that that was a great mistake. In fact, the Minister said so when we were taking evidence in the Science and Technology Committee. Under the new arrangements that cross-membership is to be restored.
The argument that people who are busy cannot do the job well and cannot move from their original parent body and bring a fresh mind and the necessary knowledge to the second body of which they are a member is not valid in any way.
Nor do I accept the argument—which I find rather disreputable—that a hidden agenda would somehow he brought by a member of one body to another body. The people we appoint to bodies of this kind in this country are not of that quality. If they were they would not be of the quality that we ought to have.
In her summing up, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, agreed about the confusion with research. She left me a little confused about overlapping membership. I evidently failed to explain to your Lordships that I want to see competition at a high level of quality which does not sink when we have the teacher training agency but is sustained at a high level. That is the purpose of the amendment. That competition is with other areas of study, both at the national level and at the institutional level. That is the key point. We shall lose that as matters stand at present unless we can be guaranteed some cross-membership of this kind.

869
I noted what the noble Baroness said about taking account of these matters in the membership, but I feel that we need to go further. I am anxious to retain tough criteria of quality and standards. This is one way of helping that forward without having people who are representative of one body serving on another but instead having people who bring their knowledge and experience and their judgment to the problems of the second body.
After hearing the other speakers I am left in a good deal of confusion as to where opinion lies in this House. This is a matter of such importance that, although there were moments when I was tempted to withdraw the amendment, I do not feel that in the circumstances I can do so. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Hooson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howell, L.

Attlee, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Brain, L.

Judd, L.

Bridges, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lawrence, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Listowel, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Longford, E.

Dainton, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde,

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Desai, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fitt, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Geraint, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glenamara, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ripon, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Haskel, L.

Russell, E.

Healey, L.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

870

Shannon, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Shepherd, L.

Tordoff, L.

Sherfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Warnock, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Wharton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wigoder, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thurlow, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Hothfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Huntly, M.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L

Kenyon, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cadman, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Middleton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Moyne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Northbourne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Donegall, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Downshire, M.

Palmer, L.

Dudley, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Prentice, L.

Elton, L.

Quinton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Radnor, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rennell, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Geddes, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goold, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Haddington, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Haig, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swansea, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harrowby, E.

Torrington, V.

Haslam, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Holderness, L.

871

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wise, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 4, I have to say that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 inclusive.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("in") to ("or") in line 8 and insert ("—

(i)the provision of education in schools,

(ii)the training of teachers, or

(iii)the provision of higher education other than the training of teachers,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 12. 27 and 44 to 48. The group includes a number of government amendments which deal with points on membership of the agency raised by noble Lords during the previous stage. I shall start by saying something about each of them and some linked amendments in the group, before turning to the other amendments on membership also before us.
In the government amendments we hold to the principle that members should be chosen for the personal contribution that they can make and not in any representative capacity. But we have been glad to accept that there is a range of areas of experience and expertise to which it would be right.—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could give way. Could she kindly either speak a little more loudly or could other noble Lords refrain from joining in? I need to know what she is saying and I have not yet been able to hear a word. I am very sorry.
Baroness Match: My Lords, I start again. I am moving Amendment No. 4 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 27 and 44 to 48. Again the group includes a number of government amendments which deal with points on membership of the agency raised by noble Lords during the previous stage. I shall say something about them and some linked amendments in the group before turning to the other amendments on membership also before us.
In the government amendments we hold to the principle that members should be chosen for the personal contribution which they can make and not in any representative capacity. But we have been glad to accept that there is a range of areas of experience and expertise to which it would be right to require the Secretary of State to have regard in considering possible members.
My noble friend Lord Pearson has tabled a further amendment drawing attention to the value of experience of providing higher education other than teacher training. I hope my noble friend will agree that
872
Amendment No. 5 secures his intention equally well by making separate references to teacher education experience and wider academic experience.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am sony to interrupt again, but does my noble friend in fact mean Amendment No. 4?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to say that;I am not sure. The amendments were tabled so late that in order to improvise over the weekend I have been dealing with one set of numbers. I now see that I am dealing with another set of numbers. I understand that Amendment No. 4 is my amendment; Amendment No. 5 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd; Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson; Amendment No. 8 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd; Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson; Amendment No. 11 stands in my name; Amendment No. 12 is in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford; Amendments Nos. 27 and 44 to 48 stand in my name. I believe that the amendment to which I have just referred is Amendment No. 7. Is that right, or is it Amendment No. 6?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think that the amendment to which my noble friend alludes is Amendment No. 4, which has the qualities that she seeks.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has tabled a further amendment (which I understand is Amendment No. 6) drawing attention to the value of experience of providing higher education other than teacher training. I hope that he will agree that Amendment No. 4 secures his intention equally well by making separate references to teacher education experience and wider academic experience. It is indeed important that the agency should be able to draw on a breadth of experience of higher education in its deliberations.
My noble friend has also pursued in his Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 his concern that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should draw on the recently retired in making appointments to the agency and not just current practitioners in any field. II is to avoid the danger of bodies like the agency being entirely composed of retired people who have the time to offer to such endeavours that the reference to current experience is commonly written into legislation of this kind. I should be loath to excise the reference to current experience, as Amendment No. 9 would do. I must stress again that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be able to appoint retired people as well as current practitioners; and he has very recently done so for the schools funding agency which is governed by similar provisions to those in Clause 2. I can say to my noble friend that recently retired members of the profession can indeed make a very real contribution to such a body.
Amendment No. 10, which tips the balance in favour of recently retired teachers, has some consequences which I am sure were not intended. As drafted, it would require my right honourable friend to take account of the

873
desirability of all appointees being recently retired teachers, which would cut across my noble friend's desire to include academics with no links with teacher education. If the intention is that those chosen for their teaching experience should be recently retired, I have to say that this would limit the Secretary of State's discretion too much. My right honourable friend must have the ability to choose the best person from any background, regardless of his or her current status.
As my noble friend knows, I have every sympathy with the case for allowing the agency to draw on the wisdom and experience of the recently retired. Indeed, it is because this is such an obvious group to use on bodies of this kind that I am confident that we do not need to put their claim on the face of the Bill.
In Committee, I assured the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that I accepted the principle behind his amendment to ensure that the important role played by the Churches in teacher training was also taken account of in appointing members to the new agency. But I could not accept his amendment as drafted because I was advised that it might have untoward effects on the clause as a whole. I hope that he will feel able to endorse Amendment No. 11, which I believe will secure the outcome that he wished to see and ensure that the large body of denominational providers is not overlooked. Amendments Nos. 27, 44 and 47 are consequential on this aspect of Amendment No. 11 and ensure that the definition of denominational provision is appropriate for use in both Clauses 2 and 6.
I am not, as the right reverend Prelate knows, persuaded that the Churches should be given the right to be consulted about every single appointment to the agency and every subsequent vacancy. I know that that is what the 1993 Act secures for the Funding Agency for Schools, but if I may quote the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that does not necessarily mean that we should do it again. There will be occasions when an ad hoc vacancy occurs when it would be a waste of everyone's time to require consultation with the Churches as the gap in knowledge and experience which needed to be filled was of a very different sort.
I am afraid that limiting the duty to consult to the appointment of members filling a Church place on the agency is not a possible way forward. As I said earlier, there are no "representative" places on the agency and no group has a claim to them. I must therefore resist the suggestion that this issue should be dealt with on the face of the Bill. However, I should like publicly to reassure the right reverend Prelate and place on record our intention to consult the Churches both about initial appointments and any future appointments in which the Churches might be thought to have a legitimate interest.
I hope that Amendment No. 11 will also answer the points made during the Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), when speaking to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It will require the Secretary of State to take notice of experience relevant to teaching those with special educational needs when he considers the agency's
874
membership. The amendment underlines our determination that the agency should have equal regard for the interests of those with special educational needs as for all others.
Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48 are consequential to this aspect of Amendment No. 11. They insert in Clause 17 a definition of persons with special educational needs. The definition covers both pupils and others with special educational needs. Therefore the Secretary of State will be able to take account of experience in providing further and higher education to those with learning difficulties as well as those working with school pupils with special educational needs and those training teachers for that role.
Amendments No. 5, 6 and 7 clearly indicate an anxiety about the drafting of Clause 2 which is shared by some of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite. It is that the provision of education as the Bill has it cannot be equated with teaching and so we might find ourselves with an agency full of bureaucrats rather than school or higher education teachers. In the context of the clause, I do not believe that there is any reason for anxiety on this score. It is teachers who provide education in school for all our pupils, and lecturers and supervisors who provide higher education. Those at one remove—governors, LEAs, even vice-chancellors and non-teaching heads—are governed by the second limb in the subsection; those "having responsibility" for the provision of education as opposed to those actually doing it.
I imagine that experience of educational research might indeed be a very good attribute for a member of the agency. Those responsible for the training of teachers often have research experience; those with other higher education experience will have their own research background. I resist Amendment No. 8 because it adds again unnecessarily to the detail in the Bill and runs the risk of seeming to add two new categories—education researchers and other researchers—to those we have already included. It seems to me that if the law governing the Higher Education Funding Council, with its £3 billion budget and larger membership, does not require us to have regard to research experience in appointing members, there is no case for doing so explicitly for the agency. Higher education is, for this Bill as for the 1993 Act, a broad enough term to cover all that is required. I ask the House therefore to accept amendments Nos. 4, 11, 27, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 and to reject Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I wish, first, to express my sympathy to the Minister for having to cope with many amendments at the last moment. I understand her difficulty. We have had the minimum amount of time between the two stages and I recognise that that was to meet the convenience of us all. However, I express my gratitude for the way in which she has coped; I too have found myself going boss-eyed on these occasions.
Our deliberations on this part of the Bill illustrate the problem. If there is to be a TTA, which is what the Bill is all about, the self-evident case for having it should be the additionality and the improved quality that it will

875
bring to the whole realm of education. As we get down to defining the TTA, we are beginning to discover a host of anxieties about how far it can possibly represent the interests that will be affected. From that standpoint, a vast question-mark exists about the validity of the whole enterprise, and it becomes clearer as we proceed.
Perhaps I may apply myself to the specific amendments. I do not often say this but I very much welcome the spirit of Amendment No. 7, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He will readily realise that it deals with many of the anxieties about which I spoke earlier today. I am glad to see it on the Marshalled List. I should also like to say in a charitable frame of mind that I am glad to see the Minister's Amendment No. 11 in so far as it relates to special educational needs. That is a vital and important provision.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will forgive my following observation—I am always inclined to irritate him by these observations. I worry about language in this context and am worried about references to "denominational". I know that there can be a broad interpretation of the meaning of the word "denominational". Prior to reaching the Report stage of this Bill today the House was dealing with the fact that we are a multi-faith, multi-cultural society. We need to use language which suggests that in our consultations we are taking into account the interests of the widest possible cross-section of people of different faiths and religions. When we do not, people are, understandably and with reason, inclined to react with anxiety.
As regards Amendment No. 5, my memory has been jogged. The distinguished father of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in The Function of a Teacher:
"No one would consent in our day to subject the medical man to the control of non-medical authorities, except where they depart criminally from the purpose of medicine, which is to cure the patient. The teacher is a kind of medical man but he is not allowed to decide what methods are suitable to this end".
In the Minister's amendment reference is made to, "the provision of education". I am not sure what that phrase means. It could mean many things. We believe that on this body there ought to be the experience of teaching. Therefore our Amendment No. 5 sets out to make that point categorically clear; namely, that what we are looking for is the experience of teaching.
It is true that during the Committee stage—I believe I quote her accurately—the Minister specifically said that she expected that we would see on the teacher training agency those who qualified as teachers. But we do not see that as a firm enough commitment. Hence, we tabled this amendment.
Amendment No. 8 in a way relates to what has just happened in the House in relation to the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. We are saying here that it is essential, if the quality, status and standing of the profession are to be preserved, to have people on the TTA who have experience of and have shown capacity in research in higher education, including research into the theory, practice and management of education. I do not think that we can have it both ways. If we are being assured that the new agency will not diminish the standing, status and role of the profession—indeed, I presume that Ministers will
876
continue to argue that in their view it will enhance them, and that is why they want it—surely the whole process must have at its disposal that kind of experience as an integrated part of the operation. To exclude it raises the danger that we shall see a sort of ghetto area which is there at a lower second-class status for the preparation of our teachers. We therefore see Amendment No. 8 as also central.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I must apologise if I have tried the patience of the House by interrupting my noble friend two times, but it seemed to me that she was supporting Amendment No. 5 at one point, which is very similar indeed to my own Amendment No. 6, whereas the rest of her remarks led me to believe that she was about to refuse it, as indeed she did.
My name is to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10. If I could start with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, I would say that I am very happy to accept what my noble friend has already said on this matter to the effect as I understood her that there probably will be people with teaching experience on the teacher training agency who have recently retired from teaching in schools. The purpose of my amendment was to try to remove the emphasis which there seems to me to be in the Bill at the moment in Clause 2, lines 11 to 13, which gives in my view too much of an emphasis to people who are currently engaged in the provision of or carrying on the matters referred to earlier. As I think I understood that, when the time comes I will be very happy to withdraw those two amendments.
But I think that Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are perhaps more serious and go a little further than my noble friend has gone in tabling Amendment No. 4. I welcome what she has been able to do in that sense at Committee stage. She has been able to put into the Bill that people with experience of provision of higher education other than the training of teachers will be included. That is certainly a step forward. But I am not sure that it goes quite far enough. I would hope that my noble friend might be able to say that she will consider her Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and my own Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name also of my noble friend Lady Cox.
The reason I say that is that I think the Bill, even as amended by my noble friend's Amendment No. 4, talks of putting people onto the agency who have experience of,
"the provision of education in schools".
There I join with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in wondering what "the provision of education" might mean. I would fear —and I imagine it might not be a fear shared by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—that this might include local authority education officers and others whom I would like to see in a rather diminished number on the agency.
What I am trying to get at in Amendment No. 6 is indeed that people who have experience of teaching in schools rather than the provision of education in schools should be on the agency; and that also when one comes

877
to higher education people who have experience of teaching academic subjects in higher education other than teacher education or training should be on this agency. I do not believe that this is widening the categories very far. I think that my noble friend the Minister and I, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, are very close on Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that she might have a further look at them before we come to Third Reading.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I support most warmly Amendment No. 11, and particularly paragraph (b), which ensures that a member of the teacher training agency shall have relevant experience or responsibility for the provision of special educational needs. I also support Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46. As the Minister is aware, an amendment very similar to this one was tabled in my name during the Committee stage of the Bill. Unfortunately I had to be absent because of a family funeral. I am delighted that the argument was put forward so cogently and well by my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and also the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and other noble Lords. I am very grateful to them, and I am grateful to the Minister for her acceptance of this particular amendment.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I hate to disagree with my noble friend on my own Front Bench. He is my noble friend—and is a very good friend. But I support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
It is a very great pity that hardly anybody knows anything nowadays about the history of education in England and Wales. If one looks at the growth of the education system in Britain, it was largely brought about in the early years, and indeed throughout the whole of the 19th century, by the Churches. The two great societies provided schools throughout the country. They were financed by the Privy Council. But when the Forster Act was passed in 1870 and the school boards were established, the great majority of schools, (even after that,) were Church schools. Of course they have persisted to this day.
It is not only in relation to schools but also teacher education in which the Churches played a major part. Until very recently I think probably a majority of training colleges, before they were absorbed into higher education, were owned by the Church of England, and some by the Free Churches. It is a very great pity that that vast amount of experience and knowledge should not be consulted. That is all that the right reverend Prelate asks—that they be consulted about appointments to this board. I therefore have very great pleasure in warmly supporting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, perhaps I may say very briefly how pleased I am to see Amendment No. 11 on the list of amendments. It seemed a terrible omission that there was no mention of special needs in the original Bill, coming just at a time when it is recognized
878
that children with special needs are in far greater proportion in the school population than was ever thought to be the case. Now at least it seems that we shall have people on the TTA who will have some knowledge of this matter. That in itself is very important. It is important that those particular words were put on the face of the Bill. I am very grateful indeed.
I realise that "teaching" as written in the Bill must presumably mean all sorts of teaching, including the teaching of those with special needs. Past history has always been that special needs and specific learning difficulties have always been somehow "fudged up" when it came to the classroom and teacher training. I hope that this matter will be carried a little further when we come to Amendment No. 24, which relates to funding and representation, to see whether perhaps that idea is also acceptable.
I appreciate that it is difficult to be specific in such a Bill and that it is much better to use general terms. But in view of the numbers of people involved and the fewness of the teachers, it is not a small affair at all. My experience, as a non-educationist but perhaps on the fringe of the situation, has been fairly long. In the Bill we have a funding agency for teacher training. We have always missed trained teachers in that area and the money to train them.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, let me echo the thanks given by my noble friend Lord Rix and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and welcome most warmly Amendment No. 11. Once again the Minister has listened. I seem to be saying "Thank you" rather more often than "Please". It is a pleasant experience for both of us. I am particularly pleased with the Minister's amendment because it is linked to subsection (2), which refers to current experience. That is very important if the evaluation of the quality of special needs teaching is to be as informed as possible.
I listened to the Minister when she commented on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, with regard to recently retired teachers. During a meeting that we had last week on the Bill, one very well known professor with vast experience in special needs teaching —I shall not name him because I comment on the spur of the moment and have not checked with him that I can mention this matter; I do not wish to indulge in special pleading but it is important to stress the point at this stage—said that he was due to retire next year and did not believe that he would be in a position to offer the required up to the minute expertise to be a member of the agency. Special needs teaching is a fast moving field and it is important for people to be currently engaged in the profession. I am therefore particularly pleased that the amendment is related to subsection (2) and I welcome it wholeheartedly.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 12 in my name. First, let me express my warmest thanks to the Minister for the statement that she made a few moments ago. I welcome her Amendment No. 11, which makes explicit reference to the institutions of a denominational character. I also bear in mind that in Committee she said that it was

879
inconceivable that the Church colleges would not be considered in appointments to the teacher training agency. Also, during the course of her remarks this afternoon she made a public statement giving the assurance that the Churches would be consulted. That is very reassuring and I am immensely grateful to her.
In the light of that, it seems almost churlish to push her —no, I would never do that—or rather to encourage her to go a little further. She can give that assurance that the Churches will be consulted, and so I wonder whether that should not be on the face of the Bill. I have no wish to rehearse what I said in Committee but I had to tell the House then that our experience of consultation when a matter was on the face of the Bill was none too happy. Therefore it is a somewhat anxious moment for me now to have to rely on the Minister's statement when the provision is not on the face of the Bill.
I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee but I must add one comment. Noble Lords will remember that in Committee the Minister regretted that I did not refer to the letter from the Secretary of State in which he apologised for not informing me of the appointments. Subsequently, I made reference to that letter. I have responded to it, indicating that, although I am grateful for the apology, the letter totally failed to meet my concern about lack of consultation. I offered to meet him, his Minister or anybody else to resolve those issues. I have not had a reply.
I do not wish to rehearse that again but that is our experience. For that reason I feel that I ought at least to press in principle the matter of consultation being on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that the purpose of consultation is twofold. It is in order to ensure that those with experience put their heads together in order to secure the best and most appropriate people to serve on the teacher training agency. The second reason is in order to ensure that those who are very much in the teacher training field have full confidence in the membership of the teacher training agency.
I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarnara, for giving such an effective trailer to what I wanted to say. It is perfectly true that the Church colleges largely pioneered the whole area of teacher education in the 19th century. They are still in that business today. The Church and associated colleges currently have 43,000 full-time students and 18,000 part-time students, approximately half of whom are studying education. That is an enormous stake in the business of teacher education. The fact that we have been historically in that field and are still there merits the provision that we should be fully consulted on the future of teacher education.
I should like to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I do not use the word "denomination". It is not a word that I like. It has a narrow and slightly 'exclusive ring to it. That is not the situation. The word is only used because that is the legal language that is used in order to define institutions of a denominational character. If the noble Lord looks carefully at my amendment, he will notice in paragraph (c) that it asks the Secretary of State to consult not only the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which have the principal colleges, but also other
880
denominations—the Free Churches have colleges of education as well—and representatives of other religions. We are sensitive to the fact that we live in a multi-faithed society, although historically the principal religion in this country is Christian and it is the Church colleges which have taken such a major part in teacher education.
I am immensely grateful to the Minister for the assurances that she gave. However, I am sure she will understand when I ask, if she can give those assurances so clearly, firmly and publicly in the House in that way, whether there is not an argument for saying that that provision should be on the face of the Bill. I do not ask for that in the rather wide terms of my own amendment. I recognise that I have replicated what is in the 1993 Act. But we probably made a mistake in that Act—I believe that is what the Minister is saying—in requiring consultation to be too wide. I feel that, when taking into account the denominational interest, there should be the fullest consultation with the Churches and that should be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I deeply sympathise with my noble friend the Minister over the great complexities about who will be on the teacher training agency. I fully appreciate that she does not want to be too prescriptive because that would make the agency other than the Government would wish.
I very much welcome Amendment No. 11, which I was glad to hear was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I also appreciate the welcome given to that amendment by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and I intervene to answer one of the points made by him. As I understand it, with Amendment No 12 he wants to have consultation written on the face of the Bill.
We have to recognise that it is possible to refer to what is said in Hansard. That record does make a difference and has been upheld in the court in that way. It is not just a matter of considering an issue in a rather interesting, slightly academic way without the debate having some effect. That needs to be borne in mind. Having said that, I hope that the point made by the right reverend Prelate is one with which we all agree and that it is subsumed in Amendment No. 11.
My other point is that I hope very much that my noble friend will look at the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson about teaching. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will no doubt be astonished to find that I agree with him on this point. One of the underlying principles of the Bill is the importance of teaching. If my noble friend looks again at any of these matters, I hope that is one which she feels is important to include in Amendment No. 4 in some way.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in saying that since, a recent judgment statements made in the House and reported in Hansard will be taken into account in cases, nonetheless I wish to support the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that the matter should be placed on the face of the Bill. That judgment

881
may not always stand. It may be modified at a later stage and it would not surprise me if it were. Problems can plainly arise from leaving the matter as it stands.
If it is accepted that consultation should take place —and I believe that it should—it is difficult to believe that it is not possible for it to appear on the face of the Bill. That would be much more satisfactory than it simply being left as a reference in Hansard.
Lord Desai: My Lords, there are many points in Amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 12 which clearly make them inclusive. I hope therefore that I do not sound churlish when I say that what stands out by its omission is any reference to equality of opportunity.
At the Committee stage I tabled amendments saying that experience in implementing the policy of equality of opportunity, and in general the whole question of the multi-racial nature of society, should be taken on board. One must have qualifications in every other field—industrial, commercial, financial and practical matters or in any profession. One must have higher education experience. Yet when it comes to the question of the multi-racial character of the society we omit it. That is a pity. I cannot say anything stronger.
I do not believe that allowing for multiple faiths resolves the issue. We may be encouraging certain communities, which do not maintain their own religious schools, to start them. That would not be a healthy trend. We should say that somewhere along the line the question of the multi-racial nature of society will be taken on board and people with experience in that field will be heard. The clutch of amendments before us does not allow that.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, these are very much matters of balance. Though I take the point of the right reverend Prelate that he does not insist on sticking by the wording of his amendment, nonetheless, when we are talking of writing something on the face of the Bill, the wording is relevant. Whereas one can accept that it is appropriate to consult the Churches in a general sense when talking of the membership of the teacher training agency, in my view it is too strong to say that before appointing any member of the agency the Secretary of State shall consult. There would be endless cycles of consultation.
I have great sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He is not suggesting that we table an amendment whereby the point is written into the Bill in an explicit way; we do not want endless cycles of consultation. But he drew attention to an extremely important area which is not covered in any of the amendments and is not explicitly covered in any of the texts before us. I sometimes wonder whether we are sometimes careful to protect the interests of those who are already to some extent protected—I take the point of the right reverend Prelate that they must continue adequately to be protected—and overlook areas which have become important in our society but which are not yet adequately covered or protected.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the positive comments made during the course of the debate. I do not believe that too much divides us on these amendments.
Perhaps I can deal first with the points made by the right reverend Prelate and pray in aid the points made by my noble friends, Lord Renfrew and Lady Young. They made the points very clearly that I wanted to make. If Amendment No. 11 is accepted we will have built in the specific interest of recognising that there are institutions of a denominational character other than secular schools. I might also say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who made the point about recognising the history of education in this country and the part played in it by the Churches, that I remember studying the subject for 0-level and I believe also for A-level. I found it to be a fascinating subject. I do not know if it is still studied.
One of the difficulties of putting something as specific as this on the face of the Bill is partly because of the words in the amendment that:
"Before appointing any member of the agency the Secretary of State shall consult".
Implicit in that statement is not just the initial appointments but also all subsequent appointments. For the purposes of this debate I must repeat the assurances I gave earlier. The difficulty of putting something on the face of the Bill means that we will have to go a long way down the road of considering the Church membership representative rather than the interest of denominational education being recognised by the whole body.
I said that there will be occasions when an ad hoc vacancy occurs when it would be a waste of everyone's time to require consultation with the Churches as the gap in knowledge at any particular time and experience which needed to be filled was of a very different sort. I said I was afraid that limiting the duties to consult to the appointment of members filling a "church" place on the agency is not a possible way forward. As I said earlier, there are no "representative" places on the agency and no group has a claim to them. I said that for those reasons I am resisting the amendment in this case and added that, however, I should like publicly to reassure and place on record our intention to consult the Churches both about initial appointments and any future appointments in which the Churches might be thought to have a legitimate interest.
I can say to the right reverend Prelate, treading a thin line between representative in membership and the interests of the Churches or the interests of denominational education being accepted, that if there were a vacancy or vacancies on that body which meant that the interest or expertise that could be brought to bear in protecting the interests of denominational education were at issue, then that is an occasion when consultation would be highly appropriate. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will read my words and consider whether he feels so strongly that he wishes to bring the matter back at the next stage.
With regard to the points made by noble friends on providers of education, when I addressed that point initially when speaking to the amendment I said that I thought there was no reason for concern because we had

883
made the distinction between providers of education and teachers. I went on to say that it is teachers who provide education in schools for all our pupils and lecturers and supervisors who provide higher education. I am persuaded and attracted by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friends behind me that if a way can be found to make it more explicit that the first provider of education referred to subsumes teaching as well, then I will look for ways of addressing the matter before Third Reading. It is an important point.
I conclude by reminding the House, subsuming my own amendments that are to be accepted today, that we are talking about providers of education in schools. I made the caveat that I will look again to make sure that that explicitly addresses teaching. That includes the training of teachers, or the provision of higher education other than the training of teachers; and some members shown to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in any position carrying responsibility for such matters. The people involved in the provision of education other than teaching will be industrialists, commercial and financial people, people from other professions, the institutions of a denominational character and persons providing for those with special educational needs. 'Those are all interests which will be taken into account when my right honourable friend makes appointments to this body.
Lord Judd: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I can say that I am grateful for her positive reply. However, perhaps she can make clear —it may be my hearing—that in her list of people she has not forgotten local authorities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was reading out categories. Local authorities, if they were to come in anywhere, would be among those who have held and shown capacity in any position carrying the responsibility for such matters—such matters being the provision of education.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 10.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) In considering the appointment of members in accordance with subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons whose relevant experience or responsibility is, or was, in or in relation to—

(a)institutions of a denominational character, or

(b)the provision of education for persons with special educational needs.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Teacher Training Agency]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 13, at end insert:
884
(" —(1) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, or a representative of his, shall be entitled to attend and take part in any deliberations (but not in decisions) at meetings of the agency or of any committee of the agency.
(2) The agency shall provide Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England with such copies of any documents distributed to members of the agency or of any such committee as he may require.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. Both amendments deal with different aspects of the workings of the teacher training agency 'which were discussed in Committee.
Amendment No. 13 requires the agency to grant access to a representative of Ofsted to meetings of the agency and to any papers that Ofsted may require. As I said in Committee, it is essential that there be a close working relationship between Ofsted and the teacher training agency. The two bodies have complementary roles to play in ensuring that standards in initial teacher training are maintained and improved. Because of the closeness of that relationship, I believe it right that this should be written on to the face of the Bill to ensure the free flow of information between the two bodies.
Amendment No. 14 requires the agency to provide the Secretary of State with an annual report, which he will lay before Parliament. It was always our intention that the agency should publish a full range of information relating to its activities, including an annual report. This is essential to ensure that the agency follows the principles of openness and accountability.
Given the agency's distinctive role, and the interest which Parliament and the wider public wi II take in its activities, I am happy to bring forward this amendment which puts on the face of the Bill a requirement to produce an annual report. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should like to say very sincerely from these Benches that we are very grateful for the way in which the Minister has responded to our points. We think it is a wise measure. We are glad to see it there. Thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert:
("Annual reports
The agency—

(a)shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State, who shall lay a copy of it before each house of Parliament; and

(b)may arrange for any such report to be published in such manner as the agency consider appropriate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Qualifying activities and eligible institutions]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 37, after ("teacher") insert ("education and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness will remember that at a late hour during the Committee stage we had quite an altercation about education and training. I was holding very firmly to the thesis that, while training could be part of a wider approach to education, it was impossible to confine the concept of education to being part of training. I was very glad today to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who

885
I am afraid is no longer in his place, making my point with the eloquence we have come to expect of him. He said that in his experience in any professional training there are two elements: the academic element and the practical element. But what I found important was that he said "in any preparation for a professional career". Sometimes there is a tendency to confuse the issue of insisting upon people of graduate level coming into the profession and the educational content of the preparation for becoming a teacher as such. They are not exactly the same because there is an academic dimension to the specific task of preparing one's self for the responsibility of teaching.The Minister said in Committee that teacher training is already a term used in legislation and that it has been so used since 1944. In a sense, that is absolutely correct. However, if one is making that observation it is important to remember that when the term "teacher training" was coined it carried with it the assumption that history and research which are supportive of training were part of that teacher training. What we are so concerned about in our deliberations on the Bill is that they are now being separated out. Therefore, it seems a good time to make the point about the importance of education as well as training in the preparation of our teachers. In fact, if the Minister reads Hansard carefully—I hope she will forgive my making the point—she will see that she herself used the term "teacher education and training" during our Committee stage deliberations.
The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that education and training are complementary activities. It will be vital for the teacher training agency to define the twin strands of education and training for any school which is to provide such courses. Teachers involved in school centred initial teacher training may not, for example, be aware of the immense variety of approaches, nor of the most pertinent and relevant research, which provide the background for the practical skills of pedagogy, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, so rightly drew our attention at earlier stages of the Bill.
The term "teacher education" will spell out the essential perspective that is needed to put what I might call the practical tips for teachers, for which there is a vital need, in context. I really believe that this would strengthen the Government's case. It is not my role to act as a consultant for the Government but I believe that it would help tremendously to reassure everyone if the noble Baroness could find a way to accept what is a small but significant amendment in terms of the whole quality of approach to teacher preparation. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the addition of "teacher education" in front of teacher training, as Amendment No. 15 would secure, is unhelpful and potentially damaging. We cannot split funding responsibility on the basis of the current employment of individual students who turn up to take the course—leaving the agency with the power to fund those students on M. Ed courses who
886
are teachers, but not those who are otherwise employed. We need to divide course types in a sensible way, looking at the general picture of students catered for, as well as course content. That means we need wide enough powers for the agency to fund courses which would not pass the legal test of being "teacher training" or even "teacher education"—even though nine times out of 10, that is what they are.
Since the addition of the word "education" to Clause 4 does not have this effect, would it have any purpose at all? I am not convinced that it adds anything of substance to the Bill, and for that reason I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am very sad at the Minister's response. I am afraid that the more I listened to her the more I realised that it is not just a difference of nuance but that there really is a narrow view. I do not believe it is the Minister herself but I am not quite sure to whom she is being loyal or whom she is interpreting. The message now coming across is that there is almost a determination in the department to reject the concept of well educated teachers being what we want to see and education being the context in which we approach training. I am very sad indeed, but because I have a great deal of respect for the Minister's independence of mind and her willingness to look carefully at suggestions that are put forward, I shall, with the leave of the House, withdraw the amendment in the hope that she will be able to come back at Third Reading with something to meet the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness both for what she said about this amendment in Committee and for the letter which she has since written to me. I understand that the door is not locked, but in pushing on an open door I do not know whether it opens inwards or outwards and I do not know whether there is someone pushing on the other side. It therefore behoves me to walk warily.
The difficulty is that we have here a collection of objectives which are good ones but which are ultimately incompatible with each other. We are concerned that a great deal both of teaching and research in departments of education has nothing to do with initial teacher training and therefore would not necessarily go competently with the agency. We are concerned about keeping together the seamless robe of higher education. That is not just a figure of speech because we have questions about comparability, about library facilities and about compatible or incompatible systems of funding.
Perfectly properly, we are concerned with preserving the unity of the funding category, which is obviously a good thing if it can be done. We are also concerned, in the words used by the noble Baroness in Committee, with not isolating teacher training from other educational provision. The difficulty about that last objective, good though it is, is that it is inevitably to some extent threatened by putting initial teacher training in schools. I do not think that we can avoid that by

887
keeping together research and the initial teacher training if it involves wrenching out the research from the context in which it works and transplanting it into soil in which it will not grow.
I agree that there needs to be communication between education and initial teacher training. We tried to address that in Amendment No. 3. The noble Baroness felt that that amendment was unduly prescriptive. But I was encouraged to hear her say that it was by no means impossible that the Secretary of State might wish to have overlapping membership between the two funding councils. That seems to me to be the way in which the noble Baroness's objective, as she addressed it in Committee, could be most usefully pursued.
Perhaps I may speak a little further to those four objectives, all of them good but not ultimately compatible. A great deal of the research in education clearly has nothing whatever to do with initial teacher training. For example, let us consider someone who wants to do a PhD on Rousseau's Emile. That is a perfectly proper subject of academic study. But I do not believe that the noble Baroness would recommend Rousseau for a guide to initial teacher training.
There is a great deal of research which people might wish to do studying the way in which education in the 20th century has been the last refuge of belief in the perfectibility of man. But that again is not particularly suited to initial teacher training. The teacher training agency simply would not have the information; it would not have the context for judging either research or the provision of lectures or tutorials in that field. But that is the sort of thing which departments of education ought to be doing.
There is also the question of research not in higher education but on higher education. That is part of educational research which is not by any means going to be adequately addressed by the teacher training agency. In fact, as I understand it, in the research budget of university departments of education, only 8 per cent. of the research is currently relevant to initial teacher training. That is why I do not believe that the teacher training agency will necessarily be the most competent body to deal with it.
There are of course other cases where research which may be vital to education needs the assistance of another department; for example, scientific research on the basis of memory. I agree that that is something which teacher training needs, but it is something which may need also the services of perhaps a geneticist or a psychologist. It is the sort of research which belongs inside a university context. Where it is done jointly by people on different funding systems, with different priorities and different instructions, there must be at least the possibility of confusion.
Another example is religious education, which regularly concerns this House. Were there to be work done on improving the teaching of religious education, it would make sense to have that in the same place as departments of theology, of Jewish studies and of oriental studies. That is something again which, relevant though it may be to the teacher training agency, goes way beyond its remit and could not be very easily handled competently by the agency.
I do not know whether the phrase "blue skies" research is appropriate in fact to anything in education. I sometimes suspect not. But it was research in the departments of education at Oxford and Sussex which gave the Department for Education the idea for this Bill. If that had been going on along ordinary bureaucratic lines, I do not believe that it would have happened.
So what do we do about all these incompatible objectives? I do not believe that we can take the whole of the higher education system in departments of education and give it to the teacher training agency. I understand the case for not splitting up the academic subject category. It seems to me that the most sensible way out of this dilemma is the one suggested in the amendment to be moved next by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I have not supported that before because I was still hoping that we would get the teacher training agency out of the Bill altogether. I do not believe that the noble Baroness is under any illusions about my views on that subject. But since it is in the Bill, the interlocking between research and the teacher training agency would be best. addressed along the route that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are about to put forward. It is vital in educational research, and especially in research relevant. to initial teacher training, that there should be plurality in this matter.
That is also perhaps vital to some of those who fund research. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who is unfortunately unable to be here today, has asked me to report that she is a board member of the Rand European Advisory Council and the US-based Educational Research Center. She has asked me to tell the House, as I understand she has already told the noble Baroness, that both these institutions, which have the highest respect for British educational research, would be a good deal more reluctant to commission research under the teacher training agency which they would see as being directly government patronised. Although the noble Baroness may say that they are wrong about that, in this kind of thing a perception is a fact. Whatever that would do to our educational research, it would certainly be bad for our balance of payments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said about our amendment. I very much appreciated the eloquent way in which he put forward his own arguments, which I entirely endorse. The purpose of our amendment is not to abolish Clause 4(2) but to amend it. As it stands, it is much too wide in scope. It gives the teacher training agency functions which go well beyond its responsibilities for providing initial teacher training. Above all, it uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
There is wide agreement that there is a problem which paragraph (b) tries to address. That problem is that the teacher training agency needs good research in order to underpin its funding decisions, but there is no guarantee that research spontaneously generated in the universities will meet those requirements. Different. research agendas are pursued by different researchers. The answer is not for the teacher training agency to take

889
control of all educational research but to give the power to the teacher training agency to commission the research that it needs to underpin its responsibilities. That is the whole purpose of the amendment.
There is no need for the teacher training agency to have anything at all to do with other kinds of educational research or with courses in education which are not intended to lead to qualified teacher status. University courses in education include academic studies in education which are part of modular humanities or social science degrees, courses in the management and organisation of education, courses in sports science, teaching English as a foreign language, distance learning and so on. Most of those have, at best, only an indirect and tenuous connection with initial teacher training. Similarly, I may wish to do research into an aspect of the history or philosophy or even the anthropology of education. What on earth should the teacher training agency have to do with that? It is not relevant to initial teacher training yet, as presently drafted, Clause 4(2) gives the teacher training agency responsibility for funding all those educational studies, irrespective of their relevance to teacher education.
We ask, therefore, that the present funding system in respect of academic subject category 11.2—that is, the non-initial teacher training part of education in the universities—should be left undisturbed, with the single exception which our amendment allows: that is, the power of the teacher training agency to commission research into initial teacher training which it wants to have done.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for accepting that our amendment is the most sensible way forward in order to secure that most of the valid activities in education research remain undisturbed and subject to the present funding arrangements, with this particular exception. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept the logic of what we are saying and bring forward an appropriate amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I want to do no more than reinforce what has been said by the two preceding speakers. Indeed, I could not possibly match the flights of eloquence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I should like to say simply that I regard the teacher training agency as a body established with work to do. Like any such body, it needs to have access to research and it needs to commission research. It is in the position of being a customer for it, but the contractors may be found almost anywhere. In the light of what has been said and from my own experience, I think most of those contractors will be found within the universities. The advantage of removing from the teacher training agency the aspects referred to in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is that there is then a linkage of basic and strategic research—not that directly commissioned by the teacher training agency—with the other disciplines which are so relevant, to which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred. Many others can be added, such as physiology, child psychology, linguistics and philosophy. The list is long.
The other point that I should like to make is that the
890
people there have the resources to carry out the work. I would therefore add my voice to the suggestion that the amendment which stands in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, myself and others might be replaced by that which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to an article in today's Independent. As he was speaking, I got hold of a copy of it. It is interesting to note that only today Michael McCrum, the former headmaster of Eton and chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council, states succinctly:
"The teaching profession needs to benefit from fundamental research in education, and the minister responsible needs to hear impartial advice based on that research".
That is what we all want to see established. I do not think that it can be provided by having the driving force in the selection of research projects and so forth exclusively in the hands of the teacher training agency. Therefore, I support Amendment No. 17.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too very much welcome Amendment No. 17. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals pointed out that in the 1992 research assessment exercise, 12 of the 86 education units in our institutions of higher education were rated "five", indicating that the quality of their research was of high international standard. The range of that educational research is huge. Only 8 per cent. of it is directly relevant to teacher education and training. It would, I think, have been a mistake to have left the Bill as it stood originally, which would have had the effect of separating educational research from the mainstream of research in all other fields of higher education.
I should like briefly to give a medical analogy because I am a former teacher of medical students and of postgraduates in medicine. I was absolutely convinced that the results of research and research techniques nourished and enlivened teaching. I often said that today's discovery in basic medical science brings tomorrow's practical development in patient care.
Of very great significance, I believe, in pursuing the aim that we all have of improving the quality, standing and status of teachers in our society is the fact that the inspirational example of teachers who have been nurtured in a research setting and atmosphere and who have been trained in research techniques is something which is likely to improve recruitment, particularly in the areas in which we are short of specialist teachers at the moment, such as science and modern languages.
Finally, postgraduate education is crucial. Last week, I had the privilege of attending degree day at the Institute of Education at the University of London. I was greatly impressed by the very wide range of advanced diplomas and masters degree courses in such topics as the assessment and development of reading, child development, special educational needs, computing and educational technology, music, counselling, art and design, religious education, languages, science education and many more. Those courses were based upon research. The role of research in teacher training in those and many other courses is paramount, while for

891
doctorates it is fundamental. That part of research must surely stay with the higher education funding council. Nevertheless, the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, seems absolutely right. I hope very much that the House will accept it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, having listened to four very distinguished academics talking about this subject, I wonder whether I might say a word as a lay person who does not pretend to understand all the interlinking processes that go on when higher education funding is being discussed in the funding council or elsewhere. However, as a lay person, I regard Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 as a very important pair of amendments. They are linked, but they deal with two subjects. I am not sure whether that has become clear in the discussion. They are about the extent of funding the teaching which the agency needs to fulfil its main function of initial teacher training. They are also about the amount of research that the agency will need to be able to bring about if it is to be able to fulfil its function.
If the agency is to do its job properly, it seems to me that the allocation of responsibilities between the new agency, the higher education funding council and the higher education institutions must be such that the new arrangements operate smoothly and effectively. It is clearly crucial to avoid damaging and wasteful duplication or fragmentation of higher education teaching or, indeed, of research. It is important to do as we are in the amendment so far doing—to look objectively, and, if possible, not to confuse the desirability, or otherwise, of having a teacher training agency at all. I believe that we are succeeding in doing that, arid that should be helpful to my noble friend the Minister.
The nub of the question was raised by amendments discussed in Committee, at col. 1645 of Hansard of 10th March. I was sorry that because I had to catch an overnight sleeper I could not take part in that discussion. I regard the amendment as important. My noble friend undertook, as has been said, to reflect upon the matter. She has since written to interested noble Lords to say that she remains open minded on Clause 4 (1) (b) and will be glad to listen to further discussion. That discussion we are now having. I am sure that my noble friend is wise to take time to look at the issue.
Viewed objectively, the complicated balance of advantage and disadvantage in the Bill's approach in Clause 4, compared with the alternative suggested by the amendment, is complex and not altogether easy to assess. The Bill makes what, on the face of it, looks a clear cut and tidy proposition; that the funding of the whole of what the Higher Education Funding Council for England has grouped as academic subject category 11.2 should be transferred from the funding council to the new agency, and the council's related research assessment with it. The trouble is that the area of initial teacher training forms one section only of academic subject category 11. In the other sections, there are, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, all sorts of teaching subject areas, some of which form part of
892
courses which do not lead to an initial teacher training qualification, and others which have very little or nothing to do with initial teacher training.
Likewise, the linked research assessment exercise is spread across all those areas. That means that under the Bill as it stands the new agency would find itself involved in complicated negotiations about funding courses which have little to do with its main function, and in funding parts of courses which are paid for jointly by higher education institutions running, for example, social work or humanities degree courses. Since initial teacher training is the main responsibility of the agency and is identifiable in one distinct part of the HEFC's academic subject category, surely it would be simpler by far, for that reason if for no other, to limit the responsibility of the agency to initial teacher training and the commissioning of related research as indicated by Amendment No. 17.
The Government could identify with the funding council's help the funding required for initial teacher training and transfer that to the agency. As to research, the Secretary of State already commissions research, I understand, from his own budget. That money could be transferred to the agency. It seems a simpler approach. It may have flaws which worry my noble friend. I can understand that, but I believe the alternative in the Bill has greater flaws. The balance of the argument may well be found to be with Amendment No. 17 on purely objective grounds, and as seen by lay persons. So I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at that.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I believe that there is general agreement in the House that what we are all seeking is high quality research in the field of education. There is no doubt that that is what every noble Lord who has spoken wants to see. There is no doubt also that we all want high quality initial teacher training. That is an extremely important aim of the Bill. We have all signed up to the importance of the way in which teachers are trained and for the quality of what happens in schools.
The issue in question in the clause arid the two amendments is how the funding arrangements for research and initial teacher training can best further the high quality of research and initial training. If the Bill remains unamended, then all the funding of research relating to education would be transferred to the new agency. Although a substantial minority of educational research is not related to practice in schools and not relevant to what happens in schools, to what teachers are doing day by day, and to what the administrators are doing day by day, nevertheless the vast majority of educational research, quite rightly, bears upon the quality of what happens in schools. It is helpful and right that that should be so. There is therefore a strong argument for putting together the places where the funding of the training and the funding for the research are to be found.
One part of my heart is very much with the Bill as it stands and the wish to see the teacher training agency take over responsibility for the funding of research so that the research can inform and enhance the quality of

893
initial training. My fear is that initial training will become divorced from academic excellence and academic bite. If that happens, we shall have made initial training worse and not better. Therefore I am inclined to feel, although I wholly support Amendment No. 17, that the agency must have the right directly to commission research. My inclination also—it is a finely balanced argument—is to leave the agency with the ability to develop its own expertise in knowing where good educational research is to be found and bringing it close together with the training.
The fear, of course, of doing that and leaving the Bill as it stands is that we could, in a different way, by cutting the seamless robe at the research point as well, diminish the quality of the research that is done; make it somehow less than it was before; and take it away from the academic mainstream and put it only with initial training. We need to examine the issue not, as we have been inclined to do so far, at the national level and on the basis of agencies co-operating with one another —the HEFC co-operating with the TTA and so on—but at the institutional level. We should concentrate on the departments where teachers are trained and ask whether being able to gain their funding from the same single agency gives power to the quality of what those departments do or whether it might not be better, within the structure of higher education, to allow the research to remain in the mainstream of the HEFC's remit so that it can be spread across the whole of higher education.
I believe that the arguments are finely balanced. They do not divide along party lines. On balance, I am inclined to try to give the TTA the maximum power to develop its own academic base and bite. If that can be achieved by leaving the research funding for area 11.2 with it, then so be it.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 17. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for putting the case so clearly, as I believe she did. She showed that there is a fine balance in this regard. However, it seems to me to be clear and helpful to put side by side the two functions of the new agency.
If Amendment No. 17 gained favour, the agency would have the great advantage of being able to use the enormous amount of research that is currently taking place where teachers practising in schools and universities are working together. The possibility of commissioning such research would be an extremely important advantage for the new agency.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I had the pleasure of being at the London institute last week. I spoke to Dr. Peter Mortimore, who has just embarked on an enormously ambitious collection of research exercises which, interestingly enough, is based both on Glasgow and South of the Border—in particular, in London schools. I believe that the findings of such research will improve schools and also the training of teachers. If you know what is needed to make a good school, you know what is needed for the training of teachers who will teach in those schools. I believe that mixed research which is taken on by teachers under the guidance of an extremely experienced research team of
894
a university would be just the kind of work which the new teacher training agency could helpfully commission.
Much of that research is taking place at present. If we accept Amendment No. 17 we shall not waste all that good work which is taking place jointly between schools and higher education institutions. That is why I support Amendment No. 17.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I wish to make only one point that was called to mind by the communication via the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the credibility of some kinds of research that appear to be funded directly by an agency which is thought of as an arm of government for particular and perfectly respectable purposes.
I say that because, in the widest sense, educational research almost inevitably involves conclusions about policy. Those conclusions are likely to be highly controversial. The example that I give was the remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—and I am sorry she is not in her place—when she reminded us of the rather distressing statistic (I never remember figures) that up to 20 per cent. of young adults have difficulties with literacy or numeracy. She used that as an argument to show how ineffective teacher training must have been hitherto.
It called to my mind a statistic that was very close to that on the proportion of young adults in that position arrived at by a commission of inquiry in France three or four years ago. Therefore, that statistic cannot be attributed wholly to our own failings because it is a matter of international significance and scale. The United States, or some states there, can certainly provide similar statistics. Such matters need to be investigated before we can be clear about our path forward in education. It seems to me that it will have greater credibility if it is investigated in independent institutions of higher education.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in many ways I am surprised that this matter does not seem clearer to some of your Lordships. The Government and the Bill propose the establishment of a teacher training agency whose primary concern will be teacher training. We shall still have a Higher Education Funding Council whose primary concern will be higher education.
Normally the conduct of research falls clearly within the scope of higher education. As Amendment No. 17 suggests, and as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, conceded when moving Amendment No. 16, it makes perfect sense for the teacher training agency sometimes to fund research into teacher training, in particular initial teacher training. But to start thinking of the whole field of educational research as the province of a teacher training agency seems to me quite absurd.
Moreover, it pains me to suggest that my noble friend may have found herself to be inconsistent, but only a few moments ago in relation to Amendment No. 15 she argued with great eloquence that it would be inappropriate for the provision of teacher education and training to qualify for funding under this part. She objected to the words "education and" in response to the

895
amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and she wished to restrict the matter to the provision of teacher training.
If you are not willing to put money into the provision of teacher education and training, how bizarre it is to wish to put money into the provision of research into that broader field. That is a complete inconsistency. The case has been elegantly made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that research into education goes far beyond the field of teacher training alone; for example, there may well be research into university education or education into other lands, a point that has already been made on the other side of the House.
The teacher training agency will not necessarily have the competence to judge those matters. Who will judge whether or not the money being put towards PhDs is well spent? It is true that the agency can provide funding for people to judge such matters but it is surely the case that the Higher Education Funding Council should have a competence in the area of research but that is no part of the teacher training agency.
With the instrumentalist aim of improving the teacher training agency's policies, it can fund research in the areas which are of specific concern to it. That is suggested in Amendment No. 17. The whole field of educational research in general, which is a very wide field involving higher education, primary education, infant education, growth of children and growth of perception, some of which are theoretical fields, surely goes far beyond the scope of anything that we should consider to he the primary concern of a teacher training agency per se.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I could intervene now because we on these Benches have waited quite a long time. I feel quite nervous speaking among all the distinguished academics who have contributed to the debate but I think the voice of common sense has just come from the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and I support every word that he said.
It seems to me that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gives the best of both worlds. It allows the teacher training agency to ask for research into initial teacher training and it would be commissioned, according to that amendment, by the funding agency, which I think perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, did not say when she spoke. In fact, she seems to be the only one who has not fully supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. But it does seem to me that it strikes the right balance and certainly we on these Benches support him. I hope very much that the Minister has reflected on it and with the strength of feeling in this Chamber tonight will agree to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may, first, ask the noble Baroness to acknowledge the fact that I did say that I agreed with the concept of the agency being able to support research related to teacher training. Further, does the noble Baroness really believe that research
896
which bears upon the quality of what is good education is irrelevant to teacher training? Surely the noble Baroness is not of that view.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may say briefly that, of course, such research must be relevant to teacher education and training. However, I reiterate what my noble friend and many other speakers have said. The real issue is whether it would be right for a teacher training agency to have the responsibility for commissioning and funding research on such a wide range of educational issues. Some of those issues do not have a direct relevance for the provision of initial teacher training and education, although they may well be drawn upon by those who are responsible for providing teacher training and education, That is the distinction that we are discussing so far as concerns the amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, am in favour of my noble friend's amendment, apart from the inclusion of the word "initial". It seems to me that one of the main symptoms of the failings of the teacher education system at present is that, although it provides the great bulk of initial training, it provides so little of the continuing education which teachers require and for which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out the need in his report.
Once the teacher training agency is in existence—and if the analogy with the Further Education Funding Council is anything to go by—I would expect the teacher training departments of universities and the: independent colleges quickly to become involved in the continuing education of teachers on a large scale. If that is to be the case, I hope that the ITA will be able to commission research to support that activity as well as the initial training of teachers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall certainly reflect on all that has been said, and especially the remarks just made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. In fact, I could add yet another variation; namely, research relevant to teaching commissioned by the agency. The whole issue highlights a number of questions which have been raised during the debate.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say a few words on that point. Unfortunately, there is a misprint in the amendment. It should refer to research,
"commissioned by the teacher training agency",
whereas, it actually refers to "the funding agency". I am sorry if that error has misled my noble friend the Minister or, indeed, other Members of the House. We have proceeded on the correct assumption that it is research commissioned by the TTA.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would not qualify as a proof reader because I had in mind what I believed to be in the amendment rather than the words that are actually there. However, that just adds to the number of reasons why I believe I should take the matter away and

897
reconsider what was said in today's debate and in Committee with a view to reflecting upon the arguments raised.
Those noble Lords to whom I have written will know that I had hoped for a full debate on the important issues in order to see whether the views of noble Lords were closer to consensus than they appeared at the previous stage. We have had a full debate and there seems to be a growing consensus among those who have spoken. I shall certainly reflect fully on what has been said with a view to considering whether amendments to the Bill are necessary in order to meet the views expressed. Essentially at issue, I believe, are points of practicality rather than principle. I also believe that the arguments about non-initial teacher training courses are different from those about research.
My understanding is that the CVCP considers that the division of responsibility for courses now found within academic subject category 11.2 would best be dealt with by administrative rather than legislative means, taking into account advice from the Higher Education Funding Council and following consultation with institutions. I shall also reflect on that aspect.
It may also be for the benefit of Members of the House present in the Chamber this afternoon—although I suspect there are not many—who are not familiar with academic subject category 11.2 if I explained what is involved. It is the category of funding for all education studies other than initial teacher training and research. It ranges from MEds and other higher degrees intended primarily for serving teachers, to education modules within undergraduate humanities degrees for people with no intention of becoming teachers. It also includes sports studies. We are discussing with the HEFCE at present whether to untangle that academic subject category and, if so, how.
That approach would allow courses which are obviously not sensibly linked with the responsibilities of the agency—medical ethics is just one example—to be left with the funding council, while courses like masters degrees in education, which are often taken by serving teachers, are transferred. That is in fact almost exactly what we were always proposing. Officials have been in discussion with the funding council for some time about how to secure a sensible split. But it would not be possible to do what the CVCP has suggested if the only power left to the agency were the funding of "teacher training" and Clause 4(1) (b) were deleted, as suggested in Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
The arguments about the funding of research seem to me more complex than those about education courses. There is the question of whether a teacher training agency should have responsibility for funding research which does not have any direct relevance to teaching and learning in English schools. Those are very like the arguments about non-initial teacher training courses—some of the research will clearly be highly relevant to the agency's work, some will not. Perhaps the funds could be split in the same way by inspection of current practice.
While I am on that point, I note that Amendment No. 17, tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord
898
Skidelsky and Lady Carnegy, would seek to make explicit the agency's power to fund research which was clearly intended to support its functions. On that point, I can give my noble friends a categorical assurance: the agency already has that power by virtue of its general powers in Schedule 1, and that would not be a necessary addition to the Bill whatever the scope of the agency's powers under Clause 4.
Turning back to the wider issues, there is also the question of accountability for research funds—the wish of higher education institutions to be able to move research funding between categories rather than have any element ring-fenced for education research. Those in education departments may not be so worried about that. As I have said before, the funding "earned" through education research ratings is public knowledge for each institution, so the flows into other disciplines are probably not that great.
On the question of research assessment, I am certainly happy to agree that it would be sensible for the agency to buy into the research assessment exercise run for all the funding councils by the funding council for England. As for the other councils, the split of funding and assessment need not be a problem. The agency might choose to apply the common gradings in a different way, with greater rewards for excellence, for example.
It still seems to me that overall the arguments point to an administrative solution to those questions—which we can adjust in the light of experience—rather than an amendment on the face of the Bill. However, as I said, I shall certainly continue to hold discussions about the right way ahead so that we can reach a conclusion which addresses the important concerns which were raised today and in Committee. With that, I hope that the noble Earl and my noble friend will feel able to withdraw their amendments on the understanding that there will be real discussion between now and Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for her promise to take the matter away for further consideration. We are a great deal closer to agreement than we were in Committee. I agree that we have not quite got there yet, but it seems to me likely that we will do so with a little more talking. On that basis, I shall agree to withdraw my amendment. However, before doing so, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who have contributed so much —as, indeed have other speakers—towards finding a point where we can secure a means of settling the matter which is acceptable to all of us.
It is not just higher education as a whole. The noble Baroness suggested that departments of education might be slightly less keen to stay within the existing framework than the rest of universities. That is certainly not true of my own department of education which wrote to me most eloquently to the opposite effect only this morning. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 18:

899
Page 3, leave out lines 6 to 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 25. These amendments define the vital partnership between schools and higher education. Both sets of institutions have a role and I should emphasise in this context the vital contribution made by special schools catering for special educational needs. The Department for Education recognised in paragraph 2 of its own circular 14/93 that there should be,
"a greater role for schools, which are best placed to help student teachers develop and apply practical teaching skills; a continuing need for study in higher education institutions of the subject knowledge necessary for sound teaching of the primary curriculum".
Our amendments therefore reflect the Department for Education's own definition in its own circular 14/93 and they also underpin the amendments to Clauses 11 and 13 carried by the Chamber in Committee.
I now turn to Amendment No. 25. Following the debate at Committee on Clause 11, schools will be allowed to provide courses in partnership with higher education institutions. This amendment removes the provisions for the teacher training agency to establish and maintain,
"an appropriate balance between school-centred courses and other courses".
Also it removes the ability for schools to conduct independent fund raising, including charging students additional fees on top of those defined by the teacher training agency. As it reads, Clause 6 encourages the teacher training agency to introduce school centred courses by suggesting there must be a balance and that to promote such courses is desirable. What, of course, any teacher training agency should be doing is to ensure that every course has an appropriate balance of input from schools and higher education institutions. Again, in arguing this I emphasise that the Department for Education itself recognised the essential involvement of higher education for initial teacher training—as it was then called—in circular 14/93.
Before I finish speaking to these amendments I hope I may quote from some authorities which have not so far been conspicuous in our deliberations. We have talked a lot about the experience of people in higher education and in other relevant areas of our national life. However, I think it is good to turn to the views of students themselves as they respond to their preparation. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers has commissioned some interesting research in Warwick University which was undertaken by Linda Evans and Ian Abbott. In looking at the research, I am intrigued to find that among those students questioned who were enrolled either in schemes which involved a partnership with higher education or in schemes administered by schools, the number who more or less agreed with the principle of the involvement of higher education ranged between 87 per cent. and 100 per cent. It may be helpful if I refer briefly to the comments of some of those students. Among those giving an unqualified "yes" to the involvement of higher education, some interviewees focused on practical issues such as the availability of resources. One said:
900
"Yes, definitely, so teachers have a wealth of research information to draw from. Access to library and computing facilities … Better preparation before an actual teaching role. You have a home".
Another student said:
"Yes, higher education institutions have resources, i.e. a wide range of personnel with different skills, who can be timetabled An environment which is designed to teach us rather than one whose priority is school teaching. Has resources to compile more in-depth courses".
Another student said:
"Yes. Teacher training raises ability, skills and knowledge through application of techniques in practice, thus coping better. Higher education helps to cross many levels through to college—also helps older students feel at ease—raises levels of expectation".
I refer to two other quotations which I believe are relevant to this part of our deliberations but also to other matters we have discussed this evening. One student said:
"I think that in the first place the teacher should have a strong academic background: broad information—general education, as well as sound specific specialisation (if applicable) before presenting before a class, at any level. Professionalism can only be gained through education".
There are many other such comments that I could quote but I shall share one final quotation with: your Lordships this evening. Another student stated:
"Higher education can offer a broader base to teacher training, including teaching/learning philosophies and approaches. As students go into a variety of schools and can then compare experiences, such a scheme broadens the outlook of the trainee. Having a higher education element to a PGCE also maintains professionalism and the status of the teacher in society, compared with professional training for law and accountancy".
Those remarks reflect how students view their experiences. It is because we feel that that is a pertinent set of observations and because we feel that these amendments are designed to strengthen the partnership which we think is essential that we put them forward. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support these amendments but I will not stand between the House and its dinner by saying so at any length.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I say at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I have no dispute at all with what he has just said in quoting the perceptions of students. But why should we be so mean as to cut off the other students who have chosen of their own volition to undertake school centred training? Why should we cut off schools and consortia of schools that have chosen of their own volition to provide those courses'? The noble Lord may have found one group of satisfied students but it is our wish that all students should be satisfied. I throw out an open invitation to the noble Lord. I am prepared to accompany him, if he wishes, to a course of school centred teacher training and let us both talk to students on that course. That will address all the gaps in such training that the noble Lord has hinted at.
The noble Lord referred to circular 14/93. The study of subjects in higher education as required in that circular is fully covered and fully secured by the requirement that those entering school provided courses are graduates, as the Bill secures.

901
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 would limit the agency to funding schools only where they were in partnership with a higher education institution. The real purpose of the amendments is clear from Amendment No. 25, which takes away the duty of the agency to set a balance between school-centred and other courses. There would be no need for such a balance in the noble Lord's approach because he does not want there to be any genuinely school-centred training. There may be an effective and willing group of schools, and there may be Ofsted evidence about how well those schools could provide training, but still the noble Lord would block their way.
Schools which want to work in partnership with higher education have the power to involve themselves in school-based courses. The reform of courses to require genuine working with schools—higher education not just placing students in a passive school, but involving serving teachers in their training and assessment—has been widely welcomed. All secondary courses should be operating on such a model by this September. Noble Lords opposite appear to believe that as this model works we should make no further changes. But the Government wish to build upon that success and widen the training models. It is often schools which have worked in the most effective partnerships that have the confidence and the will to play a leading role. We do not want to stop them from doing so.
These schools will be training students who have already graduated from courses validated by higher education. It is as well to remember that there will be that important safeguard. Quite apart from anything else, it means that students will themselves be well placed to judge whether a course run by schools without higher education validation is the right course for them; and the way is clear for schools that wish to seek higher education validation. We do, however, want them to have the choice, subject to the vital point that accreditation by the teacher training agency and inspection under arrangements made by Ofsted, will be ensuring common standards.
So we are happy to allow schools the freedom to choose whether or not they work with higher education partners. Noble Lords opposite must fear—for what reason I do not know, for there is no evidence I am aware of—that large numbers of schools would choose to go it alone, without any involvement of higher education. and that higher education would therefore be marginalised in teacher training. That is the only reason that I can think of for making it a requirement in law that higher education should have the whip hand. If they believe—as we have heard—that schools do not want to be diverted from their main business and that all representative bodies for teachers and schools are strongly in favour of higher education involvement, then what is there to fear?
I can imagine the riposte: what have we to fear from requiring higher education involvement if it is likely in any event? It is those who want to stifle choice, not those who want to widen it, who must bear the burden of argument. What incentive will there be on higher education to be accommodating to schools and to play
902
a supportive role when schools have no option but to work with them? If those in higher education are to be the sole gatekeepers they will be able to make the rules of involvement to suit themselves. There will be no safety valve for a group of schools which wants to take a different approach.
It has been suggested that we are inconsistent in allowing schools to run courses without higher education involvement but through the criteria not allowing higher education to offer courses except in partnership with schools. I do not think that anyone really believes that higher education institutions could prepare teachers for their professional role without close involvement with schools. Nor do we believe, as I have said a number of times in previous debates, that it is possible to have a competent teacher with no experience of higher education. But I believe that some groups of good schools are well able to offer a fourth, professional training year, building on three years' previous higher education without necessarily drawing on a higher education institution for help.
In Amendment No. 25, which removes schools' power to attract private funding or to charge fees, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has mistaken one of the intended effects of that amendment. I have to tell him that it does not remove the power of schools to attract funds or to charge fees; nor could schools provide initial teacher training without charging fees exactly as higher education institutions do.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke about the views of students. Students will be free to apply for courses based on their own priorities. The current school-centred courses are oversubscribed. Indeed, at this moment there are students clamouring for courses. When I first met graduates attending school-centred courses I asked each of them why they did not apply to a higher education institution. In many cases they had applied to a higher education institution and then decided to set that place aside in favour of a school-centred teacher training course because it better met their own priorities. Therefore, I believe that if the noble Lord will accept my invitation it might be a fruitful sojourn for both of us to make between now and Third Reading.
The amendments are a sign of the noble Lord's lack of trust in Ofsted, in schools and in the agency's ability to meet its remit. It is those bodies and their procedures which will ensure quality whenever courses are provided. I fear that the noble Lord simply wants to return us to the monopoly provision by higher education with no scope for those schools which want to play a role and offer a little competition on equal terms.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should be delighted to accompany the Minister on the mission she suggests. I look forward to that.
The quotations I gave were taken from students who were attending school courses as well as from those on courses in partnership with higher education. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Israeli Occupied Territories
7.24 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; and if so, what steps the United Kingdom as a signatory of the convention is taking to remedy this breach of international law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subject to what my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords have to say, there is little doubt about the answer to the first part of the Question. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states:
"The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own [civilian] population into the territory it occupies".
Nothing could be clearer than that. If the illegality of the settlements is flagrant both the ethics and the politics of those settlements are similarly clear and reinforce the case for the enforcement of international law.
The 1967 borders of Israel—the internationally recognised borders—give Israel 67 per cent. of the land of Palestine. It follows that the indigenous population of Palestine have just 23 per cent. of their own country. That is not, one would have thought, an excessive proportion.
Unfortunately, Israeli governments, ever greedy for more land, have pursued an illegal programme of colonisation which has gone far further than is generally realised. If Jerusalem is included, as it plainly has to be, there are no fewer than 280,000 Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories. The Gaza Strip is the most heavily populated place in the world. More than 800,000 Palestinians live there, in conditions which a leading Israeli journalist has described as living on a garbage heap.
In addition to those 800,000 Palestinians there are some 4,000 Israeli settlers and the Israeli army. I need hardly tell your Lordships that those settlers are not overcrowded. Nor is the occupying Israeli army. The reason is that those 4,000 settlers and the Israeli army occupy no less than one third of the land area. When I was in Gaza last year I was told by a reliable Palestinian source that that proportion has now risen to 43 per cent. However, as I am relying in these remarks on Israeli sources and largely on Israeli language I shall stick to the figure of 33 per cent. The 4,000 settlers and the army have at least half as much land as the 800,000 Palestinians. How anybody can have allowed that to happen, still less defend it or seek to perpetuate it, defies understanding.
As Israel's most respected military commentator, Ze-ev Schiff, wrote in Haaretz last year:
"We have continued to steal the Strip's water, even though its quality deteriorates from year to year. We have continued to steal
904
the Strip's tiny land resources in order to found more and more Jewish settlements, as if we deliberately wanted to make the inhabitants despair".
So the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip are not only illegal, they are indecent in their extent and ostentation and they are a denial of rudimentary justice.
Unfortunately the situation is no better on the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There, too, Israel—to use Mr. Schiff's word—has "stolen" Palestinian land and water on a massive scale. The distinguished Israeli politician, Mr. Meron Benvenisti, wrote last year:
"Two million Palestinians of the Territories, who amount to a little less than a third of the total population of Palestine, now control no more than 8% of the water resources and 1:3% of the land".
That means that Israel has stolen some 43 per cent. of the Occupied Territories—the same figure that my Palestinian informant gave me.
Shortly after he resigned as head of the civil administration of the West: Bank, Brigadier General Ephraim Sneh observed that the amount of water pumped for an Israeli resident on the West Bank is 12 times as much as the amount pumped for a Palestinian. Palestinians have been prevented from digging any new wells since 1967 in order to give the Israelis as much water as they want. "Robbing" the Palestinians of their water is also, of course, illegal under the Geneva Convention.
There is a widespread delusion that the Rabin Government have stopped the building of settlements and have given up stealing Palestinian land. Regrettably, although the present Israeli Government, unlike their predecessors, want peace, thank heavens, of a sort, anybody who goes to the West Bank will see that that is quite untrue; and indeed the Government pinched another 9,000 acres in the Jerusalem area as recently as last December. Indeed the Rabin Government, like their predecessors, seem intent on stealing all East Jerusalem and greatly extending their boundaries. Yet no amount of propaganda about Jerusalem being Israel's "eternal capital"—which is historically complete rubbish, as noble Lords realise—can alter the fact that East Jerusalem is legally and rightfully Palestinian, as indeed incidentally was a good deal of West Jerusalem until the Israelis ethnically cleansed it in 1948.
As is now notorious, the Rabin Government have been wholly negligent in controlling the settlers' violence. Long before the atrocity at Hebron last month, an Israeli journalist accused the settlers there of being "a racist conquest regime" relentlessly seeking "domination". I must admit that I gained a similar impression last year. At the same time, an Israeli paratroop unit serving in Hebron was so incensed by the settlers' treatment of the Palestinians that it sent a petition to the Defence Ministry. Also, apparently, the settlers' children are taught to call the Israeli soldiers Nazis. Even if brutal—the Israeli army has killed something like 300 Palestinian children aged 16 and under since the Intifada began—the Israeli soldiers are certainly not Nazis. If anyone is Nazi it is the extremist religious settlers. Indeed the distinguished dissident Professor Heshayahu Leibowitz has said that the mass murder in Hebron was a consequence of "Judeo-Nazism".
Before the massacre, Jewish settlers had often shot Palestinians, yet the Israeli army was forbidden to shoot back at them and the Israeli courts scarcely punished them. The extremist Rabbi Levinger, unusually, was found guilty in 1990 of murdering an Arab and then suffered the draconian penalty for the murder of 85 days in prison. The Jewish settlements have thus produced a racist apartheid regime in the Occupied Territories.
The massacre in the Hebron mosque was the direct consequence of that system and of Israel's illegal policy of colonisation and theft. I very much doubt whether Dr. Goldstein was mad. I think that he was all too representative of a familiar settler attitude, which was demonstrated again by the widespread settler support for his action. And Goldstein's grave seems now to have become something of a shrine for those of his ilk.
The settlements are not only illegal; they are moral, political, aesthetic as well as legal monstrosities. Their continuance will make peace impossible—and that, after all, is why most of them were established.
Having previously lost 75 per cent. of their land, the Palestinians cannot be expected to accept the illegal expropriation of nearly half of the small part of their country which still remains to them. Furthermore, the settlers and the settlements are an endless source of violence. International law must prevail and the settlements must go.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will now play a more active part. That is all the more necessary because of the shamelessly one-sided behaviour of the Clinton administration. A few years ago it was said that the American Senate and Congress were "Israeli-occupied territory". The sheeplike obedience to the Israeli lobby of 82 senators over the UN resolution on Hebron recently confirmed that truth. Unfortunately, under the Clinton administration, as under the Reagan one, the White House and the State Department are also Israeli occupied territory. The Clinton administration's stance is one of submission to Israel, and the current State Department negotiators are more Israeli than the Israelis and more Likud-oriented than Labour-oriented.
No contest—legal, sporting or anything else—can properly work if the supervisor, umpire or judge comes down completely on one side against the other. That is why it is imperative that Britain and Europe should now play a major role in ending the illegal settlements and standing up strongly for what is right.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, has clearly stated one interpretation of Article 49. Others take the opposite view. They say that the movement of population into the territory under control is prohibited only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population; and the Israeli section of the International Commission of Jurists takes the view that Article 49 has not been contravened because the establishment of the settlements has not meant that the local population has been displaced.
However, it is the question of land held by settlers which is most contentious. According to my sources, only 7 per cent. of the West Bank land is held by settlers
906
and it was acquired legally. Prior to 1967, only about half the land had been registered and classified. So there is uncertainty over the ownership of some parcels of land. Some land in the West Bank had been acquired prior to 1948 by Jews who had registered it in their names.
Most of the land used for Jewish settlements was registered as government land belonging to the Jordanian Crown or the British High Commissioner. The Jordanian Crown and the British High Commissioner's title is still expressly recorded in the Land Registry. In the few instances where private land was involved, it was acquired in accordance with Jordanian law and full compensation was paid. Similar laws providing for the acquisition of land exist in Israel and most other countries.
As ever, there are two sides to the matter. The answer to the second part of the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, is "support the peace process" because from that will come normality. First and foremost, normality means better functioning of the rule of law. I believe that the rule of law in Israel is paramount. But I am not a lawyer so I consulted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, knowing that he had been involved recently in two Anglo-Israeli judicial exchanges. He has authorised me to quote him as follows:
"After the two Anglo-Israeli judicial exchanges, and in particular the British party's visit to Israel, which included myself and Lord Taylor, as well as members of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, the impression left on the British participants was that judicial standards in Israel were of a very high order indeed.
"There can be no doubt that they have developed judicial reviews so as to control the actions of Government further and to greater effect than we have in this country, and that they are great defenders of the Rule of Law. In relation to those in the Occupied Territories, they provide a remedy which is a valuable safeguard, but it is fair to say that the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court are not as great in the Occupied Territories as they are within Israel itself'.
Normality would mean that those high judicial standards would then apply to Israelis and Arabs alike, in Israel and in the territories. Meanwhile, residents of the territories have been able to bring before Israeli courts claims against the state of Israel, the military government and all their authorities. Indeed, such a position allowing residents of administered areas access to the courts of the occupying power is unprecedented in international practice. Your Lordships may recall the episode of the gas masks during the Gulf War.
The second part of normality to be brought about by the peace process is co-existence. It is the fate of Arabs and Jews to live together in Israel and in the territories, and the question of the settlements is being discussed with the Palestinians in the negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza.
This agreement demonstrates Israel's resolve to seek a lasting and peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. It is a complex problem and it is best left to the three-stage framework agreed. This agreement does not require the dismantling of the settlements but will provide a way for some settlers to leave. This is already happening without government encouragement. Settlers who find life hazardous, inconvenient or

907
unsatisfying or who feel betrayed by the peace process are already moving back into Israel with modest help from the housing authorities.
Since the Oslo Agreement was signed, the negotiations have been carried out under a cloud of continuous terrorism. Many Israelis have been killed and so have many Arabs. In no way does this detract from my utter and complete condemnation of the Hebron massacre. The act of this depraved and fanatical Jew leaves me with mixed feelings of pain, anguish and disgrace. I too send my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who were murdered and to the injured. As a result of this terrible crime, Israel has outlawed two groups living in the territories as terrorist organisations. I am sure that the whole House would like to see the result of this terrible event to be the rapid acceleration of the implementation of the agreement with the PLO.
Tragedies often make us review our fundamental principles. But here we should be steadfast and not let that tragedy deter our fundamental support for the peace process.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the views of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, are not widely shared; that is, the legality of the settlements or the degree of justice meted out to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Although sincerely advanced, the views are not accepted by any government in the world except the Israeli Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, has done the House a service in raising this Question today. The horror and evil of the Holocaust should not inhibit us from speaking plainly about Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. Article 49 was conceived after the war to prevent recurrence of the policy of Aryanisation during the war by which German nationals were transferred to the occupied territory in order to help lay claim to it. It is extraordinary that Article 49 should be breached by, of all people, the Israelis.
Many Israelis settled in the Occupied Territories for purely pragmatic personal reasons. Given the right incentives, they might well be persuaded to return to live in Israel. Indeed, I see no reason in principle why Jewish citizens should not live alongside Palestinians in the Palestinian state, as Palestinians live alongside Israelis in Israel.
The trouble does not arise there. The trouble comes from Israelis who have settled in the Occupied Territories for religious and ideological reasons. They claim quite unconvincingly that the land is theirs. They are armed. Not only do they refuse to move but they are dedicated to destroying the whole peace process, which they are now doing with some success.
In theory, the Israeli Government, who want the peace process to succeed, should disarm those people. They should evict them from at least two places; first, from the middle of Hebron and, secondly, from the settlement of Netzarim in the middle of Gaza. It was agreed in the latest exchanges that monitors should be sent to the area and that armed Palestinian guards should help to patrol Hebron. We hope that that will help but in my view it is not nearly enough. The Israeli Government
908
lack the political will and the political clout to take this action. Indeed, they are unsure about whether the Israeli army will obey orders.
If the British army is probably the best peace-keeping force in the world, the Israeli army is unquestionably the worst. We know that until recently it was authorised in emergencies to shoot Arabs but forbidden in emergencies to shoot Jews. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke about regretting the massacre of the 30 Palestinians in Hebron. He did not say that he also regretted the shooting of the 36 Palestinians by the Israeli army since Hebron. Since then it has, of course, shot no Jews. The Israeli army has no idea of even-handedness or restraint. It is a complete failure as a peace-keeping force.
The right thing to do is to have United Nations intervention. The United Nations has every right: to intervene. The situation in the West Bank is a plain threat to peace. In addition, the destruction of the human rights of the Palestinians has gone way beyond any tolerable limit. Therefore, a United Nations peacekeeping force should be sent to protect both the Arab and Jewish residents of the Occupied Territories. Compared with the Serbs, the Moslems and the Croats, the Arab and Jewish terrorists are few in number and poorly armed. Let General Rose be sent to Jericho, Gaza and Hebron to sort out the terrorists and to enable the peace process to proceed. I believe that to be the best way forward in this critical time.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, says that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, are not widely shared. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, it is clear that his views are widely shared by those who have an aversion to the state of Israel. For many years he has demonstrated his views on that matter. I applaud what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I thought his contribution important.
However, I am somewhat anxious about the way in which the debate is going. I understand that the Question before the House is:
"whether the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention".
In anticipation of my noble friend Lord Gilmour giving the reasons why he was asking the Question, I obtained a copy of the Convention for the Protection of War Victims. I assume that my noble friend is referring to the last paragraph of Article 49. It states:
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".
That is the end of the article. It begins by dealing with individual or mass forcible transfers as well as the deportation of protected persons from occupied territories. It was put into the convention at the end of the war as a result of the dreadful activities of the Nazi administration, in particular the mass transfer of population in order to get rid of people regarded as being unacceptable; in name, the Jews. They were taken to be liquidated from one country to another and were moved from one place to another. That is why we have Article 49 in the convention.

909
I remind the House of Article 2. It states that,
"the present convention shall apply to … armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties".
The convention applies,
"to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party".
I therefore ask the House to consider this question: which is the high contracting party whose territory is occupied? In other words, which state has sovereign title to the West Bank?
In 1967 Jordan was in occupation. It is generally accepted that after its annexation of the territories, Jordan had no sovereignty in international law. Its presence in Judaea and Samaria was only given de jure recognition by two countries out of the whole international community. Therefore, if one is dealing with points of law, as my noble friend's Question seeks, it seems clear that the West Bank, at present occupied by Israel, does not belong to any other state, and the convention therefore does not apply. The answer to the first and dominant part of my noble friend's Question is therefore no.
I shall raise another matter if I have time. The last legal sovereignty over the territories was that of the League of Nations mandate of 1922. It can be argued that its provisions still hold legal weight. The mandate stipulated that the area was to be part of the Jewish homeland, and that Jewish settlement there was to be encouraged.
I have referred the House to those two matters, namely, the effect of Article 2 and the mandate, to indicate how ridiculous it is even to contemplate that major national and ethnic issues can ever be solved by raising legal points.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, what I have to say very much follows on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. In order to understand the present position—which all of us agree is tragic—it is necessary to look at the course of events. The West Bank territory was occupied as a result of the assault on the new state of Israel by its neighbours; it was occupied by Jordan. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it was formally declared to be part of the kingdom of Jordan in 1950 and was recognised as such by the United Kingdom Government and by Pakistan. But the assumption at the time of King Abdullah, and the assumption of the Israeli Government with which he was negotiating, was that that was a prelude to a peace agreement between those two countries in which settlements and other issues would have been dealt with.
The assassination of King Abdullah put an end to those prospects, and we then went on to the period of Jordanian occupation during which there was ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population of the West Bank. That population was small but it did exist in a number of centres and it was removed. There was the occupation of the ancient city of Jerusalem, when the Jewish quarter was destroyed and Jews were not allowed to fulfil their religious obligations there.
910
In the 1967 war, those territories then fell under Israel. The problem that we now face is that of the peace process. And a part of the peace process must be to disentangle what has happened.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is to some extent correct in assigning some of the problem to recently arrived fanatical religious elements on the Jewish side. But numerically and physically they are perhaps not the most difficult part of the problem. The major number of settlers, if we exclude the arguments over East Jerusalem, are in what are called the security settlements along the highlands west of the Jordan river, which have been thought to be necessary as part of the protection of Israel. The importance of that security being guaranteed was emphasised by the attack on Israel by Iraq during the Gulf War.
We come back to whether we believe in the peace process. If the peace process is successful, the security settlements will cease to have a raison d'être. They have very little economic value. They are, as it were, military outposts. The religious settlers are very likely, in view of the rejection of the settlement, to be constrained to move. The Israeli Government will at some point feel that it must exert pressure upon them. Then one can hope for the coexistence which—as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, reminded us—is the purpose of the peace process itself.
That process is bound to take a long time. We have already seen the obstacles that have arisen despite the activities of the Norwegian and other governments in bringing the two sides together. I would have thought that the last thing that we want to do now is to go into an examination of fallacious (if I may say so) and at any rate obsolete arguments about circumstances on the legal side many years ago, and ask Her Majesty's Government, in so far as they have influence, to help in the peace process—that is to say, to look to the present and the future. That is the only excuse that this House has for debating anything at all.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, has raised a timely Question. He may have raised it—as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, implied—in too legalistic a form. It is nevertheless an urgent practical question, whatever the position is under the Geneva Convention. The recent mass murder in the mosque shows that the presence of fanatical settlers in Hebron and elsewhere is a present and obvious danger to the local population. It is one that must cause very considerable resentment. After all, the Palestinians there are in danger of death. A man went into the mosque and massacred them. Then his fellow settlers told the press that they wished that more people had been killed. That is the mentality of those settlers. Their presence is not only illegal; it is a clear danger. That is the mentality of Auschwitz. It is genocide, and it has to be called by that name.
The regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, to the families of the victims took me down memory lane. It high-lighted to me the fact that the state of Israel

911
has always been Jekyll and Hyde. We have to urge the state of Israel to see that its long-run survival depends upon Jekyll winning against Hyde.
In 1944 my grandfather, the first Lord Moyne, was murdered by terrorists of a group led by Yitzhak Shamir. The reaction of the Zionist movement was one of horror. Weizmann himself sent letters of condolence. There was general revulsion. Every year my father used to get a postcard from the Israeli embassy. There is no question that the general view of that murder was that it was an atrocity. That was Jekyll. Then, after Camp David, Hyde took over. When Menachem Begin received back from Egypt the corpses of the murderers, he re-buried them with military honours and issued stamps in their honour. That is not particularly relevant. It is history and we have to think of the future.
But the future of Israel itself depends on that spirit being disciplined and, in the end, destroyed. It depends on the respectable Israelis coming out on top. It depends on the removal of the murderous settlers. If that does not happen, Israel may well win military victory after victory, but in the end it is no more likely to survive than the Christian state during the crusades survived in Palestine. That is the historical precedent that must be considered. For Israel's own sake let the settlers be removed.
8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is difficult to come to the winding-up of the debate on this short Unstarred Question without wanting another 20 minutes to develop the subject. After the moving intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, and the passionate words of other noble Lords, perhaps I may try to calm things clown a little, if I possibly can.
It seems to me that what the Government are being asked is quite simple. Do Her Majesty's Government still maintain the position that they have always maintained in relation to the settlements in the Occupied Territories? Indeed, do the Government still accept that they are occupied territories? Tonight we have heard speeches which suggest that that is a wrong description. It is quite clear to me that they are occupied territories and that the people living in them should be treated within the terms of the Geneva Convention. If the question has to be asked, it is because both the British and American Governments seem to have been pussyfooting—I cannot put it more clearly than that—in the past months because of the peace process.
We are all anxious to see the peace process succeed. Let there be no mistake about that. We are all anxious to do everything in our power to ensure that the peace process succeeds. I do not believe that it will help that process to forget the situation in the settlements. But after the massacre at Hebron, who can forget the situation in the settlements?
There is a total imbalance in the situation. There are Palestinians who are shot because they are terrorists. Some of them are terrorists and people in the settlements deserve to be defended from them. The Israeli army is right to defend them. But the truth is that Palestinians also deserve to be defended by the Israeli army as the occupying power from terrorists on the other side.
912
Clearly, that has not happened. Not only did that person get into the mosque and shoot people at prayer; after that, Palestinians were shot by the Israeli army because they were demonstrating. To me that shows the total imbalance in the situation.
It is quite a simple question that the noble Baroness has to answer tonight. Do the Government stick by their avowed policy of past years and are they prepared to come up front and say, "We believe that these are occupied territories, that the settlements infringe the Geneva Convention and international law and we are prepared to stand up and say so"?
I do not accept by any means the view that all the settlers are terrorists. After the massacre I heard settlers speaking on the radio in terms that were extremely pacific, expressing their horror and shock at what had happened. Obviously, they were as shocked as many of us outside the country. But the truth is that the settlements are a provocation. They are still extending. They are not static. They are being extended as we speak. While that is going on, Palestinians understandably feel affronted, frightened and threatened. I hope that the Minister, when she replies, cart give some reassurance that at least this Government—and it AS to. be hoped that the American Government will do the same—are prepared to stand up and speak for them. Ii is their duty to do so as one of the powers which is responsible for the situation.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, for introducing this debate on a most important subject. I am only sorry that we have so little time in which to debate it.
It is a tragedy that the progress which had been made toward a settlement between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and Israel is now being jeopardised by Jewish extremists in the settler population on the West Bank in particular. It seems to me that the Israeli Government must now take urgent action to deal with those settlers, so that progress towards peace can continue. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. That such settlements were ever allowed in the first place is a blot on the record of successive Israeli Governments. The price now being paid is indeed a heavy one.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and my noble friend Lord Haskel, questioned what the Fourth Geneva Convention states on this matter. I am not a lawyer and cannot answer the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour. However, it seems to me fairly clear that no occupying power—Israel is an occupying power so far as concerns those territories—should allow the transfer into such territories of parts of its own civilian population. Since the 1967 war there has been a very substantial increase in the numbers of settlers both on the West Bank and in Gaza. Indeed, in 1972 there were only 1,200 settlers on the West Bank. There are now 120,000, which is a tenfold increase. I can only express surprise that Israeli leaders in the past did not recognise the problem that that would pose in any future peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whatever might be the legal position.

913
There is not and never has been consensus in Israel about the settlements policy. Many thoughtful and well informed Israelis have been critical, recognising the strategic threat that is posed—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, used the word "provocation", which seems to me to be a very appropriate term—and questioning the morality of that policy. Again, it is absolutely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, that the world community, including the United States Government, have condemned the settlements. The events of the past few weeks have confirmed the worst fears of those liberal Israelis who have criticised the policy. It struck terror into their hearts to hear some extremist settlers praising Dr. Goldstein's cold-blooded gunning down of Arabs at prayer in the Hebron mosque. It also demonstrates, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, said, that the man was not just a madman on the rampage with a gun but a creature of the despicable ideology of the community of which he was a part. Those noble Lords who perhaps saw the television programme last week featuring young boys in that community being imbued with the most appalling racial hatred will have shared my sense of shock.
Can the Minister tell us what pressure the Government are now putting on the Israeli Government to take more robust action? So far the measures announced, such as the banning of Kach and Kahane Hai, although welcome, do not go nearly far enough. The carrying of lethal weapons continues. There are still armed settlers on the streets in the Occupied Territories, some of whom are reservists in the Israeli army. Less than 100 of those people have been banned from carrying weapons under new government restrictions. No settler should be allowed to carry weapons outside his home. All the Palestinians in those areas are subject to strictly enforced gun controls; the same should apply to the settlers.
It can hardly have helped the peace process to have restricted the Palestinians to their homes after the mosque massacre while settlers are subject to no such restrictions. Settlements in the most sensitive areas where there are large Palestinian populations should be closed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested. Some Israeli settlers in the new territories want to leave. I understand that they have asked for government compensation and support to help them resettle in Israel. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether or not that has been refused. My noble friend Lord Haskel implied that it had not but I have read reports that indicate otherwise.
Perhaps I can end by asking the Government what action is now being taken to promote an international presence in Gaza and Jericho, which I believe was accepted by the Israeli Government and is in accord with the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles. Will the Government accept that such a presence would be of great value not just in Gaza and Jericho, but also in the other sensitive areas of the Occupied Territories? It is difficult for the Palestinians to have confidence in the Israeli Army after what happened in Hebron. Moreover, the attitude of the Israeli soldiers towards the
914
extremist settlers has been both equivocal and ambivalent, even when those people were behaving in a way which clearly jeopardises the peace.
It is in the interests of peace, desperately wanted by hundreds of thousands of moderate Israelis and Palestinians, that urgent action must be taken to deal with the settler problem. I hope that the Government will press for that with the Israeli Government and in the wider international fora in which we participate.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar for asking his Question and all noble Lords who have spoken in our short debate. It is a welcome chance to discuss such an important and topical subject. I shall seek to respond to the questions raised by attempting to put them in the context of the Middle East peace process more generally. After all, that is what every speaker, though from different viewpoints, has been asking for in our debate.
Nothing will ever diminish the horror of the massacre of innocent Palestinians in Hebron on 25th February. That appalling tragedy underlined the importance of pressing ahead with negotiations to secure a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region. The European Union Foreign Ministers issued a declaration on 7th March which called on all parties to resume negotiations and discuss the question of security of the Palestinians. European Union Ministers reiterated that Israel is responsible for the security of the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories, and that means all the inhabitants.
The declaration also supported the establishment of an international presence in the Occupied Territories in which the European Union is willing to participate. On 18th March, with our co-sponsorship, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 904 condemning the massacre and calling for an international presence in the Occupied Territories. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said that if the parties agree on a civilian international presence in the West Bank, Britain will play its part.
In our debate my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Moyne underlined the huge dangers of fanatical settlers leading to even worse disasters than we perhaps have already seen. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made it clear in his remarks that law-abiding citizens deserve to be defended. We do not disagree with any of those comments. My noble friend Lord Gilmour and other noble Lords asked whether the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The British Government have stated on many occasions since 1967 the view that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied by Israel in that year, 1967, and that the Jewish settlements are illegal and contravene that convention. My noble friend will recall a Statement he made in another place in May 1979 when he underlined,
"the Government's firm opposition to Israel's policy of settlement in the Occupied Territories. These settlements are not only contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, they are a truly major obstacle to the building of trust in the area, and, therefore an obstacle to peace".
No one could have put it better.

915
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and to some extent with my noble friend Lord Thomas. There is absolutely no doubt that our position, which I have just repeated, is clearly shared by our European partners as declared at the Lisbon Council in June 1992. Over a period of many years the United Kingdom has repeatedly sought to try to ensure respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention. We have frequently supported condemnations of violations at the UN and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked, in other international fora. We have made representations both bilaterally and in conjunction with others. We continue to urge the Israelis to administer the Occupied Territories in accordance with international law and accepted standards of human rights, as I referred to some moments ago.
According to the Declaration of Principles signed in a fanfare of hope last September by both Israel and the PLO, the general question of settlements will be covered in the permanent status negotiations which will commence,
"as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period".
That will begin upon Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the Jeri& o area. We warmly welcomed the signature of the Declaration of Principles. We hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. That is why the resumption of talks between the Israelis and the PLO following the Hebron massacre was so important. We believe that direct negotiations in the framework set out in the Declaration of Principles offer the best hope of producing a just and lasting settlement of all aspects of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, including the question of settlements. I am glad that the high level talks will resume tomorrow after the break for Passover. I sincerely hope that sufficient progress will be made so that the formal talks can begin very soon thereafter.
Let me say something in regard to settlement building. The Israeli Government have curbed settlement activity in the West Bank, on the Gaza Strip and on the Golan Heights. While that is welcome, it falls far short of the total ban on settlements in the Occupied Territories which we among many in the international community have called for. We are particularly concerned about the continuing settlement activity in the so-called "greater Jerusalem area"—an area of some 100 square miles. The British Government and our European Union partners have made repeated &marches to the Israeli Government expressing our view that all settlements in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace.
My noble friend Lord Gilmour asks me about land confiscations and I have to say that I share his concern at the reports both about land being confiscated and the cutting off or diverting of water. Those issues must be addressed in the peace process negotiations. It is obviously urgent that they should be so addressed and makes the peace process negotiations all the more urgent. We have taken as many steps as we can. My noble friend Lord Gilmour asked Her Majesty's Government to be more active. It has not simply been a question of making démarches or persuading others to
916
support the action which will helpfully get the peace talks back on the road. We have given emergency aid to the Hebron victims. We have certainly been involved in seeking to create some stability in the area, although stability will come only when settlement ceases and indeed persons withdraw.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Moyne both spoke about disarming the settlers. That is one of the most important steps that has to be taken—to disarm all settlers, particularly the extremist settlers. But there are grave difficulties in all of this because we know that some of the settlers who did not agree with the Hebron massacre and who are ashamed of what has happened feel their own lives to be at risk. In that I can have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lord. Thomas of Gwydir said. We welcome the actions that have been taken by Prime Minister Rabin to disarm and detain the extremist settlers, to outlaw two extremist settler organisations, to set up the commission of inquiry headed by the President of the Supreme Court, to release some Palestinian prisoners and to offer to compensate the families of the victims of the massacre. But all these measures must be carried through, and until the settlements are removed they will continue to be an obstacle to peace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me about the resettlement of settlers. I cannot give her an exact answer at this moment but I shall look into the detail, write to her and copy my letter to all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It is an important point and it is one with which I am sure the international community should be helping in order to get stability across the whole of the area.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 904 called for measures to protect Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, including a temporary international or foreign presence. With our European Union partners we have supported that idea and, as I mentioned earlier, have announced our readiness to contribute to such an international presence once agreement is reached between the parties on its features. The presence should consist of unarmed civilians whose main tasks would be to observe, liaise and mediate in all the sensitive areas. As we said in the UN Security Council, it is important not to promise more than we can deliver, but it is the responsibility of the Israeli authorities to provide protection for all those inhabitants in the occupied territories. Their action is urgently needed to bring an end to all acts of violence in line with their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, as my noble friend Lord Gilmour said. An international presence could certainly help to defuse the tension but it cannot detract from Israel's obligations, which she must fulfil.
My noble friend Lord Thomas asked about sovereign titles. The final status of these territories has to be addressed in the final stage of the peace process negotiations. As my noble friend Lord Beloff so rightly said, we must look to the future. It is the peace process that can do that and try to resolve the long-running disputes rather than dwelling on the past.

917
This has been an excellent debate. Neither Barukh Goldstein, nor those who share his views, must be allowed to succeed in their object of wrecking the peace process. The resumption of contacts between Israelis and Palestinians is urgent and greatly needed. We hope and believe that these may soon lead to formal negotiations. We welcome the announcement that Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are ready to resume their negotiations with Israel in Washington next month. I have no doubt that the renewed efforts by the parties to negotiate a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement is the best way to respond to the Hebron tragedy and to bring to an end the problems and suffering which we have discussed so well today.

Education Bill [H.L.]
8.24 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 4.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) No course in teacher training or teacher education at any eligible institution shall qualify for funding under this Part unless that institution publishes and makes available to each student undertaking such a course a prospectus providing details of the content and management of that course.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple and straightforward amendment and I cannot believe that the Minister will have any difficulty with it. It proposes that any course in teacher training or teacher education at any eligible institution will qualify for funding under this part of the Bill only if that institution publishes and makes available to all the students who might attend such a course a prospectus providing details of what the course is about, both in the way in which it is run and what its content might be.
All schools are required to have a prospectus under a previous piece of legislation and those prospectuses have to be lodged in public libraries. Higher education institutions always have a prospectus as well. It must be the case that students should have a right to know the details of any course on which they are about to embark or even to know the details of a course they are considering enrolling for. They should know a little about the components of the course, including what kind of teaching practice might be available and for how long; whether they will have tutorials; what kind of requirement there will be to undertake a piece of research or to write a short dissertation; how a course is run, including what kind of administrative support it may have; whether there will be mentor teachers, who are now increasingly being used; what kinds of lectures will be provided; and what the external higher education input might be to such a course.
At the moment, as the Bill currently reads, there is no mention of any requirement for a school providing teacher training to have a prospectus. The Government have, in their Citizen's Charter approach to such matters, required as much information as possible to be made available to students who are embarking on any
course in an institution of higher education. The same ought to apply with respect to teacher training that is to be carried out in the schools. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as my name is to Amendment No. 23, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 22 and 26, I should like to speak to it. I am quite encouraged by the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Peston, which was recently spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, but I do not think that Amendment No. 22 goes quite far enough. As the noble Baroness said, there is already a requirement for prospectuses to be published. I am not sure that the details of the content and management of the course, as set out in a prospectus, are sufficiently in evidence for students to find out exactly what they are going to be doing if they join one of these courses. Likewise, Amendment No. 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch hands the duty of saying what the details of the prospectus shall be over to the new teacher training agency. I am not entirely happy with that. I hope that when my noble friend speaks to her amendment she will be able to give some assurance of the degree of detail which the teacher training agency will require from governing bodies funding these courses.
I come to my own amendment, Amendment No. 23, which your Lordships will notice is exactly the same as the one I tabled in Committee and which I dare to hope may have inspired Amendment No. 22, to which I have already referred, and indeed the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I confess that some of the detail which my amendment asks for may be a little too exact. I shall be quite happy not to see displayed the teaching workload of those teaching the course and the number of hours worked per week. I shall also be prepared to see the workload of those teaching the course and any other activities relating to the course, such as the marking of students papers and so forth, not displayed. I put those in because I believe that it would not do students and the rest of us any harm to see exactly the workload of the teachers who are teaching these courses. I have a rather different view to that of many Members of your Lordships' house who speak for higher education in this country.
Paragraph (b) in my Amendment No. 23 reads:
"where appropriate, the amount of time which will be spent teaching students to teach children how to read and write English, and by what methods".
Although that is very important, it is perhaps inappropriate in this particular amendment.
However, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to go a little further than she has gone in her own amendment in meeting the other items of my amendment. For example, it is important that a profile of the academic content of a course should be set out in reasonable detail. From my experience of these matters I believe that a student should know each fortnight what is going to be happening otherwise it is too easy for the institution and the academics to say, "We are going to cover this general area and goodness knows whether we shall be doing so this month, next month or whenever" or indeed, sometimes never.

919
By the same token it is important that the reading list should be on display so that students know what it is. It should be a matter of public record what the books are which they are expected to read and what slant, if any, there is in the reading list. Likewise, the names of the external examiners are important. In this area in the past there has been a certain amount of mutual back scratching between examiners examining one course and then having the professors or teachers of that course examining their own course, and so on. If that is not going on then there is no argument. The provision will simply be in the open for everyone to see.
it is important to know the publications of the people who teach these courses. If I were a student joining one of these courses II would want to know what my professor or lecturer had published. I know that it is now a requirement that teachers spend time teaching in schools. But it should be set out how much time they have actually spent doing so and in what schools. I do not believe that it would do any harm for students, thinking of joining a course, to be able to find out where their prospective lecturers and teachers had been and how successful they had been in carrying out the trade which they propose to impart to the students in question. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some assurance on these matters.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to which the noble Baroness also spoke. There are three amendments covering similar ground. The noble Baroness championed the middle way, which is probably the most sensible course. It provides enough information for the students to get a rough idea of what they will be dealing with without being overly prescriptive. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is trying to tell them exactly what they should do, which I suggest would be more appropriate to people at primary school than for students who are supposed to be disciplining themselves to a degree. A certain element of flexibility must be built into higher education, or at least aspects of it, because situations have to be adapted as they occur. However, I shall be very interested in the reply which comes from the Government Front Bench.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Pearson who, at Committee stage, suggested that the provision of information for students should be dealt with in this Bill. This was an idea so obviously timely and wise that it is now the subject of no less than three alternative amendments; my own, that of my noble friend Lord Pearson and that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Openness about what is provided for students is an essential charter principle. It should be followed by all higher education institutions, including those which provide initial teacher training. To put this principle into practice, it is right that institutions should provide clear and detailed information about their provision to students and to applicants. We are setting in place arrangements to maintain a wide diversity of initial teacher training provision. For potential students to
920
make an informed choice between courses at different institutions they need to have access to full and accurate information.
As I said in the debate in Committee, while I find much to commend in my noble friend's list of information to be provided, I do not believe that we shall be able, during the passage of the Bill, to give this matter the attention that it needs to ensure that we get all the details exactly right. I have no doubt that we would all want to add or subtract from the list. Nor could we amend such a list in the light of experience.
That is why I hope my noble friend will allow us to meet his point through Amendment No. 26, which requires the funding agencies to take steps to ensure that all providers of initial teacher training make available the information the agencies think appropriate. We have deliberately not specified the precise information to be provided, for the reasons I have just given nor have we specified the recipients. My noble friend's amendment covers only students enrolled on courses, while we want to be able to include potential students.
We believe that the funding agencies will be well placed to decide on the precise details of the information to be made available and to adjust that over time as necessary. They will no doubt wish to discuss this with the institutions concerned and other interested bodies. It would not surprise me if the requirements set by the agency have much in common with my noble friend's suggestion.
I recognise that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is an attempt to meet my point about flexibility. But it goes rather too far in another direction. Institutions would be under a direct obligation to provide details of the content and management of the course without any definition of what that means. The only test would be the view of the courts. We prefer to let the agency set specific requirements and enforce them as necessary through its funding role. The noble Lord's amendment also has the same limitation to students already on the course, not just those wishing to make an informed decision; in other words, potential students. But that is all pretty far fetched. I believe that the agency will seize with enthusiasm the opportunity to operate in this way.
We believe that the points made in my noble friend's amendment cover the kind of information which ought to be available to all students. It is right that they should have more than simply the content and management of the course as stated in Amendment No. 22. A profile of the academic content of the course is essential as is the amount of time to be spent teaching students to teach children how to read. That is part of the criteria which could be picked up in that way. The reading list proposed for the course is a very good point; certainly in view of some of the reading material which I have seen as part of teacher training courses. It is also important to know who the external examiners are and their suitability to do the examining.
In paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of Amendment No. 23 my noble friend makes some interesting points about the workload of those teaching the course. If the student knew in advance what the workload was to be at least he or she would be able to make some judgment about

921
those lecturers who do not turn up for lessons; a point made in letters which come to me, as the Minister, from students or students' parents who are pretty disgruntled at the laissez-faire attitude of some lecturers. If the details are set out in advance then students at least know what to expect. They will know something of the workload of the teachers teaching the course and about any other activities in which they are involved, so they know that they are going to be available to do the job of both teaching and assessment and the testing of the students.
The final point about the amount of time spent by the course teachers teaching in schools—especially as we go towards both school-centred and higher education teacher training—is important and should be covered. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will send a remit letter to the agency when it is established. It will be important that this aspect of the agency's work is addressed in that remit letter.
Again, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. However, I hope that he and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whose amendment was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will not press their amendments, but will agree with my amendment, which is Amendment No. 26.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thought that I was going to be able to agree entirely with what the Minister said, but as she continued I became slightly more concerned. I accept that precise details of the information that should be provided in prospectuses should not be on the face of the Bill and, for that reason, I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, although I accept some of the things that lie behind what he said. Nevertheless, it seems inappropriate to list such things in a piece of legislation.
What concerned me about what the Minister said was that it ignored the fact that school or higher education prospectuses are produced by institutions without there being some higher body to instruct those institutions about what to include. I feel that there should be some flexibility for the institutions in deciding what it is appropriate to cover. There are obviously a number of matters which any prospectus would cover and which I have no doubt that any institution concerned with teacher training would include. Under the Bill, such institutions will be school governing bodies. When the Minister said that she thought that the funding agency should require institutions to include in their information for prospective students matters such as the names of external examiners and the details of reading lists, I thought that was going a little too far. As any academic knows, reading lists have constantly to be updated and changed. They sometimes have to be updated and changed during the course of a single year. If we were to ask for such matters to be included in the information that is provided for students prior to starting such a course, that could lead to some confusion and difficulty because the information might have to be modified.
922
I cannot really believe that it is necessary for students to be told in advance who their external examiners will be. The names will not mean anything to most students. Again that is something that may have to be changed during the course of any one year because, for example, the prospective external examiner changes his or her job, leaves the country or whatever.
It seems to me, therefore, that the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd and which I have just moved has some advantages over the Government's amendment because the information that prospectuses normally provide is clearly understood. They normally contain details of the courses that the students will take, the subjects that they will be asked to study, and how much teaching practice they will have to do. I am willing to accept that the government amendment is an improvement on not having anything at all on the face of the Bill, but I should like to put down a marker. I hope that, when it is set up, the teacher training agency will not end up being too prescriptive in the way that the Government have been—and have had to run away from—with respect to the national curriculum. However, I have no intention of pressing my amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) No course in teacher training or teacher education at any eligible institution shall qualify for funding under this Part unless that institution publishes and makes available to each student undertaking such course:

(a) the profile of the academic content of the course, set out so that each student shall have reasonable expectations as to what he will be required to study in each fortnight of the course in question;

(b) where appropriate, the amount of time which will be spent teaching students to teach children how to read and write English, and by what methods;

(c) the reading list which is proposed for the course in question;

(d) the names of any external examiners appointed to report on the course to the institution at which the course is proposed;

(e) the publications, if any, of those who are to teach the course;

(f) the teaching workload of those teaching the course, giving the number of hours per week and the number of weeks per annum that teachers on the course are contracted to teach their students either in lectures or in tutorials or other small groups;

(g) the workload of those teaching the course in any other activities related to the course, such as the marking of students' papers; and

(h) the amount of time which the course teachers have spent teaching in schools, together with the names of the schools in question.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I rise with great trepidation to take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I must tell her, in fact, that she is out of date with her objections to, at any rate, paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of my amendment because these requirements were requirements of the validation procedure of the Council for National Academic Awards for many years and therefore—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was not objecting to those paragraphs of the noble Lord's amendment. I was more concerned about some of its other elements.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was only going on the particular parts of my amendment which the noble Baroness chose to mention. I can assure your Lordships that none of these three items caused difficulties over many years in our validation requirements. I would certainly expect to see them in the letter which my noble friend has informed the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will in due course be writing to the teacher training agency.
As for the rest of my noble friend's reply to Amendment No. 23, I can but say that I am very grateful for the information that she has given us as to the guidance that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may feel able to give. Upon the assumption that that guidance will indeed be given in, I think, something of the detail that is required by this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Grants, loans and other payments]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert ("and
(c) to the needs of students having learning difficulties.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 24, we turn briefly, as we did in Committee, to trainee teachers with disabilities. I appear to be going back to saying "please" to the Minister now, but I say straight away that this is a probing amendment which seeks reassurance that any assessment of the quality of ITT will address the needs of disabled students. It is very important that the TTA has a commitment from the outset to ensure that trainers have the appropriate arrangements in place and an ongoing commitment. Obviously, one cannot change things such as buildings overnight.
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, I said that disabled students have limited choice because either buildings are not accessible or they find the course itself inaccessible. In her reply at col. 1666 of the Official Report, the Minister cited the practical help that is available in the form of disabled students' allowances and the HEFC's power to improve access. They are most welcome in themselves, but I leave it to other noble Lords who put their names to the amendment to explain briefly why they do not solve the problem.
In Committee, I also mentioned the concern about plans to replace the traditional four-year B.Ed with a new fast-track three-year course. I welcome the Minister's assurance—again at col. 1666—that all students with the necessary ability should be enabled to enter ITT and her recognition that students with disabilities may take longer to complete a course. However, I was not at all reassured when the Minister said that LEAs could be relied upon to fund the extra year. RADAR and SKILL have evidence that discretionary awards are increasingly difficult to secure and depend on the authority having the necessary funds.
Can the Minister give an assurance that colleges will be funded equally for their work with disabled trainees who take four years to complete a course and that they will be guaranteed access to funds for those students from the LEA?
I am not looking to put anything on the face of the Bill, but merely seek a commitment by the TTA to take account of the additional needs of disabled students in terms of any funding formula, and a reassurance that there will be no disincentive to enter teacher training.
I said that this was a probing amendment. Perhaps it would be better described as a "prodding" amendment because I hope to nudge the Minister into issuing guidance on this issue. A precedent exists because paragraph 26 of the Secretary of State's launch letter to the HEFC requires the funding council to facilitate access to higher education for students with learning difficulties. That followed an undertaking that was given in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, during the passage of the Higher and Further Education Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, which I very much hope will be positive. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment strongly. As the noble Baroness said, it is a probing amendment. We hope that we can get some sort of commitment from the Minister at the end of it about what guidance will be given. I hope that she is listening.
Baroness Blatch: Yes, I am listening.
Baroness David: I want to show that disabled people are grossly under-represented on courses and in the profession and that disabled students have much less choice in deciding which college or course to attend. Figures from UCCA over two academic years (1989-90 and 1990-91) show that disabled students on ITT courses accounted for only 0.7 per cent. of all students enrolled on university undergraduate ITT courses. The old PCAS (dealing with polytechnics and colleges) did not keep such statistics. A survey by RADAR in 1991 showed that teachers registered as disabled people accounted for only 0.1 per cent. of all teachers in 51 LEAs.
Few LEAs kept figures on the number of teachers who chose not to register as disabled people, but only 9 per cent. of the school buildings covered in the survey were built or adapted with the needs of disabled people in mind. I shall describe one case which is indicative of the problems disabled students face when choosing an ITT course. Christopher is 19. He is a wheelchair user who has cerebral palsy. The original B.Ed course of his choice was no longer an option as he discovered before applying that much of the campus was accessible but not the education department. His three subsequent preferences had to be vetoed. It took him three months to find a suitably accessible college. His choice though was dictated by access arrangements and not by academic preference. So disability organisations are calling for incentives to ensure that disabled people have wider scope for choice.

925
Clearly, disabled people have less opportunity to become qualified as teachers, and that is particularly sad as the Warnock Report which led to the Education Act 1981 saw them as the key to successful integration strategies. Can we have an assurance, as the noble Baroness asked, that that will be rectified by the new agency in terms of its formula funding and guidance to colleges? I remind the Minister that the code of practice says that all teachers should have some special educational needs experience. So for students who are trying to follow ITT courses to have other disabled students there would be very helpful in their own training. I hope for a very positive response, at any rate about the guidance to be issued, from the Minister.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my name is to the amendment, as is also the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has unfortunately been unable to stay because he has an important family commitment. He has asked me to say that he strongly supports what is behind the amendment and hopes to be able to read some encouraging news from the Minister when he receives Hansard tomorrow.
Many able candidates are denied the opportunity to take up a teaching career. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, they cannot physically get into some of the colleges to undergo the necessary training. Those colleges are also reluctant to take on students who may cost more in advisory services and who may need more spacious accommodation or teaching and learning materials—for example, in Braille —that are not normally used.
Colleges need to be encouraged to consider disabled candidates for teacher training alongside other potential candidates. It has to be recognised that a commitment to widening access to students with disabilities is often a financial commitment. As such, the impetus needs to come from the funding agency, the TTA. As the noble Baroness said, the Warnock Report highlighted the importance of disabled people playing their part in schools, especially now that pupils with disabilities are educated alongside other pupils in an integrated setting. It provides considerable education for life for able-bodied pupils to be taught by teachers with disabilities. They become accustomed to people with disabilities and being able to understand them and recognise the occasions when they need help. Able people with disabilities who want to train are unable to train because of their disabilities. That we need to avoid. The incentive needs to come from the TTA. I support the amendment strongly.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. The amendment relates,
"to the needs of students having learning difficulties".
Basically, all we are saying is that we should give a little extra help to those students who require it. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put the matter clearly. Some people need a little help with things such as access to buildings. That is usually comparatively easily achieved, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, said, unless we give a
926
prod, people will not receive that help because it costs a little money, even if it is only for installing ramps on stairways.
When it comes to the restructuring of courses for people with different learning curves, because they need to use sign language, Braille or any other learning aid, we must ensure that pressure to change is applied to people, because they do not change unless some pressure is applied. It is usually only necessary to open the eyes of those involved to the possibilities of training other students. I hope that the Government will be able to respond favourably to the amendment, as they have to many other similar amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall be brief for two reasons. First, I believe that I owe it to your Lordships to be brief because, having taken my eye off the prompt for a moment, I missed the noble Baroness moving the amendment. Therefore, out of courtesy, I shall not speak for too long. The other reason is that I always feel myself in difficulty when I ask people to think twice about doing something which would appear prima facie to be for the advantage of disabled people. I am a little puzzled by the use of language because, as the noble Baroness said, the amendment refers to "learning difficulties" whereas my noble friend is talking about disablement. It seems to me that there is a difference between the two.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that the amendment is correct because people with disabilities usually have learning difficulties. They are not different things. One is the result of the other.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it is that inability to get into a building to learn is a learning difficulty within the meaning of the statute, then I have no difficulty with that. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear in mind that the people for whom all this legislation is being drawn up, and who must always have first call, are the children, and that where it is to the advantage of children to be taught by someone with a disability, that is fine, but one should never use a school as a means of giving an advantage to someone because they are disabled to enable them to teach, for their benefit.
I see that for a deaf teacher to teach deaf children is to produce something valuable all round, especially for the children, but teaching is a difficult job. I merely ask my noble friend to bear in mind that what we are seeking is the best education we can provide for the children who are to be taught. I hope my credentials of taking the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill through the House and my sympathy for the disabled are good enough for me to say that, without appearing hostile to them.
9 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he not agree with me that someone who is disabled because he has a spinal injury therefore has a learning difficulty because he has difficulty getting into the building? But he may very well make an extremely good teacher of history, mathematics or a

927
language. Therefore, he would be a better teacher than an able-bodied teacher who is not so good at teaching those subjects.
Lord Elton: My Lords, obviously a teacher who teaches better than another teacher is the better teacher. I accept that there may be occasions when disabled teachers—if disablement is the right word in these circumstances—may have an advantage. I am merely saying that it is the excellence of the teacher as a teacher, with or without the disablement, which must count because it is the education of the children that is important.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support the amendment, but rather like my noble friend Lord Elton, it may be that I did not quite understand what it is about. I saw the amendment as a neat and logical follow up to Amendment No. 11 which the Minister moved and which was concerned with special needs. It was suggested that there should be members of the teacher trainer agency who have expertise in that area. I thought that if such people were to be represented on the agency, the funding that goes with that should be available. Such provision has been missing for a long time.
We have heard already from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about literacy. I interpreted the amendment as a move towards rectifying that situation. Although I agree with much of what I have heard, I did not understand that the amendment was in connection with disabled teachers. I did not follow that. Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick. However, if I have not got the wrong end of the stick, I strongly support the amendment. I believe that the two references in the Bill which provide that special attention be given to children with special needs are extremely important. They are advisory measures and do not force anyone to do anything. However, they mean that the problem—and it is a major problem—is kept under review by those who must administer the system.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must admit that I too had some difficulty as regards the wording of the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for pointing out that there is a distinction to be drawn. A person with learning difficulties is generally understood to mean somebody who has difficulty with learning. They may be slow learners or may have limited abilities and potential for learning. I am not certain that they are the most suitable people to be teaching children.
On the other hand. we understand that students who wish to enter the profession may be thwarted from doing so because of difficulties as regards access. That may be in connection with access to courses as well as physical access to buildings.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in the past people have been considered to have a learning difficulty whether it was a difficulty in movement, which may give them a learning difficulty, or a difficulty in acquiring learning. If we go down the path suggested by the noble Baroness, we shall be entering new territory. Somebody who has lost a limb may as a result of that have learning
928
difficulties. I believe that the noble Baroness is now using a new definition of that term. I know that the noble Baroness has been helpful in the past in this regard but I believe that we are moving towards new territory.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like us all to be clear about what is meant here. The amendment refers to students with learning difficulties. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Radnor are saying. We want the young people who are being trained to be teachers of our children to be effective. They may be prevented from entering the profession because they have a physical disability and there are no physical facilities which allow them access to the buildings. Some young people—for example, ethnic minorities—may need extra help to arrive at the stage at which they can take full advantage of the courses. I agree that those problems need to be addressed. Therefore, I wish to be sure about what we mean when we talk about a student with learning difficulties. A child with a learning difficulty may not grow up to be a suitable person to teach children.
I fully understand the concerns which have led the noble Baroness and her supporters to table Amendment No. 24, and I hope I can offer her the reassurance that she seeks. We fully accept the need for the agency to be sensitive to and take account of special educational needs not only as they affect school pupils but also students with learning difficulties. Indeed, that is one reason why we used a suitably wide definition of persons with special educational needs in support of the amendment on membership which we have already debated.
The need for wide access to the teaching profession, and for flexible approaches to training in order to encourage that, are central to our policies for teacher education. We want the best teachers—those with the right personal qualities and abilities to help their pupils reach their full potential. Such people will come from a range of backgrounds and may well include those who have tackled learning difficulties of their own in order to reach the necessary standard for entry to teacher training.
My right honourable friend's latest criteria for teacher training, because they focus on the cornpetences which new teachers must have acquired rather than course content, are designed to encourage a flexible approach which can readily be adapted to meet the needs of students with learning difficulties. I know there is concern that a shorter course length, for example, might not be so appropriate for students with such difficulties. But whatever length of course institutions choose to offer to the generality of their students—arid I believe shorter courses will prove popular and cost-effective—they will be able to make whatever special arrangements they feel are necessary for those whose progress is slower than the average.
I know that the noble Baroness wants us to make clear that the amount and quality of access for students with difficulties should be one of the factors which the agency needs explicitly to consider in making its

929
judgment about which institutions to fund, and that it may make additional funding available to help courses meet that aim.
I am sure that we shall indeed want to remind the agency—as we reminded the funding council in its launch letter—of the need to pay careful attention to the issue of access for students with disabilities. Indeed, I shall go one step further, and give the noble Baroness an assurance that that kind of guidance will be given to the agency. Like the Council, the agency will be able to use its funding powers to that end. Action on access issues certainly fits well with the objective of promoting teaching as a profession. The agency would not be able to pursue the objectives of high standards and cost effectiveness if it did not encourage good students with a vocation, and the ability to do well as a teacher, to enter the profession. Informed by Ofsted's evidence of how these issues are handled on the ground, institution by institution, I am sure that the agency will be a further force for improvement in this important area.
I was asked by the noble Baroness to give an absolute guarantee that long courses would be funded. I am not able to give such an absolute guarantee because I would, for example, be trying to give a guarantee for, say, a local authority which may be funding a course. Four-year courses will continue and the appropriateness of the course to the needs of a student must also be taken into account. All I can say is that, where provision is made for someone who will need an extended course for one reason or another, I am absolutely certain that that will be taken into consideration. However, for all sorts of legal reasons, I am not allowed to give a guarantee that that would be the case.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full reply. I was absolutely delighted to hear the firm commitment that she gave that something like the launch letter to the funding council will go out in guidance. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I am glad for his sake that he missed my opening speech. However, I actually said that all I was looking for was guidance as regards the amendment. The guidance to the HEFC has in fact proved to be most useful according to SKILL. Therefore, the Minister has given a very valuable assurance. I should like to thank all noble Lords for their support.
It seems to me that we are in a terrible muddle as regards the definition of "learning difficulties". If one looks back to the 1981 Act, it will be seen there that a student has a special educational need if he has a learning difficulty. He has a "learning difficulty", first, if he has a physical disability which prevents him from making use of the buildings and, secondly, if he has more difficulty learning than other pupils of his age. I cannot remember the third qualification.
The noble Baroness mentioned ethnic minorities. The whole point of subsection (4) is that you do not have a learning difficulty if you come from a family whose language is not English. That shows the whole dottiness of the definition. In higher and further education, reference is not made to special educational need; reference is made to a learning difficulty.
930
However, the latter equals special educational needs. I apologise for lecturing and shall now stop doing so. As I said, we are all in a terrible muddle. I thank the Minister again for her most positive reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Provisions supplementary to s.5]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising their functions a funding agency shall take such steps as appear to them appropriate to secure that the governing body of any institution which provides a course of initial teacher training funded by the agency makes available such information relating to the course, in such manner and to such persons, as the agency may require.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the above amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the above amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Joint Exercise of Functions]:
The Bishop of Guildford The Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 44, at end insert:
(" ( ) The Higher Education Funding Council for England shall not permit the Teacher Training Agency or any other relevant funding body to exercise on their behalf their functions under section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 rise out of the concern of the voluntary colleges, especially the Church colleges, that they may, in effect, be severed from the Higher Education Funding Council. The Church colleges of education began as teacher training institutions but, over the years, they have diversified and many of them now have about half of their students undertaking education courses with a view to teaching and about half doing other higher education degrees.
The colleges are essentially part of the higher education provision, they intend to remain there and they want to be recognised as being there. They do not wish to be seen as a mere subdivision of higher education. I believe that the colleges of education will be content if the Minister can assure the House that teacher education will not be divorced from higher education; that funding for teacher education will be proportionately as favourable as for other higher education courses; and, that there will be no severance of the colleges from the HEFC.
The anxiety is that the Higher Education Funding Council might, in the interest of co-operation—which, of course, is important—delegate all its functions to the teacher training agency and so cut off the colleges from day-to-day contact with the HEFC. It is because of that concern that I look to the Minister for some assurance. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should declare an interest because I am a governor of such a college as we are discussing; namely, Westminster College in Oxford. I think this amendment of the right reverend Prelate is helpful. It demonstrates how valuable it is to have in our midst the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, with his experience. Incidentally, if he reads Hansard, he will discover that I was not trying to get at him or his amendment earlier in our discussions today. I was discussing a government amendment that purported to deal with his area of concern. However, this is a very real issue for a place such as Westminster College. We are hearing from the heart of the operation and it will be of great relief and great significance to many people who are giving dedicated service in such colleges to hear the Minister utter, if possible, reassuring comments tonight.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clause 9 as drafted is designed to allow the range of funding bodies covering schools, and further and higher education in England and Wales, to work together where that would be more efficient or effective. It does not allow any funding body to delegate its functions to another. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 would have no effect.
I can assure the right reverend Prelate that his concerns are groundless. For the great majority of Church colleges in England the teacher training agency will provide only part of their grant. The rest will come from the Higher Education Funding Council. It will not be possible under the Bill for the council to say to the agency, "We are the minor funder so you must take over the funding for, say, humanities degrees at such and such a college". The agency would have no power to comply. In addition, the council will remain just as accountable to Parliament and the Secretary of State for its grant payments to Church colleges in future as it is at present.
There may, of course, be cases where a college wishes to diversify its provision and move away from a mainly teacher training role. In that event, it would approach the Higher Education Funding Council in future exactly as at present. Again, as now, the council would have to look at any request on its merits and in the financial and student number context of the higher education sector as a whole, of which all Church colleges will remain part. The council could not say "You are an agency college so we cannot consider this proposal".
Another area where we envisage valuable continuity is with the Advisory Committee for the Church Colleges. The Higher Education Funding Council has itself proposed that this committee should in future advise both the council and the agency. I see considerable merit in this kind of co-operative development and I hope and believe this proposal by the council will command general support in your Lordships' House.
Let me leave noble Lords in no doubt that I wish to see the voluntary colleges continue to play the important role which as specialist providers of teaching training they have played in the past. I would hope that the very
932
fact that there is to be a specialist funding agency in this area will give colleges every assurance that their particular contributions will be recognised.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is concerned that the Higher Education Funding Council could give up any responsibility for Church colleges. That is far from the case. The council will continue to have lead responsibility for most Church colleges. We envisage that it will only be a handful of colleges where the agency would take over lead responsibility during 1995. Lead responsibility here in any case means essentially the performance of light touch monitoring. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that there would be nothing to fear in the agency having this role. Colleges should not notice any significant difference. The funding council simply cannot delegate this function and the agency simply cannot accept it. I hope these reassurances will be helpful to the right reverend Prelate. As I said, the amendments are unnecessary both in practice and in law.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. I shall certainly want to study what she said and get in touch with the Church college representatives. However, as I understood her reply, it gave us all the assurances that we were hoping for. I am immensely grateful to her for responding so fully. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Efficiency studies]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 5, after ("person) insert ("approved by the Audit Commission").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 31. The teacher training agency will be involved with schools providing initial teacher training courses. Many of those schools, especially primary schools, will be funded directly by local education authorities for their normal activities. Local education authorities are already subject to regular efficiency studies by the Audit Commission and the district auditor, as are the schools. In providing teacher education courses, schools will of course be using two separate budgets—one for the school and one for the course.
Schools are still in the early days of managing their budgets, as the Audit Commission report Adding Up the Sums reveals. With the experience it is gaining, the Audit Commission has an indispensable role in monitoring and advising the teacher training agency on its own efficiency and on the best types of efficiency study which should be carried out in relation to schools.
When we put forward an amendment along these lines in Committee the noble Baroness was fairly robust, as is her style, and responded in the following manner. I hope she will forgive me if I quote her words. She said:
"Equally, [the TTAJ may want to do work, such a s a study of good purchasing practice like the one recently published by the HEFCE, which may be better done by another body. Because of that unduly restrictive constraint, 1 hope that the amendment will not be passed".—(Official Report, 10/3/94; col. 1674.)
I hope that in looking at the draft of our amendment tonight the noble Baroness will see that we have gone out of our way to meet her anxiety. This amendment certainly leaves the teacher training agency free to choose from a range of approved bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I wonder whether we are not becoming a little obsessed with accreditation or validation. I am open to correction because I am not familiar with all the activities of the Audit Commission, but I am not at all sure whether it is in the business of an accreditation agency to approve particular individuals for this kind of work.
It is clear that the funding agency may want somebody to examine a specific institution in terms of efficiency. That person may be an efficiency expert, an accountant, or someone of that kind. The Audit Commission itself is able to undertake such studies, and, if we are talking about studies of an entire field, then that makes perfect sense.
If the amendment were accepted the Bill would read:
"A funding agency may arrange for the promotion or carrying out by any person approved by the Audit Commission of studies designed to improve economy, efficiency—… or operations of an institution".
The Audit Commission could be very busy approving all kinds of individuals up and down the country if the funding agency wanted efficiency studies to be made of individual institutions. I am a little uneasy about that aspect, which seems to leave a great deal of power in the hands of the Audit Commission in relation to very specific operations.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 seek to narrow the scope for investigation by the agency in an unfortunate and, I believe, undesirable way. This is not a major area of the agency's functions, but it is entirely right for the agency to be able to commission value for money studies by the right person into the appropriate area of work of an institution.
There is no question of the agency intruding into matters which are not its business, but it will have wider funding responsibilities than simply initial teacher training. Even in order to conduct studies into the teacher training operations of an institution it would be necessary to look at much more than the course itself. If there is an efficiency gain to be made, it may lie outside the training course and the course may stand to benefit as a result. For that reason, Amendment No. 31 would be unduly restrictive in confining studies to teacher training courses.
Amendment No. 30 is even more tightly drawn. It would mean that the agency could turn to just one source when planning to conduct an efficiency study. That is a poor look-out, not because people approved by the Audit Commission will necessarily be poor, but because it creates a monopoly and monopolies are generally best avoided. I am sure that it would be right for the commission itself to tender for some of the studies funded by the agency, but it would be wrong for it to have an absolute monopoly over who does the work.
934
Amendment No. 30 would also be restrictive compared with the freedom which we gave to the Higher Education Funding Council in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The Council has made good use of that flexibility, as evidenced by the study of good purchasing practice which it recently published.
I hope that, in the light of that response, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is so unyielding on this point. I hope that we shall not live to rue a lack of insight here.
First, I should like to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. We are dealing with a suggestion in the Bill itself relating to the arrangements that an institution may want to make. We merely go on to suggest how those institutions might be advised and monitored.
The point is that the Audit Commission already has insight and wisdom about what is happening. It seems a great shame to waste that. It also has to be recognised that there will be a vast range of institutions up and down the country which will be able to make their own more or less off-the-cuff decisions about who they will commission to do certain work for them. When that wisdom is available it would be a great shame to waste it by not calling it into play and asking those who are already so experienced to have a look at the people who are being proposed and to say whether those people are suitable and they are happy with them. That would provide some shape and reassurance about the whole operation.
I have a fear that the situation will get out of control and that some years down the road we shall find that very convenient bodies have been asked by certain institutions to undertake surveys, and so on. Because they will not be challenging or professional enough and will not have sufficient insight, I believe that they may be deliberately invited—perhaps not overtly but tacitly —with such an assessment in mind.
Our amendment would have met the need for high standards. I hope that the Minister will consider the seriousness with which we put it forward. It involves maximum flexibility; all sorts of people can undertake the work; but they must be approved. That is the only factor that we suggest. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter again and return to the issue at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of hundreds of institutions commissioning research. Under the Bill it is only the agency which can commission such studies, not hundreds of institutions.
Lord Judd: My Lords, if the Minister considers the amendment, it states,
"approved by the Audit Commission".
That does not suggest that the Audit Commission has a static list of people who are its agents. It provides that, if the institution proposes someone, that person or organisation will be approved by the Audit Commission.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an important point. That was not the point to which I responded. I responded

935
to the noble Lord. He waved his arms about saying that there would be hundreds of institutions or many institutions up and down the country commissioning research. For the purposes of the Bill we are talking about only the agency commissioning research. In his amendment, the noble Lord is not prepared to take on trust that the agency will commission research from an appropriate body. He insists that one organisation, and one organisation only, shall have accreditation rights over any body which the agency wishes to commission.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I take the point that the Minister makes. The Government are completely mesmerised about the over-centralisation of everything into the one agency, so I doubt very much whether her officials in the department will have time to work out who will do what in every institution up and down the country. The Minister laughs, but she knows perfectly well how matters operate. A few years down the road I am sure that one will have various institutions suggesting that this or that organisation might do a little survey. That is what occurs. Then her officials will be overburdened with monitoring the situation.
We say that there is a perfectly adequate, highly respected organisation with much insight operating in the field already. We could have maximum reassurance that the matter was being undertaken properly with a great deal of flexibility. A great deal of wisdom could be brought into play, with good comparisons being made. Our amendment would ensure that there was proper quality and reliability in the future.
However, the Minister is not prepared to yield tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening. However. I hope that she will consider seriously the point that we make. I do not like to allude to it, but already we know that there are anxieties in the sphere of secondary education about what is being encountered as people take more responsibility for managing their own affairs. We are building on a secondary education system which is already encountering difficulties. I do not believe that there is room for complacency. We have to take seriously the danger that there are people who do not have adequate experience or the right background to understand the issues with which they are dealing as regards management and so on. The public is entitled to be reassured that we take seriously the need for high standards.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Power of schools to provide courses of initial teacher training]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 18, after second ("school") insert ("in consultation with the teaching staff of the school").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
The three amendments relate to consultation with teachers, parents and governors, and the holding of a ballot. I begin with Amendment No. 32. Governing bodies, under pressure from the TTA and in the light of possible financial incentives, need to be made aware of the need to ensure that all the teaching staff, not just the
936
head, are consulted on the feasibility and desirability of providing initial teacher training courses. The provision of ITT will impact upon teachers' conditions of service and contractual arrangements.
As it stands, the initial training of teachers is not one of the specific professional duties of a teacher set out in the statutory teachers' pay and conditions document. In 1993 the Secretary of State asked the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) to recommend that it should be so included. However, the STRB determined to examine the full implications of the proposal for its next report, which cannot now be operative until 1995. It is, therefore, imperative that teachers are consulted.
Teachers will quite rightly want to know what arrangements will be made for their preparation and training as the mentors of student teachers, whether and how additional responsibilities will be remunerated and whether and what additional non-contact time they will be given for intensive work with student teachers and to support student teachers in the planning and evaluation of their teaching. Governors will need the views of the teaching staff on the feasibility of undertaking a range of wholly new and intensified responsibilities.
Undertaking the responsibility for the training of adults as teachers is a very different activity from teaching children. Teachers have not in general been trained as mentors of student teachers, nor generally have they the breadth of expertise and understanding in relating the practice of teaching to the theoretical framework that underpins it.
For other teachers there will be new administrative and managerial responsibilities, involvement in the personal and professional counselling of student teachers and liaison with higher education institutions and the TTA. Existing job descriptions will have to he renegotiated. A proposal that a school should undertake an ITT will have a radical effect on the current job description of teachers. Teachers must therefore be consulted before the governing body makes such a decision. It is appropriate for this to be confirmed in legislation.
I turn to Amendment No. 33. During our debates in Committee the Minister argued against the amendment which I moved which sought to make schools provide teacher training courses subject to the procedures for a significant change of character under the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1993. The Minister said on that occasion:
"In the light of our wider reforms … I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect would be beneficial to their pupils".—[Official Report, 14/3/94; col. 36.]
The first amendment ensures such consultation takes place by, at the very least, providing those affected with information relating to the proposals so that comments can be made before final decisions are made.
The second amendment relates specifically to consultation with parents. The Bill contains no requirement on the governing body to consult with parents before a partnership scheme is introduced. Parents need to be consulted for the following reasons (I gave these when I was trying to move the: change of character amendment); the scheme could mean a

937
significant change in the timetable; classes could be subject to higher teacher turnover because mentor teachers will have increased time out of the classroom; a significant number of student teachers will be in schools and classes; parents should be forewarned of any teacher training scheme before the course is introduced so that they are able to raise questions and concerns with the school. I can say that the wording of this amendment is in line; the phrasing is taken from Schedule 2, paragraph 6, to the 1992 Act.
Amendment No. 34 deals with a possible ballot. All parents should receive an annual report. Motions can be passed at the school's annual parents meeting if 20 per cent. of the registered parents attend. However, the reports and meetings usually take place in the summer and early autumn term and are only required annually. A teacher education course may be introduced before the annual report can be considered. There must be a mechanism for parents who object to the school itself providing a teacher education course if their fears are not allayed by any consultation that may occur.
The Minister argues that in setting up a teacher education course,
"governors will not take such a decision without considering the views of all concerned—those of the teaching staff and parents in particular. Both groups are of course represented on the governing body and will be well able to make their views known".—[Official Report, 14/3/94; col. 36.]
However, the Government provided the mechanism of a parental ballot in previous education Acts and this amendment reflects the importance of parents' views, which the Minister acknowledged during Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will agree that this change justifies a ballot if sufficient parents so request.
Again, similar wording has been used in this amendment relating to the ballot procedure relating to GM status in Section 26 of the Education Act 1993. So I hope that the Minister will back up the words that she spoke in Committee and will be agreeable to getting the parents' and the teachers' views, and allowing them if necessary to go to a ballot. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support this group of amendments. If a school takes on the responsibility for initial teacher training, it will be taking on quite a big responsibility. In fact, it will produce a change in the character of the school that is very like the concept of change of use in planning law. It will be very different afterwards from what it was before.
It is common knowledge that at the moment schools are pretty heavily burdened. Taking on initial teacher training will create a demand for space, which is not something that many schools have too much of. It will create a demand for library facilities. I do not think that the Government have any idea whatsoever of quite how inadequate most school libraries are at the moment. I know about this. It is a matter about which we ask every entrance candidate who comes to us for interview. If schools take on initial teacher training, a very large slice of the library budget, which is already minuscule, will
938
necessarily be taken up by the new responsibility. I shall not dwell upon the point about teachers' time. That is obvious enough.
In response to the changes there will be a big risk that the staff of the school will, as it were, play with the new toy. They will be excited by the new responsibilities —possibly at the expense of the old. Indeed, even if that does not happen, there could well be a perception among parents, and even more among the children, that people are more excited by the initial teacher training than they are by looking after the children. If such a perception were to gain ground it would be a very grave handicap to conducting any initial teacher training in that school. That is why the procedure laid down by these amendments is quite important. It is vital that consent should be got beforehand; and that the whole school, including the children, should feel involved in what is being done and should feel a will to co-operate with it and to share responsibility for it.
It is rather like the situation of a GP who is a senior lecturer in clinical medicine. He has his students in while he is seeing patients; but if he is a good GP—as mine is —he regularly asks their consent before he does so. That, again, is quite vital to making any procedure work. We have been used through previous education Acts to seeing a great deal of development in the standing of parents in schools. That is not a party issue, certainly not in principle—and certainly not, I hope, in relation to this amendment.
We also all agree that ultimately the interests of the children in the school must come first. If they do not consent beforehand, the schemes simply cannot work. That is why I believe that these are rather important amendments. I hope that the Minister will accept them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I suppose that with a great effort of imagination one can just conceive that a school with parent governors would undertake to become a school of this nature without involving the parents and obtaining their agreement. It is a degree of folly which is difficult to imagine, but I suppose that one has to provide for the unimaginable in legislation. I should not have thought it was necessary. I say that in regard to the second amendment.
The first amendment suggests that it might be within the grasp of the school—whatever a school is, if the teachers are not included—to embark on one of these schemes without the support of the teachers who have to do the work. I find that incomprehensible. I do not feel that Amendment No. 32 could possibly be needed and I doubt whether Amendment No. 33 is required.
I believe that we disposed in Committee of the question as to whether this was a change in the character of the school and decided that it was not. To an extent I sympathise with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there would be, for instance, a greater reliance on the resources of the library. But I hope that, when the school prudently went to the parents to talk about it, it would be pointed out that the school would be getting more money which could be spent on the library to meet that call. I hope that my noble friend will not call up such a vast engine for what will perhaps be no use at all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I can take as read what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said and perhaps the noble Lords on the Opposite Benches will agree with him. My understanding is that they are far from agreeing and addressing the needs of parents. Those parents who have opted for self-governing status would not enjoy that status if either of the noble Lords' parties were to come to power. So much for saying that parental wishes should be properly recognised and addressed.
I recognise that these amendments do not have quite so many serious defects as the amendment moved at the last stage which sought to align the decision to run a course of teacher training with a significant change in the character of the school. But they are no more appropriate, building, as they seem to do, on provisions which relate to school inspections and the acquisition of grant-maintained status.
Taking first Amendment No. 32, it requires the governing body wishing to provide a course of training to do so,
"in consultation with the teaching staff of the school".
Of course, it will be quite impossible for any governing body to run a course of training without the full and wholehearted co-operation of the staff of the school. They will be involved in a number of ways: the staff representatives on the governing body, those involved in course design and those involved in teaching and supervising the students. But the responsibility for providing the course must rest with the governors alone, as the clause secures. That gives us the clear line of accountability that we need. The amendment would either be meaningless or blur that clear line.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 require consultation with parents and others, and make arrangements for a ballot to be requested, before a school can provide a course. We must not get the provision of a course of teacher training out of perspective. It is an important matter. But the way in which the school is run and funded, the number and nature of pupils it will accept and the obligation on governors to offer all children access to a curriculum which meets the requirements of the law and spend their entire school budget to that effect are all completely unaffected by the running of a school-centred course.
It is those matters that require consultation before schools become self-governing or change their character. In the case of a school inspection, it is the central question of how the school caters for its pupils which is at issue. But in this Bill we are talking about activities which must not detract from the school's central purpose but can and will enhance its strength.
I am confident that governors will volunteer to take on this new task only when it benefits the school as a whole. With the spotlight increasingly on standards, with greater choice for parents—
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene at this point. Is she saying that there will be no disruption when the headmaster of Harrow has withdrawn from a partnership agreement because he says that it is so disruptive to the ongoing teaching by staff in his own school? What sort of nonsense is the Minister talking?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I totally refute the accusation that I am talking nonsense. I ask the noble Lord to come with me to witness school-centred courses and see the impact, which is not negative and disruptive but positive, and the beneficial aspects of the life of the school. Indeed, governors, staff, parents and heads would not go along with the process if it were as the noble Lord said. The noble Lord has been bigoted and biased against grant-maintained status and school-centred training. He is simply hurt that we happen to be winning the argument.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister again for giving way. I have already said this evening that I shall be delighted to go with her. I hope that she will agree to come with me to see some of the schools where quite the contrary conclusion has been drawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am talking of school-centred teacher training, which is what we are discussing here. I am talking about schools which are precisely operating under the conditions we would like other schools to operate under if the Bill should become law.
As I said, it is notable that the noble Baroness only wants these extra requirements to apply to schools providing their own courses; schools which, as now, put considerable effort into working as partners with higher education courses will not be affected. Those are the schools that the noble Lord wishes me to visit. I wish him to visit the schools where there are proper school-centred courses.
It appears that, as with many of the other amendments before us, these are motivated by a desire to put further obstacles in the way of schools which want to take the initiative in this respect. I hope that they will not be pressed. But if they are, I hope the House will reject them.
I have not dwelt on the technical defects of the amendments. As I explained, Amendment No. 32 is not clear in its impact; Amendment No. 33 is not effective because there is no timescale attached or power to prescribe what must be prescribed and the power to run the course does not depend on any specific outcome. The ballot requirements in Amendment No. 34 are not effective because there is no matching duty to hold a ballot or abide by its results. We should not add such highly defective provisions to the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the partnership in the Harrow school, a school already mentioned today by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. Harrow withdrew from a partnership which could not trigger any action under the amendment. It was not a school-centred course and the noble Lord should make the distinction between school-centred courses and those schools which are co-operating to meet requirements of the primary and secondary circulars. As I said, the budget of a school—in other words, the library provisions of the school referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—is protected in law in the Bill; school budgets cannot be used to fund initial teacher training courses.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. But will she not accept that distinguished educationalists, including the headmaster of Harrow, have made the point that it is not possible for serious members of the teaching staff to keep the same relationship with the children they are teaching if they have to take on increased responsibilities for looking after student teachers as well?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at the risk of boring the House on this matter perhaps I can say once more to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that he constantly refers to courses under the primary and secondary circulars. In those courses all the money goes to higher education institutions. The higher education institutions hand over a portion of that money—sometimes not very much—to the schools. Many of the schools are saying that with the money they are given by higher education they are finding it difficult to meet their commitments in schools. That must be a matter between them.
The Bill does not concern those courses. The Bill is concerned with school-centred courses. Those schools receive all the money for teacher training—all of it. In the Bill as proposed there is a safeguard in law for the school budgets so that budgets will not be used to cross-fertilise the cost of courses for initial teacher training. They are therefore very different. If some schools, perhaps Harrow, had a little more of that higher education money they could perhaps meet the commitments under that partnership. But for every Harrow there are many schools where the partnership is a fruitful one and one that benefits both primary and secondary school teachers under the remit of the circulars.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I recognise that she is trying very fully to respond to my point. I appreciate that, even if it is a slightly heated exchange. My point is that if a parent has a first class teacher who is giving excellent service in a subject to his child and then the school becomes involved in a scheme of any kind in which that teacher will be giving time and attention to preparing students, there will be a fundamental change in the nature of the experience of that child at school. That is what my noble friend was referring to in moving the amendment. To suggest that there is not a significant change for the school is palpable nonsense.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord continues to pose questions to me. A school that is applying to be accredited to provide teacher training is, first, not allowed to use the money for the school; and, secondly, each of the schools in any consortium providing teacher training under these proposals would have a primary duty to provide as good an education as possible to its pupils. That is also an obligation in law. Ofsted has a requirement and remit under the inspectorate system to see that schools are visited and revisited once every four years, and the quality of the teaching and the learning in those schools will be properly assessed. An evaluation of these schemes is going on. The noble Lord referred to a disruptive and negative impact. I am saying that that is
942
not the evidence so far; and if it were the evidence, under the system as we propose it would be very exposed and we would soon know about it. It would be an irresponsible school, an irresponsible governing body with parental representation on it and a fairly passive parent body that would allow such a negative and disruptive impact. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord's pessimism will not come to pass.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I know it is late at night but perhaps I may remind her that if she claims she has won the argument she risks prolonging it.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister has spoken with great conviction but her statement is based on very little evidence. My understanding is that about 250 teachers are involved in this school-based training—we must remember that there is a difference between school-based and school centred training—and that about 60,000 teachers are not involved, so I think we are quite right in asking for certain safeguards. I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd that it is almost bound to make a difference to the school. If it is really going to be extended vastly I think that parents and teachers should be consulted, as we request in these amendments.
I confess at once that the amendments may well be technically deficient but that can always be remedied if the principle of them is agreed to. However, it is clear that the noble Baroness is not going to concede that we have any point at all. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support. All I can say now is that I disagree with the noble Baroness completely. I shall read with great care what she said and we shall very likely come back to the matter at Third Reading. I am not convinced because the noble Baroness's case is based on so little evidence to date and because of her remarks in Committee that parents would most certainly be consulted. And that she is not prepared to accept. But, for tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved. ]
Clause 13 [Qualification of teachers, &c.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 44, after ("person") insert ("—
(a) holds a degree or equivalent qualification granted by a United Kingdom institution or an equivalent degree or other qualification granted by a foreign institution, and (b)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 36. We believe that, as at present, all those who successfully complete courses of initial teacher training should also be required to have a degree or equivalent qualification in order to be granted qualified teacher status. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 reflect that belief.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Judd, proposed an amendment in the same territory. Noble Lords will recall that we agreed with the principle of his amendment but were able to accept it as drafted. I have therefore, as I said I would, brought before the House these amendments which I hope will command the support of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments meet the principle behind the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd which I moved at Committee stage. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing them forward and they are acceptable. There is also an additional improvement in that the term "United Kingdom" has now replaced "England and Wales". I hope that that will satisfy the Scots and the Northern Irish.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend the Minister. I do not want to say it too strongly, but this provision should have been in the Bill in the first place. I am very grateful to the Minister for putting this matter right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert:
("For the purposes of this sub-paragraph—

(a) a "United Kingdom institution" means an institution established in the United Kingdom, other than one which is, or is affiliated to or forms part of, an institution whose principal establishment is outside the United Kingdom;

(b) a "foreign institution" means any institution other than a United Kingdom institution; and

(c)")

On Question, amendment agreed to. Baroness David moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 1, leave out from second ("accredited") to ("by") in line 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that only the Secretary of State, and not the teacher training agency, can accredit a higher education institution, a school or some other body in order to enable a student who successfully completes a teacher training course there to obtain qualified teacher status.
When it appoints teachers a governing body needs to have confidence in their suitability, including that they fully merit the QTS which they have obtained. At present a course leads to QTS either because the Secretary of State has approved it or because he has accredited the institution which provides the course. Either way, he is accountable for a decision which critically affects the quality and reliability of QTS. This accountability should not be shuffled off onto a body having no experience of accrediting institutions for teacher training, which the Secretary of State appoints and can influence by formal and informal means, but for whose decisions, which could not readily be challenged in Parliament, he could disclaim responsibility.
It is particularly important that the Secretary of State should have to justify a decision to accredit or to refuse accreditation when it relates to a school or other body without previous experience of providing initial teacher training. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State could still obtain advice from the teacher training agency on whether or not to accredit, but he would have to account for his decision to Parliament and those directly affected by it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are once again going over ground already covered in earlier amendments today. It is vital that institutional accreditation as we have proposed is performed by a
944
body that is external to the institution offering teacher training. Unlike validation, it is not appropriate for there to be self-accreditation by the course providers, whether they be in higher education or in schools. That would not give the necessary assurances about quality. And that is why we need a teacher training agency to take the decisions, and not merely advise, on both accreditation and funding.
In the case of initial teacher training, the teacher training agency will fund and accredit in England; and for Wales it will be the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales that will both fund and accredit Welsh initial teacher training. Both will have regard to the initial teacher training criteria of the relevant Secretary of State; that is, for England or for Wales.
We start from the position that it is right to bring together all the important functions which affect the quality of teacher training and which will benefit from a concerted approach. In particular, these are the funding of teacher training and the accreditation of those who provide courses.
We must not split funding and accreditation. They must go together. That is how we shall get high quality teacher training and this will in turn raise standards. We are already making improvements through revised criteria for training courses. But the teacher training agency will ensure that all training meets the criteria and will concentrate its funding on the highest quality courses.
Under our approach we shall bring together the funding and accreditation work done currently by three separate bodies: the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, which advises the Secretary of State on individual courses; the Department for Education, which approves all courses of teacher training; and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which funds all higher education courses.
The Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education will close when the teacher training agency is set up and the Department for Education will have reduced functions. Indeed, the Secretary of State is giving up the decision-making in this area. The Bill does not alter the Secretary of State's long-standing involvement in initial teacher training through the setting of course criteria and student number targets. But the reforms mean he is giving up decision-making over course approval, which will translate into the institutional accreditation function of the teacher training agency; and giving up decisions on the funding of school-centred training, which will pass from the Department for Education to the teacher training agency.
The Government's approach rests on fundamental principles which have inspired so many of our reforms: quality, efficiency, choice and accountability. The time is ripe for the funding and accreditation functions to be brought together. This will provide the new and independent machinery to support our other reforms. The various bodies which now have responsibilities in these areas have all done useful things. But what is needed now is for one vigorous and independent body, dedicated to teacher training, to address both the

945
funding and the accreditation aspects. This is the most effective way to achieve the necessary gains in clarity, accountability and effectiveness.
Under Clause 13 as originally drafted the teacher training agency has the statutory role in the accreditation of institutions. It will have to satisfy itself that universities, colleges and schools that wish to offer teacher training have the necessary commitment to the Secretary of State's criteria and the systems in place to deliver quality courses. All courses will as now be subject to inspection by Ofsted—and the agency will be able to withdraw accreditation if courses fail to meet the criteria.
I should say at this point that the idea that the agency should have accreditation joined to its funding role was not one that we originally proposed but was actually proposed by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, the body of experts which currently has the accreditation function. We accepted its proposal gladly because it so clearly meets the key objectives of clear lines of accountability and high quality without bureaucracy.
As I have said, the agency will accredit courses provided by universities and colleges, as well as schools. It is worth repeating, partly to underline yet again that we expect higher education to continue to provide teacher training and partly to demonstrate what folly it would be for higher education to be in the business of accreditation when it would actually remain a requirement for higher education itself to be accredited. It would then be an accreditee and an accreditor—and that cannot be right for accountability.
The agency will encourage diversity by supporting courses run by schools as well as by higher education. The agency will also be able to ensure there is increasing choice among courses of different lengths and design, as well as those provided by different bodies. We look forward to a steady increase in school-centred training. Numbers will certainly grow beyond the current pioneers, in secondary schools in particular. But neither the Government nor the agency will be forcing schools to take on extra responsibilities. The schools will have to meet the Secretary of State's criteria, meet Ofsted's inspection standards and meet the accreditation standard of the teacher training agency. Given all that, there is simply no need in the approach we have advocated for schools to pass a mandatory further test of validation or accreditation by higher education.
10 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she could answer a question. She said that courses are to be accredited by CATE, but I thought that CATE was going to be abolished. What will happen after that? How will the eight or 12 people —busy people, as the Minister said—who will serve on the teacher training agency have the time and ability to accredit all those many courses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I said that CATE would close when the
946
agency was established. At the moment, CATE advises on course approval. It is the Secretary of State who actually approves the courses. Under the new arrangements, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will pass the accreditation powers to the agency. It will be the agency that will be responsible for accreditation in future.
Baroness David: My Lords, but the Minister has not explained how the agency —with eight or 12 people —will accredit all the courses in all the schools. Could she explain a little more?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will use the evidence of Ofsted, which is used at the moment. Ofsted's staff will be the people who will know and be able to give information about standards and about whether a school or group of schools is suitable for the purpose of providing training. Ofsted will also be responsible for inspecting and monitoring standards as the courses continue.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her further clarification, but I must say that I find it hard to follow. She goes rather fast. I should like to read what she said to see whether that convinces me more than I am convinced at the moment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may come back again on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Duty to provide information, etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 18, after ("State") insert ("(in such manner as he may from time to time determine)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are grouped with Amendment No. 41 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
We believe that it is essential that the teacher training agency is able to give the Secretary of State independent and objective advice. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Elton moved an amendment to remove the power of the Secretary of State to determine the form of advice or information given by the agency which he has not himself requested. Following further consideration, we have concluded that such a change would indeed be beneficial. It will be seen clearly that there is no restriction upon the ability of the agency to communicate as freely and openly as it wishes with the Secretary of State.
Perhaps, given the time of night, I may be presumptuous and address Amendment No. 41. The noble Earl could then pick up anything I say. The amendment would go further than we have done. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to determine the manner in which he was given information which he has specifically requested from the agency. As I said in Committee, I believe that such an amendment would go too far and prevent the Secretary of State from requesting confidential information on important issues such as an individual institution's financial health. If he could not add the requirement for confidentiality, the Secretary of State

947
might be inclined to ask the agency for less information than he really needs, which could lead to a breakdown in communications and a loss of accountability.
I think that the solution suggested by my noble friend., which we have reflected in our amendments, strikes the right balance between confidentiality and openness. I hope that on reflection the noble Earl, given that he has not even spoken to his amendment, when he has, will consider withdrawing it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, since Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 are grouped, I should point out that if Amendment No. 40 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 41.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 41 which is included in this group. It would remove from the Bill the words that the agency shall provide advice:
"in such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
I thought that the Minister was going to point out that those words had been in education Bills since 1988. Had she done that, I was going to point out that I divided the House against those words when they first appeared in 1988. I thought that they were wrong then; I think that they are wrong now. That is absolutely crucial as to why there is a growing lack of confidence in administration by quango.
The Minister said that the agency was to give independent and objective advice. She must have picked up a certain scepticism about whether that is in fact what the Secretary of State is going to get—because of course the key to independent and objective advice is that it is sometimes unwelcome. That is in the tradition of giving counsel to rulers, which goes right back into the depths of the Middle Ages. A counsellor who did not sometimes give unwelcome advice was a bad counsellor. Indeed, he was a flatterer.
If advice is to be given only in such manner as the Secretary of State shall from time to time determine, it is difficult to give independent and unwelcome advice because unwelcome advice is usually given on things where the person does not know that he needs any advice. Indeed, that is why it is particularly important that it should be given. I understand what the Minister says about confidentiality. That is a point that I would not wish to dispute with her. If the Minister wishes to ask for a form of words which allows advice to be given confidentially on a particular question at a particular time, I should not argue with that. However, it is important that the agency should be in a position to give unsolicited advice and, even more important, like the old University Grants Committee in the days when it enjoyed a confidence that agencies do not, I regret to say, enjoy now, give its advice in public if the Secretary of State is not willing to listen to it in private.
Without that capacity to advise in public, an agency will simply not enjoy the confidence of the public. If the noble Baroness wishes to convince me that the agency is a genuinely independent force, then she must let the dog off the lead. If she does not trust the dog off the lead, then it is not independent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the greatest respect I believe that the dog is off the lead because, under the formula proposed by my noble friend, which I warmly welcome because it is based on a proposal I made in Committee, the agency is able to give any advice that it wants on any subject it chooses in any form it likes. If that is what the noble Earl means by independence, it is met by the formula proposed by my noble friend.
When the Secretary of State has asked for advice in one form, the agency cannot give that advice in another form. I am persuaded by my noble friend, although I had not expected to be, that there are occasions on which, for reasons of confidentiality and the effect that it might have were it made public and shared, the advice must be given in a particular form. That does not preclude the agency from giving other advice in the form it wishes.
I hope that the noble Earl will repent of his enthusiasm for releasing the dog further. It seems to me that the dog is as free as it should be, and I am grateful to my noble friend for accepting what I humbly suggest was my advice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, leave out lines 23 and 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert:
("(4) The Teacher Training Agency or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales shall provide such information for the purposes of teacher education and training as may be required by:

(i) The Higher Education Funding Council for England;

(ii) the governing body of an institution under subsection (3) (a) above;

(iii) any local authority;

(iv) the Office for Standards in Education;

(v) the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority; and

(vi) any other body deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment designed to ensure that information is provided to facilitate the provision of teacher education and training. As the Bill is drafted, organisations and bodies associated with teacher training must provide information for the new teacher training agency. The amendment ensures a two-way flow of information.
In responding to the debate on Amendment No. 3 earlier, the Minister repeated more than once that she expects the teacher training agency to work closely with the Higher Education Funding Council. The amendment has been tabled with just that in mind. To work together in a spirit of co-operation, it is essential to ensure that the different bodies are all properly informed.
I regret to say that when the Government establish new agencies they tend to make a statutory requirement for other bodies to provide information to the new agency. However, they omit to ensure that the new agency should also provide information. Indeed, the new agencies seem to go scot-free when it comes to reciprocating. Surely that is wrong. We want a two-way flow of information so that we can achieve the highest

949
possible quality of teacher training and education. I very much hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 would impose a wide-ranging and ill-defined requirement on the funding agencies to provide information on any aspect of teacher education and training to any or all of the bodies listed in the amendment. I defer to no one in my belief in the importance of the frank and frequent interflow of information. But the amendment takes an unwieldy hammer to the nut.
The amendment is not only ill drafted, it is also unnecessary in many respects. Ofsted, for example, is already given rights of access to teacher training agency meetings and papers under a government amendment discussed earlier. Naturally there will be a good and close relationship there. The Higher Education Funding Council will need to work closely with the funding agencies. But that is allowed for explicitly in Clause 9. It would be curious—and, indeed, unfortunate for the working relations of those bodies—if there needed to be a legal power to require information. Why would the agency simply not provide anything that was reasonable? Why would the Secretary of State not step in if there were problems? Does it really require the attention of the courts? If relations are to be so poor as to require such a provision, why is there no reciprocal power here for the agency to require information from the funding council?
I turn now to the reference to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. I am sure that it and the agency will want to exchange information, although the working links will be less close than with Ofsted and the funding council. Again, I see no case at all for regulating that exchange in the Bill. The same will be true of local education authorities and schools, with both of whom, I can assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the agency will wish to be on good terms. Again, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if one looks at Clause 14(3) (a) as presently drafted, it will be seen that,
"the governing body of any institution receiving … grant",
has to provide such information, and that "any local education authority" has to provide information as required by the TTA; yet, apparently, the reverse is not required. It is somewhat puzzling. After all, LEAs will, for example, continue to play a role in the provision of schools and may from time to time need to have information from the TTA. I have no doubt, as the Minister said, that the agency will normally be willing to provide such information. No doubt that will also be true as regards providing information to the other bodies listed in the amendment.
However, it seems to me that the Minister's response is a little odd, in that she suggested that it is heavy handed to ask the new agency to provide that information but, on the other hand, she does not think it heavy handed to ask the other bodies mentioned in
950
Clause 14 to provide the information for the new agency. Nevertheless, I have no wish to press the amendment tonight. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Additional, supplementary and ancillary functions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2) the Secretary of State shall carry out such consultation as appears to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult before he makes an order about additional functions of the teacher training agency and supplementary functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made the case for such an amendment through one of his own at the Committee stage. I hope that he will find that the thrust of his concern is met by the amendment now before us. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: My Lords, after our liveliness earlier, I am glad to be able to finish on a positive note. I should like to thank the Minister for having responded to our point on the matter. We are most grateful for the amendment that she has now brought forward. However, perhaps I may make one observation. If the Secretary of State is to consult with the people whom he feels to be appropriate, much will depend upon his attitude towards consultation. My conclusion—and I am sure that the Minister really agrees with me—is that the Bill with which we have been unhappily dealing for some time now is a classic example of how a Secretary of State can shoot himself in every available limb by failing to consult fully before rushing legislation into print.
The time, the energy, the anxiety and the money which have been wasted quite unnecessarily in trying to contain the damage which otherwise would have gone almost out of control are really quite extraordinary. Therefore, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has responded so positively—I am not surprised that she has done so—to this matter. I am sure she will understand when I say that we hope we will see an administration which will follow this measure through in the spirit in which it is intended, and which will want to build a consensus on sound legislation and sound policy on the basis of taking the advice of people who really are involved in this matter and who are not just managing the money. I am referring to the people who understand what goes on in the classroom and understand the pressures that teachers face.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 48:
Page 9, line 11, at end insert:
(—denominational character", in relation to an institution, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (IA) below;").
Page 9, line 20, leave out ("and").
Page 9, line 21, at end insert:
(—special educational needs" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1B) below.").

951
Page 9, line 21, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purposes of this Part an institution is of a denominational character if—

(a) at least one quarter of the members of the governing body of the institution, or in the case of a school at least one-fifth, are persons appointed to represent the interests of a religion or religious denomination, or

(b) any of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held upon trusts which provide that, in the event of the discontinuance of the institution, the property concerned shall be held for, or sold and the proceeds of sale applied for, the benefit of a religion or religious denomination, or

(c) any of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held on trust for or in connection with—

(i) the provision of education, or

(ii) the conduct of an educational institution, in accordance with the tenets of a religion or religious denomination.").

Page 9, line 21, at end insert:
("(1B) For the purposes of this Part persons with special educational needs are

(a) children with special educational needs as defined in section 156 of the Education Act 1993, or

(b) persons (other than children within the meaning of that section) who—

(i) have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons of their age, or

(ii) have a disability which either prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for persons of their age.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Meaning of "students' union"]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, leave out lines 35 to 37.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 54, 59 and 61. These amendments concern which sections of the student body in any particular institution are affected by the requirements in Clause 20. When that clause was inserted in Committee I said that we would need to come back to the interaction between that clause and Clause 18: that is what these amendments do.
First in this group Amendments Nos. 49, 51 and 54 delete the references to "all students" in Clause 18. Clause 18 identifies different types of student union, and these references were needed to determine which group of students was concerned in each case by the various provisions in what was Clause 21. With the recasting of those provisions in what is now Clause 20, these cross-references no longer quite work.
Instead, these definitional matters are sorted out within Clause 20. That is the function of Amendment No. 61. This provides a new subsection (5) in Clause 20, which determines the effect of the term "all students" as it is used in that clause. There are various matters on which it is appropriate for all students to receive information about the conduct of their student union. These are set out in subsection (2) of Clause 20 which specifies in paragraph (h) that they should have access to financial reports on union expenditure, and in paragraph (i) to a description of the procedures for allocating resources to clubs and societies. Paragraph (k), as amended by Amendment No. 59, requires that all students should have access to complaints procedures in relation to the union. Subsection (4) in Clause 20
952
establishes that information about charity law and freedom of speech legislation as it relates to student: unions should also be made available to all students.
Finally, there is a connection to Amendment No. 58., which we will address shortly, which sets out a requirement that all students should have access to reports on external affiliations. The effect of the new subsection (5) in each case is that these 'requirements relate separately to each type of student union identified in Clause 18. Thus a graduate union, for example, would be required to make available copies of its financial accounts to all graduate students at the establishment, but not more widely.
The effect of these provisions is to ensure that students have access to the information that they need. Even students who are not union members have an interest in knowing that the union is making proper use of the institution's resources. In some instances they may also be members of clubs or societies that the union funds; and they could be affected by abuses of free speech or of charity law by the union, which could drag all an institution's students into disrepute whether or not they are union members.
Amendment No. 61 also addresses some related issues. The requirements in Clause 20 for voting in elections and on affiliations relate to members of the union. But in the case of a student representative council the members are the representatives, not the students who are represented. The new subsection (6) therefore makes clear that in those circumstances it is the students who are represented who should have voting rights in the election of officers and in ballots on external affiliations.
A new subsection (7) acids a definition of external affiliations referred to in subsection (2) (j). This includes any form of membership or formal association with external organisations undertaken by the student union. We shall debate shortly the revised requirements that we propose in relation to affiliations.
Finally, a new subsection (8) to Clause 20 implements my undertaking given in Committee that the requirements for ballots should not apply to distance learning institutions. I trust that that will meet the point of noble Lords, and in particular of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who expressed anxiety about the implications of the reforms for the Open University.
This group of amendments clarifies how the provisions of Clause 20 will apply to different kinds of union defined in Clause 18. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for all the trouble she has taken in going into the matters in all the amendments. In particular I should like to thank her for the new subsection (8) to Clause 20 which she has just mentioned.
The Open University will appreciate enormously the trouble she has taken to find out exactly what are the problems for the university in terms of cost and the mechanics of carrying out secret ballots. As she knows, it has its own arrangements, which are very democratic. The university will appreciate the amendment, which is

953
tailor-made for it and any other similar institutions in the future. I am sure the Open University will be very grateful. I certainly am.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we owe even further thanks to the noble Baroness beyond those that we expressed to her last week in Committee. She has taken an immense amount of trouble with the amendments. They appear to me to be consistently improvements. If I probe one or two points in detail I do so in full sympathy with the general objectives of the amendments.
I share the general pleasure at the resolution of the question of open and distance learning. I want to raise one point about paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 61 and the reference to:
"all students at the hall of residence in question".
That leads me to wonder how much thought has been given, in a very busy time, to the effect of the newly amended Bill on the junior common rooms in Oxford and Cambridge in terms of which parts of the Bill impact on them and in what ways, and the ways in which there may be differences from the effects on an ordinary students' union.
I also have one general question, of which I have given the noble Baroness notice. I am not sure whether this is the correct place to raise it. I have been asked what is the effect of the Bill on those students' unions which elect their women's officer by a ballot of women only. People of my generation who remember the Warren judgment may not feel quite comfortable with that arrangement. But we are not the electorate here. It is perhaps a question in which we would be unwise to intervene from outside. My main purpose is to know simply what is the effect of the Bill on that practice. My purpose in asking is to know, as A. E. Housman had it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the JCRs are subsumed in the definition of student unions. They will be student unions in their own right.
As regards the women's officer, the noble Earl may have noticed that we have left it to the institutions themselves to determine which shall be the main offices subject to secret ballot. Therefore, if the institution itself determined that the specific role of women's officer was one of the major appointments, then that would be subject to secret ballot of all members. If it was not one of the major offices then it would be for the union to determine how to appoint a women's officer in any way prescribed internally by that organisation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert:
("(2) References in this Part to a students' union include an association or body which would fall within subsection (1) if for the references to the generality of students at the establishment there were substituted a reference to—").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 55. These amendments are essentially consequential amendments. They arise from the insertion in Committee of the opting out provision that
954
is now in Clause 20. In introducing those provisions I mentioned that we would need to return to the consequences in Clause 18.
The main amendment in the group is Amendment No. 55. It is designed to ensure that a union is subject to the provisions of the Bill even if the majority of student bodies are not members of the union, provided that membership is open generally to all students. The main definition of a student union in subsection (1) of Clause 18 relies on its covering the generality of students. But in some circumstances a union might not embrace the generality. This could arise if large numbers opted out in a particular case, as I have mentioned. Where there are parallel unions, as at Glasgow University, it cannot be the case that both cover the generality of students, but both are open to the generality. I understand that Glasgow University has a union for men and a union for women. And in further education, it is not uncommon for part-time students to be ineligible for union membership. Where they make up a major proportion of the student body, again, the union could not be seen as covering the generality of students. The new subsection (5) accordingly provides for student unions to fall within the definitions in the Bill if they are open to the generality of students and if they cover the generality of full-time students whether or not they actually embrace the majority of students at the institution.
The other amendments in the group are consequential on the first amendment. Amendment No. 50 adjusts the lead-in to subsection (2) so as to reflect the treatment of the generality of students in the new subsection (5). Subsection (2) ensures that unions which serve only a distinct part of the student body—graduate students, or students in a single hall of residence—fall within the definition. I believe that that answers the noble Earl's previous question about JCRs.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 simply adjust the cross-references in subsection (3). The effect is that where a union is a conglomerate of the types of union identified in subsection (1) or (2), it falls within the definition. An example is the university-wide student unions at Cambridge and Oxford universities, which bring together the college-level junior common rooms.
We would not wish to exclude any student union from our proposed reforms simply because the majority of the student body were not members. These rather technical amendments can be summarised as dealing with that possibility. I therefore commend them to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if the noble Baroness wishes to move them, I shall take Amendments Nos. 51 to 55 en bloc.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 55:
Page 10, leave out lines I to 4.
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("(1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("(1) or (2)").
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("(1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("(1) or (2)").
Page 10, leave out lines 12 to 15.
Page 10, line 19, at end insert:

955
("(5) References in this section to an association of the generality of students, or of any description of students, include

(a) any association which the generality of students, or of students of that description, may join, whether or not it has in membership a majority of them, and

(b) any association which would fall within paragraph (a) if the references there to students were confined to full-time students;

and references to a representative body whose principal purposes include representing the generality of students, or of any description of students, shall be similarly construed.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Requirements to be observed in relation to students' unions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, leave out lines 33 and 34.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these are technical amendments on one level, but they also deal with an important point of substance raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. The amendments adjust the provisions of Clause 20 so that only union members will have voting rights in ballots for union offices and on affiliations. As the Bill was amended in Committee, the term "non-member" was given the special sense that appears in subsection (2) (c) of Clause 20. This meant that a student who chose not to be a member of the union could not vote, as is right. But it also meant that a student who was not a member of the union by virtue of its constitution would be entitled to vote in union elections and on union affiliations. I said in Committee that that anomaly needed to be sorted out. These amendments remove the special sense given to the term "non-member". The effect will be to enable each institution and union, as now, to determine which categories of student are eligible for membership of the student union, and which in consequence are eligible to vote.
These amendments thus also deal with the point raised in Committee last week by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in his Amendments Nos. 85A and 85C. He proposed that in the ballots required for elections of union officers, students on courses lasting less than three months should be unable to vote. As I said then, I accept that it would not be sensible for students whose link with the institution was minimal, for example, students on very short courses, to have voting rights. With these amendments, and the later Amendment No. 58 on affiliations, each institution will be able to decide for itself which categories of student should be able to vote. Some may adopt the three-month rule, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers; others will devise other rules to suit their own circumstances. In particular, further education colleges running franchise higher education courses will be able to decide whether the franchise students on site should be able to take part in these votes in the light of the details of the individual franchise agreement.
I have been in contact with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, as I undertook to do in the Committee debate. He told us that he accepts that the approach that I proposed will meet the problem that he identified or, even better, will allow each institution to meet it in its
956
own way. He has also asked me to convey his regret that another engagement prevents him from being here and saying that in person today.
I have given some thought to the point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that graduating students elected to sabbatical office might no longer be students on taking up their posts and therefore not subject to the two year tenure limit. It is unlikely that such graduate sabbaticals would want to continue in office indefinitely, or that students would want to elect someone who had ceased to be a student several years previously. But for the avoidance of doubt I propose to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to make clear that tenure of sabbatical office is limited to two years at any one establishment, whether or not the officer is a student.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 ensure that discretion over student union membership and the associated voting right is exercised where it belongs; at the institutional level. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this sounds a sensible way of resolving the difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I heard what the noble Baroness said in Committee about the European convention I wondered how on earth she was going to play Houdini. I think that she has succeeded in doing so and has retreated from an attempt to prescribe in detail a situation a bit like the Irishman's pigs; he could not count them because they would not stay still. The categories are so infinitely various.
This is a prudent decision and I welcome it. I also welcome what the noble Baroness said about two year sabbaticals. I do not think anyone in the student union movement who advised me argued for a time longer than two years. I believe that this is the right way of resolving the matter and I hope that it will work. I thank the noble Baroness.
Lord Judd: My Lords, these are helpful amendments which move in the right direction. I believe that the Minister and I might have a meeting of minds. I hope that we do not let the evening go by without making the observation that for those students who want to opt out it is not always just a matter of principle. Frequently in the reality of the situation there is also a kind of social idleness. There are students who want to enjoy all the facilities provided but who do not want engage in the responsibilities of organising what should be provided, the way in which it should be provided, and so forth. I should hate any message inadvertently to go out from this House condoning that kind of exploitative attitude among some students.
I have met students, as has the noble Baroness, who when carrying office and responsibility have discussed at length their great frustration about the way in which many students complain about what is not right and the way things could be better done but give precious little time to putting themselves forward to shoulder such responsibilities. We should take the opportunity tonight, before the Bill leaves us, to put on record how much we in this House appreciate the dedicated work carried out by many students throughout the country in providing

957
services and amenities not only for those who are full members but, in future, for those who will not be members under these provisions. We should never take that for granted and it is special to the quality of the institutions concerned. It is also an important part of their wider education. It would be good if that message could go out. Students who carry that kind of responsibility and manage to mould it well with their studies frequently become special members of society.
Perhaps I may also take this opportunity genuinely to thank the noble Baroness for what she said about sabbaticals. That is tremendous news. The way in which she has approached the matter is very wise and commends itself to all concerned. Again, I thank her most sincerely for having responded to the anxiety that I raised in Committee.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for the degree to which she has advanced towards the positions that we took up earlier. I have only one question. It is perfectly genuine and is not intended to introduce discord into our proceedings. I am not quite certain about what is meant by "affiliation" in this clause. We have a provision that 5 per cent. of members of the union could trigger a ballot, which is expensive and elaborate. Does that apply to the affiliation of the whole union—for example, to the National Union of Students--or would it apply to any club which is sponsored by the union for a specific purpose? In other words, could 5 per cent. of the members demand that there be a general ballot on whether the tiddly-winks club could remain part of the national, or indeed international, tiddly-winks association?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for the great increase in flexibility which these clauses and the previous amendments bring, and which answer fully all the concerns that I expressed in Committee.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to be clear whether or not we have proceeded to Amendment No. 58. I plan to speak to that Amendment and I would not wish to speak in the wrong place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that we have not reached Amendment No. 58.
First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his comments. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords for their comments, particularly the noble Earl, who embarrasses me more and more each time he is so profuse with his generous remarks. It has been a team effort. There has been an enormous co-operation from other people in all of this. I am grateful and accept all the kind comments on behalf of all of those who have helped me.
Perhaps I may answer specifically the important point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff. It gives me an opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we are talking about affiliations made by a student union in the name of the generality of the students of an institution. Therefore, if the tiddly-winks club wishes to affiliate to
958
its national (or indeed international) body, it may do so, and no percentage of members may trigger a secret ballot as to whether or not it should do so.
The 5 per cent. trigger point means "up to 5 per cent.". Again, it will be for the institution to determine what that trigger point shall be, up to 5 per cent. It will be affiliations such as to the National Union of Students; or it could be another national or international body, but affiliated by the student union in the name of the generality of all students.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
Page II, line 36, leave out ("students other than non-members") and insert ("members").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 12, line 6, leave out paragraph (j) and insert:
("(ja) if the union decides to affiliate to an external organisation, it should publish notice of its decision stating—

(i) the name of the organisation, and

(ii) details of any subscription or similar fee paid or proposed to be paid, and of any donation made or proposed to be made, to the organisation,

and any such notice should be made available to the governing body and to all students;
(jb) where the union is affiliated to any external organisations, a report should be published annually or more frequently containing—

(i) a list of the external organisations to which the union is currently affiliated, and

(ii) details of subscriptions or similar fees paid, or donations made, to such organisations in the past year (or since the last report),

and such reports should be made available to the governing body and to all students;
(jc) there should be procedures for the review of affiliations to external organisations under which—

(i) the current list of affiliations is submitted for approval by members annually or more frequently, and

(ii) at such intervals of not more than a year as the governing body may determine, a requisition may made by such proportion of members (not exceeding 5 per cent.) as the governing body may determine, that the question of continued affiliation to any particular organisation be decided upon by a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on introducing what is now Clause 20 at Committee stage I said that I was continuing to reflect on the requirement for affiliation ballots in paragraph (2) (j). This amendment now reduces the need for ballots in the way that I undertook to provide.
The amendment requires in paragraph (ja) that the union should publish details of new affiliations, including the costs, to the governing body and to all students. A report listing all affiliations and their costs should also be published at least annually: that is required in paragraph (jb). The amendment further requires in paragraph (jc) that the list of affiliations should be subject to annual approval through the union's normal democratic processes. Finally, it enables a specified percentage of the members of the union to requisition a ballot on any particular affiliation.
It is only right and proper that student unions should make contact outside their immediate academic community in order to benefit from the mutual

959
enrichment that that can bring. But, regrettably, under current arrangements many students are not aware of the actions taken, or of the frequently substantial fees paid, by student unions on behalf of their members in that regard. Such costs appear frequently as no more than a budget line in financial reports, or are even subsumed with other items of expenditure under generic headings. Students are not able to register their disapproval (or indeed their approval) of particular affiliations easily when the facts are not clearly or widely known.
Students should have a greater say and more control over affiliations, some of which will be controversial. This amendment provides increased transparency so that union members know what is bought on their behalf and at what cost. But it requires ballots only when affiliation is disputed. The requirement in Clause 20, as it stands, for annual ballots on all affiliations is therefore removed. This approach to reducing the possible burden of balloting was suggested by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. There will be ballots only where members themselves see the need.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked previously about the effect of the requirement on affiliations to sporting organisations. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Beloff mentioned tiddly-winks. Maybe tiddly-winks is a sport—I do not know. It is certainly sporting to play it. Let me confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the requirement applies to affiliations undertaken by student unions, as I said a moment ago. Where an affiliation is made to a sporting association by a club or society it will not be included in the requirement. Where it is undertaken by the student union it will be included.
I note the concerns of noble Lords about the Open University. Amendment No. 61 proposes a new subsection, subsection (8), which secures that the requirement for ballots will not apply to the Open University, although the requirements for publishing information about affiliations and democratic approval will do so.
The provisions of this amendment represent a significant advance on present arrangements. Students will gain full and clear information about affiliations and increased democratic control. But there will be no automatic requirement for annual balloting on each and every affiliation. The amendment provides a framework for workable but sound surveillance of affiliations undertaken by student unions. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, as has become very clear in this part of the evening, there is widespread relief at the amendments that the Minister has introduced. Again, I should like to say how much that is appreciated.
However, there are some remaining anxieties surrounding this amendment. Perhaps I may just briefly rehearse them. One is that the mechanics for securing assent by student union members to affiliations to external organisations should, in the spirit of the other provisions in Clause 20, be a matter for local determination. If that is the Minister's view, it would be interesting to hear why that should not be the case.
960
There is also some feeling that there should be safeguards against too frequently balloting on affiliations. Some people would argue that rather than specifying intervals of not more than a year, it would be more acceptable to provide for intervals of not less than a year or more than three years. The reason is that it would enable each cohort of students to express a view.
Another matter which concerns those who will he dealing with the consequences of this legislation is that safeguards may well be needed against what might be described as vexatious calls for ballots for affiliations either to contentious organisations or to others. Specifying a minimum proportion of student union members who can require a ballot in this context is a sensible safeguard. But it can be argued that the size of that proportion should again be locally determined. Spelling out a limit on the face of the Bill could unduly restrict governing bodies, particularly in small institutions, where only a very small number of students could be the source of over-frequent and indeed expensive balloting.
There is one other matter that would benefit from clarification this evening. Paragraph (jc) (i) is the centre of concern. What will "submitted for approval" boil down to? There is a worry that it could be an invitation to over-frequent balloting. Surely the intention ought to be the publication of a list which will be assumed to have the membership's assent unless it is challenged in respect of affiliation to individual organisations. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us this evening some of her thinking on those matters.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, as this is the last of my noble friend's amendments to this part of the Bill, I too should like to express my appreciation and say how splendidly the concerns voiced at Second Reading and in matters of detail subsequently have been dealt with today. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, at. an earlier stage was generous in his praise of the way my noble friend handled those matters. I should simply like to echo what he said and express great satisfaction and gratitude.
Amendment No. 58 is perhaps the nub of some of the difficulties expressed in the past. Indeed, those issues are the source of the anxieties which gave rise to this part of the Bill in the first place. But we are extremely happy that they are being met in this manner rather than in the manner originally contemplated.
One tiny matter of drafting caught my eye at which my noble friend may like to look. Under paragraph (i) (ii) the amendment says,
"details of subscriptions or similar fees paid, or donations made".
It occurred to me that it would be better to say "of any donations made". Then I noticed that under paragraph
(a) (ii) the phrase,
"and of any donation made",
is in fact used. I am afraid therefore that somebody may have nodded off in the drafting, although it is not a substantial point.
I should like to refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It is understandable that the mechanics of this matter are made more specific than the mechanics of some of the other operations in the code of conduct precisely because this is the area about which so much

961
anxiety was expressed in the past. I remember that my noble friend Lady Cox spoke at some length raising matters not all of which I agreed with. The satisfactory aspect in this regard is that I imagine her anxieties—I regret she is not in her place —have amply been met.
On the matter of the one or possibly three-year cycle of voting, I am sure we all agree that the cumbersome elements which originally threatened have been largely removed. But one fully takes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that one does not want voting to take place too frequently. On the other hand, the experience of many student unions and JCRs is that contentious matters arise annually. It would be tiresome if they came up more than annually. Each generation of students that comes in—after all, there is an annual intake, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is well aware—wants to argue those matters out. There could be genuine frustration unless it were possible to call an annual ballot. I certainly take his point that it is not easy to know the precise figure, whether it should be 5 or 10 per cent., to trigger a ballot. That is probably a matter of judgment. But by and large my feeling is that my noble friend has got these matters right and I can only say how grateful we are that that is the case.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to rise to my feet briefly, first, to thank the noble Baroness for taking into account the concerns I raised in regard to those bodies which form only part of the student unions. All the sports associations in all the universities throughout the country will be breathing a heavy sigh of relief for this final confirmation that we are not going to subject them to annual ballots.
Secondly, I want to say that under the circumstances the Minister has done an extremely good job of dealing with all the anxieties that were expressed. The point made a moment ago in relation to annual ballots must be borne in mind. It is not so much annually but in phases of fashion that issues are discussed. A fashionable issue will probably be voted on each year for three years, then dropped for 10 years and then voted on again for three years after that. Indeed, trendy theories tend to be trendy in a 10-year cycle, rather like the bottoms of one's trousers—narrow one year and flared the next. I believe those cycles will go on for ever.
With regard to the figure of 5 per cent., in some colleges that may not be sufficient during a certain period, and once again it will go in cycles depending on how politically active the institution is. The Minister has chosen a figure, but any figure may be wrong for a period of time and I am not therefore prepared to make an issue of it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry if my congratulations have embarrassed the Minister. But they are not the only thing, so I think the noble Baroness will have to learn to take the smooth with the rough. This time the Minister has just about got it right. I listened carefully to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that in some institutions which are small a very small number of people may trigger a ballot. That is true, but of course these are also institutions in which there are a very small number of people and therefore
962
the organisation of the ballot is not a great financial or administrative burden; so I think there that we gain on the swings what we lose on the roundabouts. In fact, I have had a letter from the president of an Oxford JCR who says that his college has a ballot if one member requests it. He wants reassurance that the Bill allows him to continue that practice, which I imagine is the case.
The only question I have is: why 5 per cent.? I do not want to argue numbers but I should be grateful to know how that figure was arrived at.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a constructive debate on getting the details of this part of the Bill right. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about the mechanics of securing compliance. It is mostly a matter for the institution to determine the mechanisms.
Perhaps I may now deal with the ballots and why we have said that they should be held annually. Under the terms of the amendment the governing body may determine the appropriate interval between ballots requested by an appropriate number of members. We have said that this should not be more than a year. That is a reasonable maximum interval which I do not believe should be extended. Turnover in the student body, especially in further education, is quite rapid and I do not believe that a longer interval would catch each generation of students. Students should be able to ballot annually if they see the need. If the requisite trigger percentage is reached and they are dissatisfied for one reason or another about an affiliation, it seems important that they should be given an opportunity to exercise that rather than wait two or perhaps even three years before they could do so.
I was asked how the information could be issued. That will be for institutions to decide. The requirements for publication of information need not be onerous. The requirements allow reports on affiliations to be posted on a notice board. They do not necessarily require that all students receive their own copies but that they are made available—in other words, either posted on a notice board or placed in the library. Some such mechanism can be used to bring it to the attention of students.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the trigger threshold for ballots being no more than 5 per cent. and wondered how we arrived at that figure. I can only plead balance. The governing bodies have discretion to decide on the appropriate threshold, and it would allow the gentleman named by the noble Earl the opportunity, if he wished, to continue with his practice of allowing one student to trigger a ballot. We propose that it should not be more than 5 per cent. Under present arrangements it is often not easy to mount disaffiliation motions because constitutions call for a very high quorum. We wish to ensure that the voice of all students is heard and do not believe that an unrealistically high threshold should be demanded.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked why arrangements for affiliations should not be subject to local discretion. A good deal of money is spent each year by student

963
unions on affiliations. In some cases, one affiliation can cost an institution upwards of £70,000 or £80,000. It seems only right that students should know the details of the moneys spent on their behalf and should have the opportunity to decide whether those affiliations should go ahead. The noble Lord asked how paragraph (jc) (i) would work. The paragraph requires, as the noble Lord suggested, the publication of a list of affiliations. Approval of them must be obtained once a year from a student body. The form will be a matter for local determination. It could be at the annual general meeting. The point is that approval must be given by the membership, not just the union executive. I hope that I have answered the detailed queries.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 12, line 9, leave out ("individuals") and insert ("all students").
On Question, amendment agreed to. 11 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 12, line 19, at end insert ("and the code shall in particular give directions to ensure that unions allow non-members to participate in all academic, charitable, cultural, social and sporting activities financed through, or under the direction of, the Union,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment at this stage and follows on from the debate which we had at Committee stage concerning the university facilities that should be available to non-members of student unions. At this late stage of the evening I do not wish to repeat all the arguments. It is suffice to remind your Lordships that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals opined in a letter which reached me on 22nd March that student unions cannot by law be required to provide services for non-members. The CVCP went on to hope that these services could be left to agreement between the institution and the union.
I felt at the time that this was a little incorrect, in that the money for all these institutions does, as I understand it, go through the block grant to the institution. I felt that, if the institution wanted to, it should surely be able to have some influence on the facilities that were granted to students who were not members of unions.
When my noble friend came to sum up on this question, I thought her speech was a little disappointing, in that she also confirmed that non-members might not have access to all the rights that are conferred on members. One understands that non-members would not be involved in elections to the unions and so on, but I felt that surely they should have available to them the tiddlywinks club of my noble friend Lord Beloff, the rugger club and other matters.
My noble friend said again that she thought that that was something which should be left to the institutions and the unions to work out together so that students do not lose access to vital services such as welfare services. I felt, and I still feel., that that should go further. I am not entirely happy simply to leave a moral obligation on institutions to think about the matter.
My noble friend confirmed that the difficulty here is that we are up against the European Convention on
964
Human Rights, which does not allow us to impose on a governing body or students' union a requirement that they make particular provision for any particular student. That is a statement which we were also given by the CVCP. I do not understand the root of that statement. As your Lordships will be aware, I have a deep suspicion of all things European. If this was the European Court of Justice I would be very much rougher with the ruling which has apparently been issued by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Be all that as it may, and coming to the amendment itself, it occurred to me and others who felt that non-members were perhaps being left a little exposed to what might conceivably be a student union which might wish to be vindictive against members who opted out that perhaps the code of practice could be used to give the rights which we seek. I confess that the amendment as drafted is probably still a little strong when it says that the code of practice,
"shall in particular give directions to ensure that unions allow non-members to participate",
in all these worthy activities, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to take the amendment away and consider that the code should in particular encourage: unions to allow non-members,
"to participate in all academic. charitable, cultural, social and sporting activities".
I am advised also that one should probably have included catering facilities, not to mention the welfare services which my noble friend mentioned in our last debate. I say this because these activities are all financed through, as I understand it, and very often under the direction of, the union. We should look for an accommodation in that respect even if the wording of Amendment No. 60 is not perfect at the moment. I very much hope that we can put something on the face of the Bill in the code of practice which will give a little more comfort to non-members in future.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my noble friend will perhaps be happy to learn that I am not going to invoke European matters to explain my strong objections to his amendment. My objections are based on the remarks made a little while ago by the noble Lord. Lord Judd. Like many people, I admire students who are prepared to take an active part in the affairs of their community and I see no reason whatever why some students should be able to say, "We can't be bothered to become members of the union; we can't be bothered to stand for office; we can't be bothered to administer things; but we insist on having all the privileges." That seems to me the most outrageous proposal.
If the amendment were to be accepted, I give my noble friend Lord Pearson notice of the following. I understand that he is a member of White's Club. Next time I saunter down St. James's, I propose to go into White's Club and order myself a drink and if I am asked on what authority, I shall say, "Why, I'm a non-member. Isn't that enough?"
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that he has not

965
paid the subscription to White's Club as I understand it, whereas all these students have had the money sent to their institution by the taxpayer.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I was going to say that I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said because on this matter there is a very close meeting of minds. It seems to me that there is a danger—whatever the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, intended—of exactly what I was talking about earlier. If accepted, the amendment would send a signal to more indolent members of the student community that they can take all that is going and not shoulder any responsibility for ensuring that those services exist. Surely, citizenship anywhere involves responsibilities and if you are going to enjoy the benefits of citizenship, you need to shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship. That is something that we should encourage as part of the wider education of our students. I should be the first to agree that if there was a genuine, legitimate ground of conscience for somebody not joining the union—however difficult I might find it to get my mind round that instance—I would respect that. But there is a danger that many will say, "We'll just pocket what's going, but we won't get involved in providing it." That is a danger that needs to be looked at.
I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with one issue about which I am still perplexed. She probably has more good advice available to her on this matter than I have. I refer to the legality of this issue and whether a move in the direction suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would, or would not, be legal and would, or would not, run into difficulties with international conventions, and the rest, to which we subscribe.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as my name is on the amendment perhaps I may say a few words to explain the thinking behind it. It has nothing to do with the "indolence" of students in institutions of higher education and nothing to do with "irresponsibility". Noble Lords can perhaps be forgiven if they are unaware of the lengths to which some student unions can go in manipulating, filibustering and making life intolerable for responsible students.
As an honorary member of a student union—as a staff member—I have sat through endless hours of debate in which responsible students have been trying to put a point and to prevent a vote being taken on something with which they radically disagree, but the filibustering goes on and the vote may eventually be taken at midnight or 1 a.m. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head because I have seen this happen time and time again. The minute that the responsible students go home—students who are responsible for work and family commitments—the vote is immediately reversed as the caucus had intended that it should be.
That may happen in a minority of cases, but it has happened and I can vouch for the fact that it has happened. I can give chapter and verse and first-hand accounts. I hope that it is increasingly a minority situation, but in those situations some students sometimes feel an obligation to dissociate themselves
966
from decisions taken by the union. Perhaps the only way that they can do that is to dissociate themselves from membership. It is not always indolence or lack of responsibility. In certain extreme cases it may be responsible. It is precisely in such situations that one would not wish them to be precluded from cultural, social, sporting, welfare and catering activities and so forth. It is with that kind of potential situation in mind that students may have every right to opt out of association with the union. They may feel that the tactics being used are non-democratic, and that they should not be penalised for taking a principled stand.
Those situations have arisen. They are not unique. I hope that they will not happen again, but it is with that in mind that the amendment was put down. I should not like people to be left with the wrong impression, especially those who have been in rather more privileged parts of higher education and who have not seen some of the tactics of certain less reputable students' unions, with perhaps seven full-time students' union sabbatical officers who are politicking rather than being concerned with academic enterprises.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, about many things. I certainly do not agree with him about Europe, and I do not agree with his starting point on this amendment. I feel much more in sympathy with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Beloff than with those of my noble friend Lady Cox. But I should like to try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Judd, my noble friend Lord Beloff, and, indeed, the Minister that an amendment of this general kind would be helpful to the general thrust of the Bill and constructive in overcoming anxieties which the NUS and others have felt.
In Committee, I raised the anxiety which I felt, and which I know that the NUS feels, that, on opting out, students might then suggest that their subscription was somehow going into the union enterprise, and wonder whether it would not be rather nice if they did not have to pay their subscription. In other words, there might be a pecuniary benefit from opting out and, in the same way, there might be a reduction in income to the union because some members were opting out.
My noble friend the Minister was kind enough to write to me subsequently to give me the assurance that the intention was that the block grant scheme should continue so that there would not be the suggestion that, if individual students opted out, the income to the union would thereby be reduced. I was glad to have that private assurance, which I hope that my noble friend will find possible to put on record more publicly tonight. But it occurred to me that it would be helpful for the stability of the system if there were to be some obligation, or, if that is not legally possible, encouragement that students' unions should continue to offer to students who had opted out the membership facilities that cost a good deal of money, such as catering, welfare and those listed in the amendment. I think, and hope, that it is the intention that they should. I shall give way if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, wishes to intervene.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When he reads Hansard I believe that he will see that what I actually said was that there was a danger of the signal inadvertently being sent out, whatever the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. There is quite a lot of strength in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is putting forward. But does he not agree that more judicious drafting would be appropriate, because this is almost an incitement or encouragement to people not to bother about joining because they can have all the rights without joining? Slightly more judicious wording, if there is to be any wording in that respect, would be appropriate.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I was going to comment about one or two aspects of the wording, though perhaps not relating to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is making. I believe that I take a more pragmatic view than the noble Lord. I share his admiration for student activities and his wish that students should continue to feel that it is beneficial for themselves and for all to take a full part in students' union activities. That is the view that my noble friend Lord Beloff was expressing also. We have similar views on this matter, but they are views not shared by every Member of the House, as we have heard.
In the last analysis, many students do not find it necessary to opt out of the student union. They simply take no part in its electoral activities or its management. It is a frequent criticism of all student unions that only a few students bother to shoulder the burden. The truth is that you do not have to opt out of membership to sit back and do nothing. In real terms, there is not a great deal of difference in our position.
I hope that I am making a comment which will help to safeguard the long-term future of student unions. If a significant number of students opt out, it is to be predicted that there will be a move towards those students being allowed to keep their fees and those union fees will no longer find their way to the student unions. There is bound to be an argument for diminution in income if there is a significant diminution in membership.
I hope that before Third Reading we may be able to agree upon an amendment which provides for the code to encourage unions to allow non-members. If it is not in order in legal terms—and like my noble friend Lord Pearson I do not fully understand why it is not—for directions to be given, at least encouragement should be given to allow non-members to participate in the full range of activities. That should certainly allow them to make use of amenities, which are not specified in the amendment but which are, in fact, the most important part of it. It should allow non-members also to have access to welfare facilities on a basis of equality with members. I believe that that would also be an important provision.
I very much hope that the National Union of Students and the CVCP would support such an amendment and would support the provision of such advice to governing bodies so that the code of practice would operate in that way.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. Does he not agree that in any proposed amendment the use of the word "encourage" is unfortunate? I believe that a better way to approach the wording of the amendment would be by recognising that there should be a provision of this kind.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I take the point. Given that we are advised, rightly or wrongly, that directions cannot be given, I wished to express the view that one should "recognise that there should be", and the verb which I found to express that concept was the verb "to encourage". I should have thought that the difference between "encourage" and "recognise that there should be" is a very fine one. I would be happy to use a different form of words.
I do not wish to continue for too long on this point. I believe that for the long-term stability of the system —if there were significant opt-outs numerically--it would greatly benefit the student unions if those non-members were able to enjoy such amenities and welfare. There would then be no pressure whatever to diminish the income of the unions. That would also he an encouragement to the maintenance of the block grant system which I hope the Minister will support in her response to this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment requires governing bodies to ensure that unions allow non-members access to their facilities through instructions in their codes of practice. May I say straight away that I understand the concerns which underlie this amendment. We too are concerned that all students should continue to have access to services. including students who opt out and for whom funding remains available in institutions' budgets. But it is not for us to determine what non-academic services institutions provide to their students in support of their academic activities. Where institutions provide such services and use the union as the providing channel, they will need to decide how to ensure that services remain available to any students who exercise the right not to be union members.
We believe, and I think there is widespread agreement on this, that students should in a democracy have the choice over whether to join their student union and be associated with the political activities it carries out in their name. If students choose to opt out of the union because it campaigns on issues in which they are not interested or do not support, that may mean the loss of access to some services: students will need to weigh up the pros and cons in making that decision. But where the institution decides that its students need particular services, the decision not to be a member of the union does not take away that need. I think we are all agreed on that.
But we cannot, nor would we wish to, compel a union to provide services to non-members. Indeed., providing services for non-members is likely to be outside the powers of many unions under their current constitutions and could lead to a breach of trust. Students must also be free to associate and form unions as they choose, and

969
to decide for whom they should use their resources to provide benefits; those principles are underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights and are, we believe, vital. The provision of services to non-members must, therefore, be a voluntary matter. While I am not sure whether that it is absolutely illegal, noble Lords will know from what I have said so far that it would be improper for us to impose a direction upon unions in that way. The compulsion which the amendment would provide must not be applied: maintenance of services through the union must be by agreement with the union. The alternative is provision of those services by the institution itself.
We have had some fruitful discussions on the question and I am much encouraged by the expectation expressed by the representative bodies that institutions would maintain services for opted-out students either direct or through local arrangements with their student union. Our talks have also shown that many institutions see the value of setting out in writing what services are available to opted-out students, either as part of their information on student unions or in their institutional charters.
It is an important question and I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for raising it. It reflects our general approach in the reforms that this is a matter for institutional discretion. I am confident that institutions, together with their unions, will be able to establish local arrangements to provide services for opted-out students which reflect their particular circumstances. Indeed, I understand that many institutions have already been considering how to do so.
However, there are other reasons why students may opt out. For example, there are conscience grounds for some students who may opt out. I find it almost beyond belief that any institution could look a parent or a student in the eye and say, "Because you opt out you will not be able to eat here, partake in rugby or join a club or society". A morality issue is involved. We intend to lay that moral obligation on the institutions.
Moreover, a very real point has been reinforced by my noble friend Lord Renfrew; namely, that it is important that the consequences of both being members and non-members of the union should be made known to students. It would be helpful if institutions themselves resorted to putting that in writing. Again, the considerations mentioned in the amendment and, indeed, one or two that I should like to add myself—for example, academic, charitable, cultural, social, sporting and, indeed, welfare and catering—are all important aspects for the student going up to college or university.
The way forward is that perhaps my noble friend may like to collaborate either with myself and my officials or with other Members of the House to find a way to add one principle to the code of practice so that institutions would at least know that that principle needs to be addressed by the institution involved. However, at the end of the day it must be for institutions to do it in their own way.
For the record, and in response to my noble friend Lord Renfrew, perhaps I may repeat what I said to him in a letter. My noble friend sought assurances that we
970
had no plan to change the block grant system of funding student unions and that, consequently, there would be financial benefit to individual students who chose to exercise their right to opt out of membership. In the letter, I said:
"Though I spoke about the rights of non-members in answer to Earl Russell and Lord Pearson, I did not return to your concern in winding up the debate on the Government amendments.
On the general issue of funding, I can assure you that we do not propose to change either the way money is distributed, nor indeed the amount, on account of the student union reforms.
On your specific concern about financial benefits to individual students, where students exercise the right not to be a member of the union, institutions will no doubt want to consider how to ensure that services will remain available for them. Whether the student union remains as the channel for this or some other mechanism is adopted will be a matter for local decision. We do not wish to impose any requirement as to how services should be provided".
I think that that will suffice for the record. However, I repeat that the way forward is perhaps to address one more principle that could be added to the code of practice which would allow institutions to find a way of ensuring that they address the needs of both members and non-members of the union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend the Minister said that she would be prepared to consider before Third Reading some amendment to the suggested code of practice which might move in the direction that the amendment seeks to go and which, for one reason or another, has been supported by other Members of your Lordships' House. If that is so, and as I said this was a probing amendment in the first place, I would of course be happy to withdraw it on that understanding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert:
("(5) In subsections (2) and (4) above the expression "all students" shall be construed as follows

(a) in relation to an association or body which is a students' union by virtue of section 18(1), the reference is to all students at the establishment;

(b) in relation to an association or body which is a students' union by virtue of section 18(2), the reference is to all undergraduate, or all graduate students, at the establishment or to all students at the hall of residence in question, as the case may be;

(c) in relation to an association or body which is a students' union by virtue of section 18(3), the reference is to all the students who by virtue of section 18(1) or (2) are comprehended by that expression in relation to its constituent or affiliated associations or bodies.

(6) In subsection (2) (d) and (jc) above (requirements as to elections and affiliation to external organisations) the expression "members", in relation to a representative body which is not an association, means those whom it is the purpose of the union to represent, excluding any student who has exercised the right referred to in paragraph (c) (ii) of that subsection.
(7) In subsection (2) (ja) to (jc) above the references to affiliation to an external organisation, in relation to a students' union for students at an establishment, include any form of membership of, or formal association with, an organisation whose purposes are not confined to purposes connected with that establishment.
(8) Subsection (2) (d) and (jc) (ii) above (elections and affiliations: requirements to hold secret ballot of all members) do not apply in the case of an open or distance learning establishment, that is, an establishment where the students, or the

971
great majority of them, are provided with materials for private study and are not required to attend the establishment to any significant extent or at all.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 18, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In section 218 (school and further and higher education regulations)—

(a) the subsection (2A) inserted by section 291 of the Education Act 1993 is renumbered (2B), and

(b) at the beginning of that subsection for "The regulations" substitute "Regulations under subsection (2) above".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is purely technical. It corrects a cross-reference to the education Acts of 1988 and 1993. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 63:
Line 2, leave out ("funding and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, since we have agreed that the proposals to regulate the expenditure of public money by student unions put forward in the original Clause 20 of the Bill should be deleted, it is necessary also to delete the reference to funding in the Bill's Long Title. This does not affect, in itself, the scope of the Bill as revised. [ commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.