Lords Sitting of 10 February 1997

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

The Lord Bishop of Leicester
Thomas Frederick, Lord Bishop of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Exeter and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
Lord Rowallan—Lord Rowallan— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Sudan: Human Rights
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in relation to the Government of Sudan's failure to comply with United Nations resolutions concerning human rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain gravely concerned at Sudan's human rights record and failure to comply with successive United Nations resolutions on human rights. We shall continue to press for an improvement both in our bilateral contacts with the Government of Sudan and in international fora.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which will provide some encouragement to those who are concerned about violations of human rights. Is my noble friend aware that I have just returned from southern Sudan—the eastern Upper Nile—where I was able to observe at first hand the devastating effects of the aerial bombardment and scorched earth
2
policy carried out by the Government of Sudan against innocent civilians? At least 50,000 people have been displaced; many are dying from starvation. Can my noble friend indicate what measure the Government may be able to take in response to this further escalation of human rights violations by the regime in Khartoum?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for her sterling work in trying to bring peace to this very troubled land. Yesterday evening I spoke to the leader of the SPLA in Nairobi to see what might be done to bring about some kind of ceasefire. But, as my noble friend knows well, it takes two sides to bring about a ceasefire. We want a negotiated end to the civil war. We regularly express our concern to the Sudanese Government, as my Permanent Secretary did only two weeks ago. We will keep on trying. We will meet all the leaders of Sudanese society as they come to London. But until there is willingness on the part of the Government of Sudan to cease this behaviour I am afraid that we will continue to help the ordinary Sudanese people who are so imperilled by this action.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many thousands of civilians are suffering complete lack of humanitarian aid in parts of the country designated by the Government of Sudan as no-go areas? What measures can Her Majesty's Government take to try to gain access to those people, particularly to ensure that they receive urgently needed food and medical supplies?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Government are very well aware of the tremendous suffering. My noble friend Lady Cox leaves no stone unturned to tell me even more about the situation than may come through official channels. We have been a major donor of humanitarian assistance both through the United Nations and non-governmental organisations. Over the past six years we have spent more than £100 million helping the very people to whom the right

3
reverend Prelate refers. But until change can be brought about in the war zones and for displaced persons in Khartoum I am afraid that the work will have to continue to be carried out by the international community.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House whether there is any step that the Commonwealth collectively can take?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the action that the Commonwealth and all those who wish to see an end to the fighting can take is to put pressure on the Sudanese Government, but it is not a straightforward matter. At present the IGADD process, which was started most successfully by President Moi, seems to have stalled largely because of Sudan's poor relations with two Commonwealth members, Kenya and Uganda, and also Ethiopia and Eritrea. We shall go on asking for more to be done, but there is a total unwillingness on the part of the Government of Sudan. That is the problem we face every time we try to find another route to achieve a ceasefire.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the argument put by the former Prime Minister, Sadiq Al Mahdi, during his important tour of Arab countries, that the only way out of the Sudanese dilemma is to allow the people of the south a free choice on their constitutional future? Does the noble Baroness also agree that apart from the devastating violations of human rights that are being committed by the regime in the south in the Nuba Mountains and in the west Nile—which the noble Baroness has just visited—there have also been mass arrests in Khartoum resulting in the detention of at least 118 people since the beginning of this year? Will the noble Baroness raise that matter and other violations of human rights at the forthcoming meeting of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the third question of the noble Lord is yes. The embassy has constantly raised cases of detained opposition activists with the Government and others. The worse abuses occur in southern Sudan. I regret to say that the abuses are being committed by all sides. We shall continue to make representations and to join our partners both in Europe and the Commonwealth in trying to improve the human rights situation. Referring to the first question posed by the noble Lord, I am not sure that even if the southerners were given a free choice it would be respected by the NIF. I regret that in Sudan there is a major problem. Everything will depend on how long the NIF in Khartoum lasts.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, two years ago the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made a highly effective visit to Sudan. Will the Minister approach the Churches to give further massive public support in this country for our Christian brothers and sisters in both north and south Sudan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Churches have always been tremendously supportive of
4
efforts to try to bring an end to the human rights abuses and the fighting in Sudan. The noble Lord is right. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury did indeed do valuable work there. I met him on his return and he told me—I believe that the same situation applies—that it is extremely difficult to achieve change when the Government of the country are determined not to see that change through.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, since it is often said, perhaps rightly, that African problems are frequently best solved by African leadership—I saw something of that while teaching Sudanese for the priesthood during my work in Uganda—can the Minister give any hope that even if President Moi were unwilling, President Museveni and those closely associated with him—Museveni sharing a border with Sudan—are likely to be a force for justice and peace with regard to human rights both in the area of the Great Lakes and Sudan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, President Moi is not unwilling to pursue the IGADD process. That is, of course, the African context in which we have been trying to pursue a negotiated end to the civil war. It is more difficult for President Museveni to take action because of the altercations between the Government of Sudan and the Government of Uganda. Although the Government of Sudan have made some moves towards addressing international concerns about human rights, there is just so much more that needs to be done, particularly in the treatment of the southerners, both in the war zones and among the displaced in Khartoum. All neighbouring countries and African leaders need to help. Perhaps we can leave the Great Lakes to the next Question.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that on this side of the House we associate ourselves fully with what she said about the courage and consistent concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in this matter? Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the interview recently given by President Museveni to the Financial Times in which, in his exasperation and concern about the situation, he suggested that this war should be declared a colonial war, which would enable other African states to intervene with personnel, equipment and other materials in support of the liberation forces in the south?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that due to my travels I have not yet read the article concerned. I do not believe that becoming involved in colonial wars or action across borders will solve this or any of the other neighbouring problems.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, has any effort been made to approach the Arab states, because this is largely an Arab and Islamic problem? Secondly, what have we done to stop the import of chemical

5
weapons? Thirdly, is the appalling practice of letting the Government of Sudan distribute aid and force people to change to Islam continuing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the moderate Islamic states are as concerned about Sudan as we are. Some of them are trying hard to help. I shall reply to my noble friend in writing on the other three questions.

Great Lakes Region: Aid
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest assessment of the humanitarian needs in the Great Lakes region of Africa, what response they are making, and what action they are taking to ensure the appropriate total response by the international community.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, since 1993 Britain has committed more than £178 million to the Great Lakes region bilaterally and through the EU. UNHCR estimates that there are about 750,000 refugees in the region, of whom 200,000 are in eastern Zaire, together with substantial numbers of internally displaced people. Access and security remain major constraints to meeting their basic human needs.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with the evidence of the fighting now in northern Uganda, the continuing civil war in Zaire, the accelerating flow of refugees into Sudan, the renewed violence in Rwanda and the continued killing in Burundi, the humanitarian and security challenges remain immense? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Security Council does not repeat its grave failures of short-termism towards the Great Lakes in the past, and that it puts all possible diplomatic and other resources into working for an overall regional political settlement; into addressing the underlying causes of these conflicts, especially the grotesque poverty; and into assisting humanitarian agencies to gain access to those at risk, both to protect and to support them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the problems are immense. By appointing Mohamed Sahnoun as the special representative—he is also the special representative of the OAU to the Great Lakes region—the new Secretary General has taken an important step forward. He is working with Mrs. Ogata, and with the DHA, to ensure that access for the agencies is improved. Mrs. Ogata told me last night that that is indeed happening.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, in view of the agonising difficulty of finding practical ways to mitigate the tragedy in Burundi, Rwanda and the Great Lakes region, does the Minister agree that the BBC's World Service Great Lakes helpline is making a useful contribution? Is she aware that it is funded by British aid organisations, with the support of the Minister's own ODA, and that uniquely it manages to
6
provide a service in the local languages of Kinyarwanda and Kirundi? It is the trusted way in which efforts are made to put separated children back in touch with their parents.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the Great Lakes helpline. I am extremely grateful to the World Service for a first class example of how to try to resolve some of the tragedies caused by the division of families during war. I am obviously aware of it because we partly fund the process. It is something which can be tried in other places. I am grateful to the World Service for having started the project.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether she sees any way ahead for separating the Interahamwe from the genuine refugees both inside Rwanda and inside the refugee areas.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the only way that one can satisfactorily separate the Interahamwe—the Hutu rebels who left Rwanda and went to Zaire—from the innocents is to see whether they are willing to give up the arms which many of them still possess and return as normal refugees to their country of birth. The vast majority are not so willing and, as a result, will probably find themselves spending the rest of their days in Zaire. They have moved much further westwards into Zaire. Conditions are difficult, although somehow the development and aid agencies are getting through to them and access is gradually improving. But every convoy has to be negotiated. So it is a major task.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point? In her talks with the High Commissioner for Refugees last night, was she able to indicate that we are going to give any additional support to the UNHCR in what it is trying to do for those who are trapped in Zaire?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Mrs. Ogata did not ask me last night for additional help. We discussed the situation and what could be done politically. That is the best help that we can give at the moment. I remind the noble Lord that since 1993 we have spent £178 million in the region. That is one of the best records anywhere.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Minister say what response she has given to Emma Bonino who, as European Union Humanitarian Affairs Commissioner, expressed many misgivings and described the present international response as a scandal and wholly inadequate?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have not spoken with Emma Bonino in the past week but her comments that improving access for aid convoys is a priority for us all are absolutely right. We have supported her in that respect. But it is not helpful to the situation for each commentator to inflame the situation or blow it up even more. We must get on with the job, and that is what Britain is doing.

Royal Naval College, Greenwich
3 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the list of those who will serve on Sir Angus Stirling's committee, which is to consider the future of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the body chaired by Sir Angus Stirling will be called the Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval College and is being registered as a charitable company limited by guarantee. I am pleased to announce that its other trustees will be Sir Benjamin Bathurst; Sir Franklin Berman; Councillor Len Duvall, leader of the London Borough of Greenwich; Sir David Cooksey; Professor Thomas Kempner; Richard MacCormac; Margaret Richardson and Christopher Swinson. We are most grateful for their agreement to serve in that role. The foundation will benefit greatly from their wealth of naval, business, financial, heritage, architectural and educational expertise.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that most welcome Answer. First, I declare an interest as the Chancellor of the University of Greenwich. Will my noble friend assure me that the new body will move with speed towards arrangements for the University of Greenwich's sub-tenancy of the naval college following the recommendations of the committee set up under the chairmanship of Dame Jennifer Jenkins? The university is particularly anxious to achieve a settlement as regards HMS "Dreadnought", the old seamen's hospital.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The foundation is in discussion with the University of Greenwich about its plans for occupation of the site. Naturally, the foundation will want to satisfy itself that the plans are viable before entering into a legal agreement. However, it is now for the foundation to take forward that work. I know that Sir Angus Stirling is conscious of the importance of the issue to the university.
With regard to the "Dreadnought" building, although I should like to assist my noble friend as far as possible, there is little definite that I can say at this stage. There is no direct Ministry of Defence interest in that building, but the director of the Greenwich hospital is in negotiation with the University of Greenwich in regard to its future.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, why is there no representative of the University of Greenwich among the members of the trustees?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the simple answer is that there may well be a conflict of interest should the university become a sub-tenant. However, we have ensured that there is educational expertise on the board of directors.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in view of the national importance of this matter and on the assumption
8
that the committee will make its recommendations during the next Parliament, what consultations were there with the Opposition on the membership which the noble Earl has just announced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any obligation on the part of the Government to consult Her Majesty's Opposition on a matter of this kind. I believe that the board of directors has wide experience and an absolutely unobjectionable range of expertise which will be brought to the table in this very important enterprise.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that there can now be progress? So far, there has been quite a lot of delay. I hope that this very distinguished body, the members of which my noble friend announced this afternoon, will be able to scotch some of the more unsound ideas which have been in circulation about the future of the Royal Naval College.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his guarded welcome of this announcement. We have made good progress and the announcement today is part of that. We must remember that the foundation will be taking on extremely important responsibilities. We need to make sure that the terms of its operation are right and we must ensure that the right spread of expertise is available to the body of trustees. Those things take time.
We should not forget also that those with the potential to contribute most as trustees of such a body are usually those who are also in greatest demand generally.

London Underground: Privatisation
3.4 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still support the privatisation of London Underground.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government support the principle of privatisation and are still considering whether its benefits can be extended to the London Underground.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive Answer, given the fact that in the past two weeks there have probably been 14 or 15 different reports emanating from the Government about what will be done, by whom and to whom. One of the more interesting reports from the Secretary of State is that the Government will have to pay somebody to take London Underground off their hands. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have cut the budget for London Underground by £300 million but at the same time are quite happy to pay a similar sum to somebody to take it off their hands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the first point, the Government do not comment on leaked documents, and I believe that that is a policy in which the Opposition also believe these days. But we shall await confirmation of that. Secondly, we have given major funding to London Underground and over the next three years investment in LT's core network will in real terms be on average 50 per cent. above the level of the 1980s and twice the level of the 1970s.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is enormous potential for the development of London Underground? One has only to look at somewhere like Hong Kong to see that potential. It is essential that it is realised. There is no way, whichever government are in power, that the sums needed for capital investment could come from the Treasury. Therefore, as in the case of British Telecom, privatisation is likely to produce a superb service which we need.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that privatisation has resulted in better services at lower cost. We believe that that certainly has occurred in the transport sector. We wish to see to which other areas it can be extended, and that includes consideration of London Underground.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on that last question, does the noble Viscount agree that, in spite of the sums to which he referred having been paid to London Underground for investment, they are woefully short of what is needed, as the chairman of London Transport announced publicly recently? Pending whatever the Government may wish to do about privatisation, which could take some time, bearing in mind certain future events, would it not be possible to work out a way in which London Underground could turn more to the private sector to obtain the money while still being run as a public sector company?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there will always be a great demand for additional investment and finance for London Underground. We certainly believe that the private finance initiative has been a success in that field. London Underground is making good progress with the PFI, and the three competitions currently in progress should, if completed successfully, deliver investment worth between £450 million and £650 million. In addition, the Northern Line trains contract, which was signed in 1995, is leading to investment of more than £400 million. Those are illustrations that the PFI is working.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in order to meet the demand of which one hears for expenditure on London Transport, plus other matters that have been hinted at from time to time, it would imply setting aside the convergence criteria which we should be obliged to follow if we wished to have anything to do with the single currency?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that question goes a trifle wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But my
10
noble friend is right that there will always be tremendous demand for additional spending on services such as the London Underground. We have illustrated that the PFI can work. We wish to see whether the great successes which have occurred—for example, the privatisation of the railways—can be extended to the Underground.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the main argument used for privatisation that it will introduce competition into an organisation? Is that not the last thing that we want for London Underground? What is needed is far more co-ordination rather than competition.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, competition is an important factor in business. We have not yet made any announcement about what our proposals may or may not be for London Underground. I am not in a position to say anything with regard to the detail. We are still considering the issue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not remarkable that the Minister is far more timid about this proposal than he has been in the past, when he was extremely gung-ho about all the advantages that it would confer? Is he aware that we hope that he will give an unqualified undertaking that this oft-deferred, flawed and unpopular proposal will appear in his party's election manifesto, because that would be yet another nail in its coffin?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what I have noticed is that every time the Government come forward with a privatisation proposal it is opposed by the Opposition. They say that it will spell disaster and then after a few years they come to accept it and realise that it works. Indeed, I have not heard this afternoon about plans to renationalise any of the industries that have been privatised—perhaps, for example, Railtrack or British Airways. No such commitment has been put forward. Therefore, we must take it that the Opposition are doing their traditional rubbishing of privatisation and yet will go on to accept it.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Ashworth Hospital.

Police (Property) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Telecommunications (Fraud) Bill
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Renwick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
In declaring an interest as the chairman of the Campaign against Bullying at Work, perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who took part in the deliberations on the Bill. As the Government recognised on Second Reading, the Bill deals with a real problem. It has received careful scrutiny in this House and was improved in Committee. No further amendments were thought necessary either on Report or on Third Reading. I believe that that demonstrates the workings of this House at their best.
I am sure that the House of Commons will give the Bill the support that it deserves as a serious attempt to promote good practice in employment and provide redress for those who have suffered bullying or harassment at work.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Bill
3.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We want to give parents real choice and we want to give children real opportunities to achieve their full potential. To do that we need a range of different types of good schools, all with high standards and good discipline. Those principles have been central to this Government's education reforms. They are what this Bill is all about.
We believe it is right for as many parents as possible to be able to choose the education that they want for their children. There is nothing remarkable about that. Many noble Lords on the Benches opposite would say the same. Where we differ is the way in which choice is defined and encouraged.
A choice between two schools of the same type is, admittedly, preferable to no choice at all. But parents deserve better than that. Parents want an education that suits the individual talents, interests, abilities and needs
12
of their child, not a standard service pitched at some notion of the average child. That is why parents should have access to a range of good schools of different types. That is real choice, and in some parts of the country real choice is already available. In some places there are selective schools and comprehensives, Church schools, and schools specialising in particular subjects such as technology colleges and language colleges. But in too many places there is no such choice. The choice is any school you want so long as it is an LEA comprehensive.
A parent may be lucky enough to live in a place where one of the LEA comprehensives is excellent—and many are. But a choice between good and bad schools of the same type is still a pretty meagre sort of choice. Real choice means greater diversity, and Part I of the Bill facilitates just that.
We want to encourage schools to develop distinctive strengths, which is one of the ways in which greater diversity helps to raise standards. Those strengths might be in teaching particular subjects or particular types of pupil. So schools that select some or all of their pupils by aptitude for particular subjects, or by general ability, are essential to a truly diverse system.
We want to give many more parents this option, so the Bill helps schools to respond to parental demand in several ways. First, it sets higher thresholds for the proportion of pupils which school admission authorities may select without having to seek central approval. These are 50 per cent. for GM secondary schools, 30 per cent. for LEA specialist schools in their specialist subjects, and 20 per cent. for all other schools.
Secondly, the Bill requires governing bodies of secondary schools to review annually whether to introduce or extend selection. No school will be obliged to introduce selection if it does not want to. But every school should consider the issue as part of its annual consideration of how the school is performing, how it compares with other schools, and how it can improve in order to provide the best possible service to its pupils and its community.
Thirdly, the Bill gives governors of county secondary schools which wish to become grammar schools the right to publish their own statutory proposals if they are blocked by the LEA. Similarly, technology colleges and other specialist schools in the LEA sector will have a right of appeal against a hostile LEA if they want to use their new powers to select up to 30 per cent. of their pupils.
The Bill promotes diversity and parental choice in other ways as well. It enables the Funding Agency for Schools to propose setting up new GM schools in any LEA area. The agency will also be able to pay grants to promoters of new GM schools to help them prepare development plans. GM schools are popular with parents. They achieve good results, and make good use of the freedoms that they already enjoy. They play a leading part in extending diversity. So the Bill gives them even greater flexibility to respond to the communities they serve.]

13
In addition to more freedom to introduce or extend selection, the Bill enables GM schools to add nursery classes, sixth forms and boarding facilities.
When the Bill was first introduced in another place it included a clause to allow GM schools to expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent. without the need for central approval. The clause was lost in Committee in another place owing to what I believe might be termed "procedural problems". On Report, the vote on the reintroduction of the clause was, as I understand it, originally reported by Whips from both sides of the House as a defeat for the Government by one vote but was subsequently found to be tied. The Government announced their intention of seeking to reintroduce the clause in your Lordships' House, and I confirm that today. The clause will allow popular and effective GM schools to expand and thus help more parents to get the choice of school they want for their children.
The Bill also extends choice outside the state sector by broadening the scope of the assisted places scheme. In future the scheme will be able to cover independent schools which only provide primary education.
I suspect that our debate on the Bill will show some pretty marked differences of view about selection, deregulation and diversity, although I have to say that I live in hope following fairly recent statements from the party opposite on certain matters. However, I trust that there will be no difference of principle between us when we move on to school discipline. I am sure we all agree that an orderly environment is vital to effective education. An undisciplined minority of pupils can disrupt whole classes and schools and undermine the education provided.
We should not be alarmist. In his recent annual report, to which reference was made in this House only last week, the chief inspector of schools states that most schools are orderly places. I believe that that reflects well on the headmasters, the head teachers and the staff of those schools, sometimes operating under difficult circumstances. The majority of pupils are well behaved and are keen to learn. Anyone who visits a school will know that.
But neither should we be complacent. When problems arise, they can have serious effects. The Government believe that more can and should be done to help schools tackle those problems while also ensuring that the system does not ignore the educational and other needs of pupils with behaviour problems. That is why the legislation contains measures to strengthen the ability of schools to promote good behaviour and to take effective action against bad. It will also promote more effective support for schools and individual pupils with behaviour problems. In doing so the legislation builds on the foundations laid by the recommendations of the 1989 committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, chaired so ably—if I might put it that way—by my noble friend Lord Elton, and on the behaviour and discipline measures which noble Lords supported in the Education Act 1993.
Many school governing bodies already adopt a statement of general principles on behaviour and discipline. We believe that this is good practice which
14
should be followed by all schools. The Bill will require all governing bodies to adopt such a statement. Head teachers will, as now, be responsible for deciding specific measures and sanctions, and for publicising and operating their school's discipline code. But there will be a new duty on governing bodies to provide a clear disciplinary framework for the school.
Schools will for the first time be given explicit statutory authority to detain badly behaved pupils after school without their parents' consent. That will ensure that detention as a sanction is more readily available, free of the potential risk of a legal action against the school for false imprisonment.
The Bill introduces a more flexible time limit of 45 days a year for fixed period exclusions in place of the current maximum of 15 days a term. That will help provide the scope, which the current limit sometimes denies, to set in motion effective action to tackle a pupil's problems before he or she returns to school. It should help avoid the need for permanent exclusions in some cases.
Such exclusions are a serious step for both pupil and school. So it is right that there should be robust and well-balanced arrangements to enable parents to make representations and seek reinstatement. But these must reflect all the interests concerned. Therefore the Bill strengthens the current appeals procedure by ensuring that schools—as well as the parents of excluded children—have the opportunity to present their case. It will also ensure that the interests of staff and other pupils are taken properly into account alongside those of the excluded pupil.
We believe that schools should not be obliged to admit pupils who have repeatedly been excluded from other schools. Currently, if schools still have empty places they cannot refuse to take a pupil on the ground of a bad disciplinary record. This Bill will change that, allowing admission authorities to refuse a place to pupils who have previously been excluded from two or more other schools.
The Bill also allows school admission authorities to require parents to sign a home-school partnership document as a condition of gaining a place. We believe that this will reinforce the relationship between parents and schools by ensuring that parents have a clearer understanding of what the school expects them to do to support their child's education, including in disciplinary matters.
But sanctions will not, on their own, provide an effective response to pupil behaviour problems. Schools and teachers need support in managing pupil behaviour so as to minimise disruptive behaviour. Pupils who have problems are still entitled to an education. And there must be effective means to address their problems. So the Bill requires every LEA to draw up a statement setting out their arrangements in relation to pupils with behaviour problems. These statements will cover the full range of an LEA's provision: for supporting schools in addressing behaviour problems; for meeting the needs of pupils with behaviour problems; and for planning behaviour support arrangements across the range of agencies, including schools, LEAs, social services and voluntary organisations.

15
It is important that there are effective alternatives to mainstream schools for pupils with behaviour problems. Pupil referral units are less effective than they should be in providing such an alternative. An important factor is often the way they are managed. The Bill therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring LEAs to establish management committees for all their pupil referral units.
All these measures have been part of the Bill from the outset. But the Government have continued to listen to the views of teachers and others. In particular we have recognised that there is confusion about how far the law allows school staff to intervene physically to prevent violence and disruptive behaviour. We believe this to be unsatisfactory. An amendment was introduced in another place that added a new measure on discipline. It clarifies and codifies the circumstances in which it is lawful for staff to use physical force to restrain pupils.
This package will strengthen the framework for dealing with pupil behaviour and discipline problems. It will bolster schools' authority. It will also help ensure that support is available to schools which need it and that individual pupils' behaviour problems are properly tackled. These measures have been widely welcomed by schools, teachers and others. I trust that they will also be welcomed here.
I hope that the same will be true of the final part of the Bill which contains specific measures for raising standards in schools. We start with entry to primary school. The Bill requires all primaries to assess all their pupils at or around the age of five. This assessment will provide a baseline from which to plan each child's education, and measure each child's progress. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has consulted widely on the arrangements. Its proposals have been widely welcomed and are accepted by my right honourable friend.
The Bill allows my right honourable friend to make regulations requiring all schools to set annual targets for improving their performance, particularly for pupils' attainments in qualifications and national curriculum assessments. This will increase the need to ensure that the framework for assessments and qualifications is robust. To promote that the Bill proposes to merge the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to form the new and fairly well publicised qualifications and national curriculum authority. The new authority will oversee the curriculum and assessment in schools. Just as important, it will continue the work of developing a coherent set of courses and qualifications through which young people can progress at 16 and beyond in sixth-forms, in further education, in training for employment and as adults throughout their working lives.
With a much greater variety of training and courses to consider, it is more important than ever that young people have good advice on the choices before them. The Bill will ensure that all 14 to 16 year-olds get a planned programme of careers education. It will also
16
ensure that schools and colleges work closely with the Careers Service in providing the information and guidance which pupils and students need.
Finally, the Bill extends the powers of Ofsted to inspect the work of local education authorities. All schools are now held to account through inspections by Ofsted. LEAs should not be exempt. LEAs continue to have a significant role in supporting schools and providing services. Those functions will be inspected by Ofsted in collaboration with the Audit Commission. After the report has been published, the LEA will have to follow up the inspection with an action plan setting out its next steps.
I have outlined the three main areas of the Bill—more choice and diversity, school discipline and measures to raise standards. I am proud of our record of achievement in raising standards, widening choice, extending school self-government and making the whole process of education more transparent and accountable. This Bill builds on those achievements. It will allow the best within our system to flourish, encourage others to emulate that best, and support schools in providing high quality teaching and learning. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing this large and important Bill with his customary clarity and enthusiasm.
It was on 9th November 1895 that that famous cartoon appeared in Punch showing a bishop and a curate at the breakfast table. Said the bishop,
"I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr. Jones".
The curate replied,
"Oh no, my Lord, I assure you! Parts of it are excellent".
Parts of this Bill are, if not excellent, at least broadly acceptable, but other parts are not. If the curate had consumed only those parts of his egg that he considered edible, he would still be in grave danger of salmonella, and so are we.
The acceptable parts of the Bill are, without exception, proposals which have previously been put forward by the Labour Party. We have no particular objection to having our clothes stolen, but we must take this opportunity to label them clearly before the party opposite lifts them off the washing line.
The first obvious example is the requirement in Part IV that schools publish a discipline policy and LEAs publish a statement of the support available to schools for dealing with disruptive pupils. In our publication, Excellence for Everyone, published in December 1995, we said that all schools would be expected to publish behaviour policies in partnership with the LEA, setting out for parents, pupils and teachers what was expected of them and what rewards and sanctions would apply. How nice to see the Government falling into line behind us.

17
Of even more venerable antiquity is the proposal in Clause 30 for home-school partnership documents. Labour first advocated these in 1988 and our plans were fully described more than a year ago in Excellence for Everyone. Not surprisingly, the Government have picked up this good idea and made a mess of it. We urged that all schools should introduce these contracts. The Bill proposes them only for some schools, which would produce an even further division and dispute within the school system.
The same is true of compulsory baseline assessment of children in primary schools in Clauses 32 to 35. That idea is perfectly acceptable—acceptable because it is Labour policy, developed in Labour local authorities such as Birmingham, Staffordshire and Sheffield, where it flourishes well; and it was fully described and highlighted in Excellence for Everyone on pages 23 and 24. Once again the Government have followed our example.
There is a wide measure of consensus on the Bill's proposals for Ofsted inspections of LEAs—fully spelt out in our publication, Diversity and Excellence, many moons ago. We agree about the regulation of supply teachers, for management committees for pupil referral units, careers education and guidance, and the merger of SCAA and NCVQ. There is even general support for the proposals on exclusion, though on those we shall be asking many questions and proposing additional solutions. Indeed, in all those areas where we are broadly in agreement in principle, we from these Benches will be putting down serious amendments and requiring detailed answers from the Government, and drawing attention to lacunae, imprecisions and infelicities in the Bill. The drafting is in many places far from clear and we shall have to pay close attention to it in amendments which we shall put forward at Committee and later stages.
We shall do that because it is the prime duty of your Lordships' House, as a revising Chamber, to scrutinise all proposals for legislation, but especially on this occasion because at Committee stage in another place such was the depth of disagreement about the first half of the Bill that, even with 16 separate Sittings, honourable Members were unable to give as close attention to details in the second half of the Bill as they would have wished. It falls, therefore, to your Lordships' House to assist another place in that respect. Indeed, it is very meet, right and our bounden duty so to do.
The Bill has, of course, left undone those things which it ought to have done. It makes no move towards reducing class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to a maximum of 30. It does not introduce a general teacher council, vitally necessary to promote and regulate the teaching profession. It does not ensure that 11 year-olds reach level 4 in national reading tests, even though over half of 11 year-olds last year did not reach the required standard either in maths or in English. On that scandalous situation, this Bill is as silent as the grave.
The bad parts of this curate's egg are very bad indeed. We believe, and our honourable friends in another place have amply demonstrated, that the proposals in
18
Parts I, II and III to extend selection without consultation, to provide even greater freedoms and advantages to grant-maintained schools, to permit the Funding Agency for Schools to set up nurseries, sixth forms, boarding facilities and even entirely new grant-maintained schools and to extend the assisted places scheme to preparatory schools are nothing more nor less than pernicious porters of putrefaction into the state education system.
My noble friends behind me will be dealing with what we may call the "salmonella sections" of the Bill during this debate. Let me at this point introduce a whiff of wholesome fresh air by reminding your Lordships that these proposals, taken altogether, will make virtually no difference whatever to the overwhelming majority of children in our schools. The proposals come from the Conservative Party's almost paranoid obsession with a tiny minority of schools and its puerile preoccupation with school structure. Almost 90 per cent. of the nation's children attend their local comprehensive school and have done so for decades, and they have no quarrel with the comprehensive system. They like it; they choose it; they flourish in it. There is no demand for selection from pupils, parents or teachers. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in the DfEE consultation on selection, only 1 per cent. were in favour. Less than 4 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have applied to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake. Even the Daily Express—no close friend of the Labour Party—polling its readers on 22nd January last with the ludicrously loaded question,
"Should there be more selection on merit rather than selection based on living in the right catchment area",
found a majority answering no. People do not want some vast, bewildering range of choice. They want good, free, local comprehensive schools. Polls conducted over the years since comprehensive education came in show a steady decline in support for selection, as more and more people experience the comprehensive system. In 1957, 90 per cent. of the population supported grammar schools. By 1967, it was 76 per cent. By 1987, it was 62 per cent., and the most recent poll in the Guardian showed that only 27 per cent. wanted their schools to select pupils.
I make no apology whatever for championing the comprehensive principle in education. I do so proudly. As Mr. Tony Blair pointed out at Oxford last June, the Tories want to dump comprehensive schools and return to the 11-plus system of grammar schools and secondary moderns—"a grammar school in every town". Labour wants to modernise the comprehensive system by finding better ways to recognise and develop the different abilities and talents of pupils within schools. The old system is dead. Grammar schools were a response to he needs of a vanished society which needed a small educated class and a large number of manual workers. Today the United Kingdom's success depends on producing a highly skilled, flexibly trained integrated workforce of educated people. The old distinction between the bosses and the workers is dead; so is the divisive system of grammar schools for the elite and secondary moderns for the rejects. And let us hope that never again will a parent receive a letter

19
containing the stinking euphemism, "Your child has been carefully selected as more suitable for secondary modern education", which means, of course, "Your kid's failed".
The comprehensive system has had, and still has, outstanding successes. At the present moment, despite the lack of funding from this Government, Arden School in Solihull, Ringmer Community College, East Sussex, and Cape Cornwall School in Cornwall are equal to any school anywhere. Mr. Chris Woodhead, HMCI, features them among schools which,
"have excellent GCSE results which they have sustained over a number of years. They are also highly effective in the attention they give to their pupils because of the exceptional quality of some of their extra-curricular provision. These are outstandingly successful schools".
DfEE figures for England and Wales show that in 1979–80 only 21 per cent. of young people obtained the equivalent of five or more GCSEs at Grade C. By 1994–95, 41.6 per cent. of comprehensive school pupils achieved this. Proportions of young people going from school to university have increased enormously since the days of grammar and secondary modern schools. In Scotland, which enjoys a fully comprehensive system, the results are better than in England and Wales. The overwhelming majority of comprehensives which are doing a good job for all pupils are very popular indeed with parents. So much of the scornful criticism of comprehensives is focused on a few inner-city schools and blindly neglects the nationwide picture of support. It is time the whole truth was told.
Labour is committed to a meritocratic system which allows people to rise by their talents, regardless of background. There will be no further selection under Labour, but we shall not declare war on existing grammar schools; nor shall we penalise preparatory schools or discriminate against Church schools. Our task is to raise standards in all 25,000 schools and for all pupils. The Prime Minister has admitted that,
"the top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not".
Such a carefree admission of complacency is frightening. A Labour government cannot and will not accept it.
This Bill fails us all because it fails to address the central problem facing our education system—how to raise the standards of achievement and fulfilment for average and below-average pupils. Until we can solve that we shall have this long tail of under-achievers unable to realise their personal potential, unable to contribute to the nation's success. We can produce the best in small quantities. Our problem is to raise standards for the less gifted.
It is a curate's egg of a Bill. It is neither good nor bad, neither one thing nor the other. It is neither hot nor cold. It is Laodicean. And because it is Laodicean I reserve for it the fate decreed for such things in the 16th verse of the third chapter of the Revelation of St. John the Divine, which the noble Lord the Minister, with his well-stocked and learned mind which I so much admire, will not fail to recognise.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, though I long since recognised that I am unable to keep up with his literary eloquence. I begin, as always, by declaring some interests. First, I am still the leader of a local education authority, and have been for almost 11 years; secondly, I have been a school governor for rather longer than that; and, thirdly, I have been married to a teacher for even longer. That means that I have long experience at what might be called the sharp end of successive government reforms. Discussion in my household does not lead me to believe that they have been wholly for the good.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, so often steals my words. I, too, had intended to describe the Bill as "a curate's egg". I suspect that, although I am the second to do so, I shall not be the last in this debate. The first half of the Bill is almost wholly bad, as the noble Lord said. The second half is good, at least in its intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, claimed credit for that, and cited proposals from Labour's publication, Excellence for Everyone. I do not wish to enter into an "us first" competition. I simply refer the noble Lord to a Liberal Democrat publication which appeared some time before his, entitled Excellence for All. We very much enjoyed the backdrop to the Labour Party's launch of its publication: Labour got the title wrong and referred to it as Excellence for All. We are now one step ahead. Our publication is entitled Insisting on Excellence. I do not want to enter a competition as to "who thought of the good things first". Let us simply be pleased that there is a measure of agreement about what is good, and let us concentrate on that.
Uncharacteristically in an adversarial Chamber shortly before a general election, I begin by listing the proposals in the Bill with which I broadly agree and whose intention we welcome. We welcome, for instance, the proposals for career support for pupils and students; the proposed amalgamation of SCAA and NCVQ—indeed, on the basis of "us first" my honourable friend Don Foster put forward that proposal nearly five years ago; the necessary definition of compulsory school age; and the rather overdue proposals to bring agency teachers within current teacher requirements. We welcome baseline assessments—as I said previously, they are a recognition of existing good practice. My wife, who was for many years a reception teacher, assured me that that was something she had always done. We support, with some qualifications, the intention behind Ofsted inspections of local educational authorities.
We broadly support the measures contained in the Bill to improve discipline in schools and certainly support that intent, as I am sure do all noble Lords. The messages regarding detention are clearly right in their intention, although they give rise to concerns which we shall address in Committee. Similarly, the proposals on exclusion are widely welcomed in the education world and the teaching profession, but with reservations which will be discussed more fully at Committee stage. We shall return to the matter then.

21
I wish to make two points in passing. First, I particularly dislike the term that is used to describe children and young people—"disqualified persons". I hope that we can find a better description during the course of our examination of the Bill. I have some concerns, too, about funding for the continuing education of pupils who have been excluded. At this stage I simply wonder whether the excluding school should perhaps bear some of the responsibility for the continuing education of those children. It is all too easy for a school to exclude children and thereby absolve itself of responsibility. I do not suggest that that happens often, but it is sometimes the case.
We support the idea of home/school contracts. However, we have concerns about the process. We feel that such contracts should be part of a co-operative process between the school, the parent and the pupil. That can be properly achieved only when the pupil is in the school. If the proposal is to work, there must be a co-operative and agreed process, not an imposed process. We do not therefore see how it can reasonably be a condition of admission.
What happens, for instance, when parents know that they cannot control their child? Do they sign dishonestly as the only way to get that child into a school? What happens to children whose parents, for whatever reason, will not sign? Where will they go?
In his introduction, the Minister made reference to the clarification of the whole very difficult area of what is "necessary force". None of us wishes to see force used. We all recognise, however, that at times restraining force is necessary. To the extent that this Bill may be able to clarify this increasingly difficult area for teachers, we welcome its proposals.
I turn now to the bad part of the curate's egg. When the Bill was first proposed it was said in some quarters that its main purpose and certainly the main purpose of this part of the Bill was to embarrass the Labour Party. I do not think that is ever a good basis for proposing legislation, but now it seems to be entirely unnecessary. The Labour Party has shown that it is more than capable of embarrassing itself on the issue without any help from the Government.
The Bill proposes to increase selection. Liberal Democrats remain wholly opposed to selection by ability or interview and we strongly oppose the measures contained in the Bill. Selective schools mean grammar schools, by whatever name and whatever means—the Prime Minister's dream of a grammar school in every town. But selective schools also mean non-selective schools—secondary moderns by any other name—and three or four of them in every town. The Prime Minister's dream is a nightmare for the 75 per cent. of parents and pupils who would be consigned to a secondary modern in the unlikely event that that policy was successful.
For most, it means schools choosing pupils, not parents choosing schools. It means less choice for most, not more choice. What we should be striving for is more choice within schools, not choice between schools. I strongly reject the Minister's claim in his opening remarks that all LEA comprehensive schools are the
22
same and that that is no choice at all. That is not true, and under a proper education system it would he even less true. What we should concentrate on in the Bill and all legislative proposals is creating diversity between good comprehensive schools. That represents proper choice.
Those proposing more selection must demonstrate that it enhances quality of education, not for a few but for all. Demonstrably it does not do that. I doubt whether in many cases it does it even for a few. Secondly, they should demonstrate that there is a demand for more selection. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, quoted figures which I shall not repeat, but he is right to say that there is no evidence at all that there is a popular demand for more selection. All the evidence points to exactly the opposite. Proposals in Solihull and Milton Keynes to introduce selection were soundly and comprehensively defeated. This part of the Bill is proposing greater division, not greater diversity.
To extend that now to primary schools is frankly obscene and entirely inappropriate. Instead, we should concentrate on learning from the many excellent comprehensive schools to improve the standards in the rest, not this sterile and divisive debate of 30 years ago.
The Bill proposes that governors must consider every year whether or not to introduce selection. I think that is wrong and unnecessary, but if it is to happen then surely the balance should be that all schools that have selection should consider whether to reduce selection. That would be an even-handed approach if, in my view, an unnecessary one.
I turn to the other parts of the Bill. The Minister referred to the Government's much heralded intention to reintroduce the defeated clause from the other place. To allow schools, especially grant-maintained schools, to expand by 50 per cent. without prior consultation or authority is pernicious. It is the sixth attempt to relaunch what must surely be the Government's most publicly failed policy. I did not have time to look up the figures that were expected when GM schools were first launched upon the nation, but I am certain that they were dramatically less than the 1,100 that have so far been established. There are fewer and fewer ballots for GM schools and even those ballots that take place are, as often as not, unsuccessful. Liberal Democrats have always opposed GM schools, so of course we oppose that measure. But even supporters of GM schools need to consider the effect on neighbouring schools. To be able to increase the intake of a school by 50 per cent. or anything up to that is bound to have a devastating effect on neighbouring schools. Yet those schools, beyond protesting, have no right of appeal, no means to do anything about it.
Perhaps of most concern to your Lordships' House is that there have already been proposals in the past to expand the GM schools. Some of them have been rejected by the present Secretary of State. Presumably she has rejected them for very good reasons, given the Government's enthusiasm for GM schools. In future, even that safeguard will no longer be available. It will

23
no longer be possible to take account of the good reasons that led the Secretary of State to reject proposals.
Most important of all—and here I speak as the leader of a local education authority—it would put the final nail in the coffin of any hope of coherent, strategic planning of our education service. It will undoubtedly lead to a huge waste of public money. If noble Lords have any doubt about that, they should read the report of the Audit Commission entitled Trading Places, which demonstrated that fully, graphically and in no uncertain terms. I am sure that we shall return to that point later.
As to the assisted places scheme which it is proposed should be extended, we have an annual debate. We oppose the assisted places scheme and it clearly follows from that that we shall oppose its extension to primary and preparatory schools.
To conclude, there is much in the Bill that is to be welcomed; there is much that should be in the Bill but is not. Despite its good measures, it does little to improve the rock bottom morale in the teaching profession. It does little or nothing to enable the career development of professional teachers. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, it should contain the provisions for a general teaching council about which there is a fair measure of agreement these days. Nothing is said about that.
The first part of the Bill has served its purpose. The Labour Party is now well and truly embarrassed. I fear—and I say this with some regret—there is a huge dent in the credibility of its education policy. That part of the Bill has served its purpose. Can we now abandon it, forget it and spend the fag end of this Parliament concentrating on that part of the Bill which is broadly acceptable, at least in its intentions? Let us spend our time ensuring that the eighteenth and last Education Bill of this Government can at least be the first on which there is common agreement.
3.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in presenting the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible, The Book of Common Prayer and clerical jokes. He will, of course, know that I am not the Bishop to whom he referred. Clergy having breakfast with me these days are more likely to have an austere diet of toast and coffee. However, it is perfectly possible that I might say to one of them: "Mr. So-and-so, is your toast burnt?" To that he might well reply: "Only on one side, my Lord".
The Bill is concerned with particular issues and I shall refer to some of them in a moment. I wish to begin by expressing regret that there is at present so little debate about the nature of education. We seem to reduce education at times to the acquisition of knowledge and to have forgotten that it is about leading people forward into growth. It is about the growth of personhood. We have forgotten that people are whole people with gifts, skills, motivation, emotion, energy, spirituality, capacity for relationship and far more. Modern education seems
24
to divide these up to lay stress on some and totally to ignore other aspects of personhood. To take one example only, when most enterprises in the modern world depend upon team work, why is it that so much of the testing within the educational system is individual only? Clearly, individual skills are of great significance but so too is the capacity to work together.
It seems to me that modern movement of information technology will bring about changes as great in the education system as did printing in a previous era. But that raises for us profound questions. Information technology is a tool and has to be subject to the people who use that tool. So we might well ask with T. S. Eliot:
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
We might perhaps add a further phrase: Where is the information we have lost in data? I believe that in the future we shall rediscover wisdom, which is clearly a deep dimension of being a person and growing as a person. I see little recognition in the public debate at the moment of the revolution that I believe lies ahead in education.
Turning to the Bill, I declare an interest as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. I have also consulted with Roman Catholic colleagues. Your Lordships will know that the Churches' contribution to the maintained system of education in our country is massive. More than one school in three is a church school and one pupil in four attends such a school. My comments are from the perspective of church schools.
I begin by looking at the proposals on selection. Clearly, within my Church and indeed within all Churches, there are different views about selection. My personal view is that selection between schools is divisive; selection within schools—streaming or setting—can have great benefits.
But there is a particular concern of governors of voluntary or grant-maintained former voluntary schools in the matter of selection. Many of the schools, probably the majority, have been promoted or funded by a diocese to make a particular contribution to education in an area. If governors are able to change that contribution without having to consult the diocese which promoted or funded the school, that will override the concerns of the diocese. Most dioceses promote secondary schools to provide denominational education. If the schools choose to use 50 per cent. of their intake for selective places, those denominational places are lost. If the Government wish the Churches to continue to invest in church secondary schools, they must respect the purposes for which those schools were founded, purposes which are determined by diocesan authorities. Therefore, at the very least, the Churches ask that diocesan authorities should have to be consulted before changes are made to a school's character and, indeed, if matters of admissions are concerned, their consent should be required.
Let me refer to a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the Secretary of State's powers to restrain governing bodies from making changes which are unwise, controversial or harmful to education in a particular area. To intervene at present, the

25
Secretary of State must be satisfied that governing bodies are acting in a manner that is so unreasonable that no reasonable governing body would behave in that way. That means, surely, that the Secretary of State can act only very rarely. I should like to see a reserve power for the Secretary of State to direct that the publications procedure shall, in the case of controversial proposals, apply to such proposals. Indeed, I had understood that such a provision was to be included in the Bill but at the moment I do not find any sign of it.
I have one other comment, again on a similar issue to that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope; namely, the requirement that governing bodies should annually review the matter of selection. Perhaps I may put a slightly different gloss on it. It seems to me that the requirement for governing bodies to consider grant-maintained status on an annual basis has meant that practically no schools have gone grant maintained. Might it not be the case that, if the same provision were applied to selection, the same result would become apparent?
In relation to the planning clauses in the Bill, I have a point to make which might be slightly contentious. The planning clauses relate to grant-maintained schools on the basis that those schools are sufficiently independent and well governed to be able to make those decisions without consultation. Might not that also apply to voluntary aided schools, which I would argue are also in that category? At this point I am in something of a difficulty because I do not in fact support the planning clauses. But, were they to be included in the Bill, I believe that there is a case for arguing that voluntary aided schools should be subject to them as well as grant-maintained schools.
The Churches have always been very keen not to drive a wedge between voluntary schools and county schools. Noble Lords will be aware that that was our argument in relation to the fast track to grant-maintained status. Nevertheless, in your Lordships' House there are many who are well able to argue on behalf of county schools and I should like to argue on behalf of aided schools that such provision might be of help. Indeed, I mentioned that to the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should be interested to know whether he has any reflections on that particular suggestion. Of course, it would need to be with the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority.
In relation to school discipline, I welcome generally the Government's proposals to clarify the legal basis of certain aspects of school discipline. There may be reservations about how well it will work.
I should like to comment on home-school partnerships and the facility that schools will have to use them as part of their admissions criteria. Might it be the case that focusing attention on that particular use of home-school partnerships—that is to say, at the moment of admission—would inhibit the creation of a specific partnership document at a later point in a particular pupil's school career? There is some evidence that they could be valuable: for instance, if a pupil's behaviour is giving cause for concern, there might then be some place for the renegotiation of a partnership document;
26
or post-crisis, where a pupil is being readmitted to a school following a period of exclusion. Do we have to limit the home-school partnerships to the moment of admissions only?
Base line assessment schemes seem clearly to be good, in that they will contribute to the gradual development of a value added approach to the assessment of school effectiveness. For primary schools, surely, they should also provide an important reference point when governors set their annual targets.
With regard to the proposed Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority, the Churches would hope that that body would include someone with knowledge or experience of the voluntary sector and, indeed, that the Churches would be consulted about the membership of that body. That would put the legislation in line with existing legislation on the Funding Agency for Schools.
I have a concern about the title of that body: the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority. It is clear from the text of the Bill that it is the Government's intention that that authority should be concerned with the whole of the school curriculum. The school curriculum is not the same as the national curriculum. Indeed, religious education is specifically excluded from the national curriculum and is part of the basic curriculum. There are other subjects which are part of a wider curriculum. With the title as given—the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority—it could be supposed that the responsibilities of the authority are limited to national curriculum subjects only. Following the 1988 Act, the position of religious education was adversely affected for a number of years by the National Curriculum Council's unwillingness to accept responsibility for any curriculum issue beyond the national curriculum itself. Could we not, therefore, have a title which reflects the responsibilities of that body for the whole curriculum—perhaps the "Qualifications and Curriculum Authority"?
I am aware that there is some discussion about the acronym of that particular body and that the chief executive is debating whether he would prefer to be known as a "QuANCA" or a "QuACA". I do not wish to enter into that particular debate. Maybe one alternative is the "National Curriculum and Qualifications Authority", which I do not think can be made into anything shorter. I hope that the Government will take that anxiety on board.
Finally, I express the hope that under some future administration—of whatever colour—we can look forward to a more far-reaching Bill which is more creative and innovative than anything the present Bill has to offer.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as many Members of your Lordships' House are aware, I had the privilege from 1990 onwards of chairing the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. Today I do not apologise for repeating some items of revision published in 1993 by that commission in its report entitled Learning to Succeed and the reports that it has published subsequently.

27
First, in the United Kingdom much higher achievement in education and training is needed to match world standards. Secondly, everyone must want to learn and have ample opportunity and encouragement to do so. Thirdly, all children must achieve a good grasp of literacy and basic skills early on as the foundation for learning throughout life. Fourthly, a full range of people's abilities must be recognised and their development rewarded. Fifthly, high quality learning depends above all on the knowledge, skill, effort and example of teachers and trainers.
In looking at our goals, which we listed serially, let me comment upon two: first, that there must be courses and qualifications that bring out the best in every pupil; secondly, that every pupil in every lesson has the right to good teaching and adequate support facilities.
Since the 1993 report was published, happily, some 50 per cent. of the proposals that we made and of our objectives have been accepted and implemented by government, though I must say that some of the means by which they have been implemented—not least in the field of nursery education—were not the ones that we as commissioners recommended.
The question I ask before examining the Bill in detail is this. In what way and to what extent do I recognise in the Bill items furthering the objectives which we defined? I must say, with respect, that there are certain aspects of the Bill which give the impression that a complex and detailed measure has been prepared showing some signs of hasty preparation and drafting, almost as though it had been prepared in the hope of rushing it through into legislation in the dying days of this Parliament. But, as previous speakers have already said, there are many parts of the Bill which I and I am sure my fellow commissioners welcome. It is good in parts. In response to the characteristically erudite and fiery Gallic contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I say only that, happily, nowadays the salmonella organism is one that can normally be eradicated by good hygiene or by the use of appropriate antibiotics.
Where do I see the good points in the Bill? First, I wholly agree with the proposal to merge SCAA and NVQ. That integration was recommended by the national education commission and is a welcome step towards bringing closer together education and training in the United Kingdom. Secondly, like others, I welcome the measures proposed to improve school discipline. While the details of those measures require a little fine tuning and the clauses must not be used as a thinly veiled excuse for bringing back corporal punishment in schools, nevertheless, the measures as defined in the Bill are most welcome.
I too commend the proposals to introduce home-school contracts—something which again my education commission was anxious to see introduced. We defined, as did many others, the problem associated with the anti-education ethos which exists in certain parts of our society, not least in many of our inner city regions. My question is whether the provision that the home-school contracts should be signed prior to
28
admission will be a mechanism which will be effective and work in those areas where such contracts are most needed. Is it not possible that the necessity of having such a contract signed between parents, teachers and the school may put off some of those most in need of the improved education which we all hope to see in some of the most deprived areas of the country. The proposals therefore must be carefully considered and their preparation monitored.
I wholly agree with the proposals on baseline assessment and target setting. They are admirable and can do nothing other than improve standards. The proposals relating to statementing of children with behavioural problems are most welcome, as are those giving authority to Ofsted to inspect LEAs. We took a great deal of evidence for our education commission, and it was clear that many local education authorities were doing an excellent job, though some were doing a job which was far from excellent. Indeed, we recognised certain local authorities where no school inspections had been carried out under their auspices for many years. Therefore, that is a welcome measure.
Like others, I too have considerable reservations about the proposals on pre-school selection or selection by ability as a means of admission to a school. I confess that my father was a council school head teacher in a mining village in Durham county. I myself went to a highly selective grammar school which gave me a thoroughly excellent education. But I recognised at that time that some of the children who were excluded on the basis of failing the 11-plus possessed outstanding capabilities and that the education system to which they were referred—secondary modern schools came later—simply did not fulfil what might have been expected by capitalising upon those abilities. Some children with capable minds were classified from the outset as failures because they failed the 11-plus examination.
By contrast, I am wholly in favour of setting or selection within schools. I find the pre-school selection principle in the Bill disturbing, whereas setting by ability within schools is wholly to be recommended. One of the problems when the comprehensive system was first introduced was so-called "mixed ability" classes. They did not serve the interests of either the most able or the least able of pupils. The bright children who went into mixed ability classes did not develop at the rate one would have expected in the light of their capabilities, and those with the least ability were often left behind. Rather like many of the other "trendy" views and the anti-competitive attitude of some members of the teaching profession—the belief in egalitarianism, in so-called preservation of a child's self-esteem—that did great harm to the comprehensive system and to its image in the education community at large.
I have often quoted in this House the great American, Thomas Jefferson, who said,
"I believe in an aristocracy of merit based upon a democracy of opportunity".
That should be the attitude that we all adopt in examining our education system. Hence, setting within schools is the right way. Comprehensive schools have the ability to capitalise upon the wide range of abilities

29
that children possess, covering an enormous field of human activity, provided they have the leadership and the structure to allow them to have classes in which the most able can go ahead at a fast rate and the individual abilities of those who may not be so able can be recognised and built upon.
What is the most important item missing from the Bill? From the Ofsted reports of Chris Woodhead and his inspectors, it is clear that a large proportion of schoolteachers are doing an excellent job. However, there are some who are undoubtedly failing their pupils and failing the country. Fortunately, it is a small number. I have no doubt that this could best be handled by a general teaching council, something on which I have spoken repeatedly in the House. I was happy to see that a Bill introduced by Sir Malcolm Thornton had its First Reading in another place; I was pleased too to learn that Mr. Eric Forth made a suggestion recently to the effect that perhaps the time had come to establish a general teaching council.
I am aware from past speeches of the Front Bench that there are those who would prefer to see the establishment of a college of teachers comparable in certain respects to the Royal Colleges in the medical profession. But those bodies are concerned with professional and academic development. They are not concerned with the statutory regulation of the profession. We have statutory regulation of doctors, dentists and nurses. I played a part in seeing through this House Bills for the statutory regulation of osteopaths and chiropractors and the establishment of councils to regulate their authority. A general teaching council could be the most important innovation leading to the monitoring of high standards of education of teachers and high standards of education of those whom they teach; it would make sure that teachers who were not competent or who were performing at a less than satisfactory level had their problems handled appropriately; and it would introduce disciplinary procedures and procedures for dealing with teachers whose health problems might be putting students at risk.
I hope and believe that whichever government are in power after the election the general teaching council proposal will be one of the leading proposals in education in the next Parliament. My own feeling is that to have a Royal College would be complementary to the establishment of a statutory authority with which every teacher in the land must be registered.
I welcome the Bill in parts. I am unhappy about the proposals relating to selection. I am not opposed to the grant-maintained principle but I believe that the proposals in the Bill to extend grant-maintained status may have a damaging effect in the longer term. While certain popular schools, as the Minister put it in his cogent opening statement, will attract more and more pupils, what will happen to the schools which do not attract more and more pupils? Will we not be in danger of creating many more sink schools which will not serve the population as well and as effectively as they should?
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Henley for introducing this very important Bill. As he would expect, it is one which I wholeheartedly support.
Having listened to the preceding speakers, I am glad that there is a measure of agreement on a number of issues. I shall not argue as to who thought about what first. I have taken part in discussion of every education Bill since I arrived in your Lordships' House in 1971: all those introduced since 1979 have been fought by the party opposite line by line. It is extraordinary for those on this side of the House to see the kind of deathbed transformation which seems to have come over that party as it considers, with the general election approaching, what the public at large think about education.
Having said I am glad that there is a measure of agreement, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, whose speeches I always enjoy, that I admire his courage in speaking as he did about grammar schools. After all his honourable friend Mr. Blunkett, whom I heard on the "Today" programme only last week, told us that Labour is in favour of grammar schools. Perhaps it is because we know that his honourable friend Ms Harman is sending her son to one. So, clearly, some people think they are very good.
There was also the noble Lord's long peroration about grant-maintained schools. I say that in the light of the fact that his right honourable friend Mr. Blair is sending his children to one, something which I admire and support. Nevertheless, it is completely incongruous to have people on the Labour Front Bench saying they support grammar schools and then to hear the kind of speech we have had this afternoon. The whole thing is entirely designed to win votes in the coming by-election. The Labour Party is scrabbling around for what votes it can get here and there; it changes its mind on education policy every five minutes. How anyone can believe anything it says on the matter I do not know. However, as I said, I am glad there are some areas on which we can agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, seemed to be equally opposed to selective and grant-maintained schools and wanted more choice within schools. One of the problems with a uniform system of comprehensive schools is that it rules out choice within the comprehensive system. The number of comprehensive schools for girls is diminishing all the time and so the single sex option is not so readily available, something about which many women teachers have complained. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walton, make the mistake of thinking that if you do not go to a grammar school you have a terrible education. I hope he does not believe that everyone in a comprehensive school has an excellent education.
I wish to make three points about this important Bill. I agree with the first part because I believe that it encourages the improvement of standards in education by building on success. If there is one thing I have learnt in the course of my life—I think it is true of any organisation—it is that you raise standards by looking

31
for good practice and success and building on them. I should have thought that that was as true of the medical world as it is of the education world. I therefore welcome the greater freedom given to grant-maintained schools and the opportunity to have more of them. If there are no more than 1,100 grant-maintained schools, I suspect that that is because every time a ballot takes place there is a sustained campaign on the part of local education authorities and many in the educational establishment to stop them. We are all perfectly well aware of that. It is absurd to think that there have been free elections in any sense. Grant-maintained schools produce better results. Why would people who are in a position to choose them if they did not? They are a success story.
I welcome the expansion of the assisted places scheme, which is another great success story. Recent research shows that assisted place pupils obtain grades two or three higher at A-level than their counterparts in local authority schools. That makes a great deal of difference in terms of the universities they can go to and the subjects they can read. The city technology colleges are also a great success story.
I welcome the fact that there will be more opportunities for grammar schools. Other speakers will be discussing that point and so I shall not pursue it further. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the point that education in Scotland is very good, something with which I entirely agree. He will agree that education in Northern Ireland usually comes out top of the list. That could well be because Northern Ireland has kept its grammar schools. All employers I know welcome employees who have been educated in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us in his reply where Northern Ireland schools fall within the general league tables. I welcome the building on a series of success stories. We must not stop there. Successful schools will see how they can raise their own standards and improve standards for all.
The second area on which I wish to comment is discipline. I was glad that my noble friend had so much to say about it because, clearly, without good discipline in a school learning is impossible. I know that we have taken steps with the publication of statistics on truancy, and I recognise that many of the proposals in the Bill are based on the report of my noble friend Lord Elton. However, I think that with regard to discipline we have put teachers, and particularly head teachers, in a very difficult position.
The operation of the Children Act has had a serious effect in schools, no doubt not intended when the Bill passed through your Lordships' House. I heard of one head teacher being told firmly that under no circumstances should a teacher touch a child. I do not know what one is supposed to do to comfort a small child. Most of us would put an arm around such a child. It is deplorable that such things could be said to be "good advice". Conversely, there are many well publicised cases—such cases have come to my notice—of teachers who have found themselves, having tried to separate two fighting boys, being accused of abuse by
32
the parents of one of the boys. That puts the teacher in an impossible position. Such matters need to be looked at very carefully.
I read with great interest the memorandum that I was sent by the National Association of Head Teachers which I believe welcomes the proposals and wishes to go further. The matter needs close examination. I am glad to say that I believe that the overwhelming majority of teachers do an excellent job. One very practical way in which we could help them would be to give them the disciplinary powers that they need.
Many noble Lords will have much to say on the important issue of the merging of SCAA and NCVQ. I believe in the importance of high academic standards. Whatever happens with the merger, we must not see a lowering of standards. Judgments about whether A-levels are now easier or more difficult are always problematic. The truth of the matter is that A-levels now are rather different from what they were. Ultimately, however, we do no service to anybody—academic or vocational—if we do not set high, demanding, rigorous standards. Whatever the result of the merger, I hope that such standards will be applied equally across the board.
I am pleased that, as I understand it, Dr. Nicholas Tate is to be the chairman of the body because I hope that we shall not forget the moral and spiritual side of education. The matter has been raised in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. We must stress the importance of marriage and the family. After all, it is the children—and the children of the future—whom we are considering. I hope that there will be a great measure of agreement across your Lordships' House on the matter and that this important aspect of life is not forgotten.
In conclusion, I should like to raise one point which, in a way, is outside the scope of the Bill. However, this Second Reading debate gives me an opportunity to refer to a matter on which I shall table an amendment in Committee. I refer to British schools in the European Union. Looking around your Lordships' House, I believe that the only Member who was present in the Chamber when we last discussed this matter is the noble Baroness, Lady David, who was good enough to support me in an amendment to the Education Reform Act 1988, which was carried in this House. I now see that my noble friend Lord Boardman is in his place. I believe that he was present then also.
The point at issue is as follows: thousands of British men and women now work in the European Union. Naturally enough, they are concerned about the education of their children. Many of them work in Europe for only a limited period. They can send their children to a British school which teaches and follows the national curriculum in the same way as a maintained school in this country. Such schools prepare pupils for GCSEs and A-levels. Pupils sometimes attend such schools for as little as a year or for as long as six years. They then return to a maintained school in this country and go on to higher education.
British schools in Europe are fee paying because the British Government, unlike the governments of many other countries in the European Union, contribute

33
nothing whatever for the education of nationals abroad. Large companies in the European Union pay the fees for their employees' children because they can afford to do so. Small companies and particularly self-employed people are often unable to do that. That puts our exporters and business people at a great disadvantage, to say nothing of what it does to the education of their children which has been greatly interrupted. It is only common justice that people who are working hard for the prosperity of us all in this country should be helped. I shall be tabling an amendment to suggest a way in which it may be possible to give help, through some kind of educational grant scheme, to the children of employees of small companies or those who are unable to provide for such school fees.
Finally, once again I thank my noble friend for introducing this important Bill which will have my great support throughout its passage.

Ashworth Hospital
4.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement about the allegations concerning Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about action being taken to address the allegations involving the Personality Disorder Unit at Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside. This unit comprises six wards, with 115 patients, within the total hospital population of 473 patients. Members will be aware that last Friday I instituted urgent action to address the very serious situation which had been brought to my attention in the preceding few days.
"In October last year Stephen Daggett, a patient at Ashworth Hospital, made a number of allegations, including the misuse of drugs and alcohol, financial irregularities, the availability of pornographic material and possible paedophile activity involving a child visitor within the Personality Disorder Unit. I am advised that the hospital began investigations at that time and that a subsequent ward search on 17th January found a large amount of pornographic material. Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the Personality Disorder Unit were unfounded.
"On 28th January 1997 the Home Office received a letter from the honourable Member for Halifax enclosing a 60-page dossier which sets out the detail of Mr. Daggett's allegations. This dossier was passed to my department.
34
"On 31st January, police visited the home of a former Ashworth patient who had continued to be a frequent visitor to the hospital. Following this police action, a child has been taken into the care of the local authority under an emergency protection order.
"In the light of the allegations made by Mr. Daggett and of other evidence that has recently become available, I made three announcements on Friday. First, the hospital has suspended three members of staff, including the chief executive. An acting chief executive has been appointed with immediate effect. He is Mr. Erville Millar, chief executive of Lambeth Health Care NHS Trust, who has a strong background in mental health services. I can further inform the House that the hospital has today also suspended a member of the medical staff.
"Secondly, I have established a statutory inquiry under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to review the clinical policies and the management of the Personality Disorder Unit at Ashworth Hospital. The inquiry will be led by His Honour Peter Fallon QC, a recently retired senior circuit judge. A Section 84 inquiry has the power to summon witnesses and to take evidence on oath. The inquiry will determine how and on what terms it takes evidence. It will also be for the inquiry to ensure that its work does not compromise continuing police investigations or possible criminal proceedings, but I would expect it to report within a year. Its report will be published.
"The terms of reference for the inquiry will be published as soon as possible. They will make clear that since it is activities within the Personality Disorder Unit of the hospital which have given rise to recent concern, the inquiry should focus on the policies, management and clinical care provided by the unit. The inquiry will, however, also wish to follow up any wider questions which are necessary to the proper consideration of these issues.
"Thirdly, with regard to the alleged involvement of a child, the Chief Inspector of Social Services, Sir Herbert Laming, has asked the local authority concerned for a full report on the handling of the case by its social services department. I will decide, in the light of that report, whether further action needs to be taken.
"The allegations which have been made about Ashworth Hospital are extremely serious. The public is entitled to reassurance on two counts. First, Ashworth Hospital must be properly managed and must provide a high level of security for the benefit both of patients and of the public at large. Secondly, the hospital must also ensure that its patients receive a high standard of clinical care. The action that I announced on Friday is directed at the achievement of both those objectives."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement about a very serious and disturbing situation. We on these

35
Benches welcome the announcement of the inquiry and the fact that it has been quickly established. We have a concern as to whether its approach is broad enough. It is extremely sad that there is an urgent need for another inquiry at Ashworth only a few years after a similar investigation into serious incidents produced changes, including the appointment of the present chief executive who has now been suspended. I should like to ask a question about the suspension of senior staff. Can the noble Baroness add anything to her brief remarks about the suspension today of a medical member of staff? That matter was not referred to in the written version of the Statement that I was given.
The most serious questions that are raised today are probably those relating to the overall management and treatment of the so-called personality disordered—who used to be referred to as the psychopathic group of patients—in this one unit. All noble Lords recognise the extremely difficult and complex problems of combining care and security in this specialist field. On the whole, we welcome the move to the system of 24-hour care, where patients now have greater personal flexibility. For example, they hold the keys to their own rooms. Clearly, for that system to be acceptable and successful there is a need for highly skilled and effective management. Patients also need to be directly supervised by an adequate number of trained staff who are not intimidated or manipulated by the disordered and sometimes dangerous personalities in their charge.
The extremely disturbing situation at Ashworth that has been described suggests that security and supervision have been extremely lax and that there may even have been collusion between staff and patients. Obviously, the inquiry will look at the quality of management at the hospital as a top priority, but it will also need to establish whether there was implicit or explicit collusion about the pornographic and drug-taking activities that allegedly took place. Perhaps the Minister can assist us this afternoon by saying what, if any, evidence of such collusion has emerged. One knows that evidence of widespread drug abuse has been reported for more than a year by external supervisory organisations but has not been acted upon.
In addition, there is a statement by Mr. Daggett, a patient, to which the Minister referred, and a statement by Mr. Corrigan, an ex-nurse, which seem to have been ignored. I remind your Lordships that Mr. Corrigan had worked at the hospital for 10 years. It was he, among others, who reported the deplorable circumstances in which a young girl was smuggled into the unit and possibly molested.
Can the Minister explain why such various and authoritative reports were not acted upon more quickly? Were the mechanisms for reporting up through the system adequate? For example, how could these matters have been known locally without any reference to a regional authority or to the Department of Health? Are we seeing yet another serious example of the fragmentation of the NHS that leads to all of these matters being dealt with at such a local level that ministerial responsibility is difficult to carry out? For example, did any Minister know before the 28th January
36
reference to the dossier by the honourable Member in another place about what was happening, or was the Member of Parliament the first person at central government level to hear about it? Is the Minister concerned that the so-called gagging clauses which exist in NHS contracts have inhibited those members of staff who are still employed at the hospital from speaking more openly about their experiences?
Your Lordships will be aware that there are grave shortages of specialised staff across the whole spectrum of care for the mentally ill, particularly in the special hospitals. Can the Minister inform the House whether reports that staffing levels at Ashworth are at an all-time low are accurate? The reports say that there are shortages across the board, from forensic psychiatrists to ward orderlies. If they are true, what steps were being taken to improve the situation before these allegations became public? Can the noble Baroness speculate about the cause and effect of the staff shortages and the allegedly anarchic situation that the inquiry will investigate?
I said earlier that we welcomed the inquiry and the speed with which it had been set up. However, we are concerned that its terms of reference may not be sufficiently wide for it to consider some of the general issues about Ashworth and other special hospitals that need to be investigated. It is obvious that in the short term priority must be given to the alarming situation that has been revealed, but we on these Benches are anxious that the broader policy questions are also addressed. For example, for some time there has been discussion about the effectiveness or appropriateness of very large institutions and special hospitals like Ashworth, where many personality disordered patients are detained together. Noble Lords may recall that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, who chaired the previous inquiry into events at Ashworth, described such organisations and institutions as inherently unmanageable. Will the inquiry be able to tackle that issue which is about both management and treatment?
There is an even broader clinical question about the psychiatric ability to treat personality disordered people. This is a subject that is much debated among psychiatrists, and potentially it has far-reaching consequences for the care and control of such patients. For example, has the Department of Health had time to discuss with the Home Office the possible impact of rethinking the questions about the treatability of these patients under the so-called hybrid orders for hospital and prison care that are proposed under the current crime Bill? It is important that these wider questions are inquired into and openly aired. There may well be a strong case for making this inquiry a public one so that at least the suspicions of cover-up and collusion can be seen to be examined. If the decision has been taken not to hold a public inquiry, perhaps the Minister can explain why that has been thought necessary. We all understand the importance of not compromising possible criminal proceedings.
Overall, we on these Benches would like to see both the specific problems and the general questions authoritatively and openly investigated; otherwise, we fear that in a few years' time another scandal will erupt

37
and may well he tackled with short-term crisis management, while the underlying issues at Ashworth and other special hospitals remain unresolved.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has quite rightly drawn the attention of the Minister to the need for a proper balance between care and security at Ashworth. But I do not believe that Ministers should get away scot-free after the sheer disbelief and outrage of the general public at the catalogue of disasters that has been announced. Here we have child abuse and pornography—the worst nightmares of the public—associated with a secure unit for which there is direct ministerial responsibility. In an earlier age there would have been only one Statement made to either House; that is, a ministerial resignation. However, that belongs to an earlier age. Therefore, it is important that Ministers make it clear that there is a sense of urgency to match the public disquiet at what has been revealed at Ashworth. A one-year general inquiry—I echo the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for a public inquiry—may meet some of the concern.
There is need for immediate action. It is, again, unbelievable that this Statement is a product of the courage and publication by a patient. It has nothing to do with the lines of communication and command within the department but with a patient going public. We must have immediate assurances that there are already in place, ahead of any inquiry, proper and adequate machinery for inspections that breaks through what clearly is a successful wall of silence and collusion within these institutions. Without that assurance of external inspection, public disquiet will remain.
It is amazing that there have not already been any arrests or criminal prosecutions, given the range of evidence that has been acquired: 1,200 videos within a so-called secure unit suggests a range of knowledge and awareness which again makes the mind boggle.
I ask the Minister to comment upon the point made by the noble Baroness, which must awaken concern, about the size of these units. Earlier inquiries have drawn attention to the fact that units of this size are inherently unstable and unmanageable.
What lies at the heart of the Statement is its flabbiness and feebleness in the face of a scandal of such proportions. The actions are the usual ones—the judge is rolled out; a year of inquiry. But what the public want to know is that in this institution and parallel institutions immediate action is being taken to stop criminal activity by inmates, staff or visitors. I am not sure that that assurance comes from the Statement. Nor is there any sense of urgency about putting in place an independent inspectorate that can give the public the safety and the assurance they require.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for welcoming this inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, used the words, -Here we have" child abuse, child pornography, and so forth. We do not know whether it is, "Here we have".
38
These are allegations. That is why the inquiry is being set up. It would be wrong to jump to any conclusions before the outcome of the inquiry.
The noble Baroness asked about staff collusion, staffing levels, and why reports had not been acted upon earlier. Those are all matters for the inquiry, which is why we have set it up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State only received these allegations at the end of last week. He acted within days to set up the inquiry to see whether or not the allegations have force behind them.
We should see this also in connection with the Health Advisory Service which reported in 1994 that things were improving at Ashworth. It said that there was a great deal more work to be done, but the Government acted upon all but one—the question of seclusion—of the recommendations of the Blom-Cooper Inquiry. The Health Advisory Service said that the changes were making an impact. It is hard for these institutions, whose whole nature is one of security, always to find out exactly what is going on.
The noble Baroness asked also whether the inquiry would look at much broader policies. We are doing that through the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board. It has already done a great deal on the general strategy for these secure services. It will be reporting its conclusions in due course.
The noble Baroness asked also whether the inquiry should be an open one. We have left that for decision by the chairman and the panel members. We shall publish the report, but we believe it important that we should get to the whole truth. One of the lessons we learnt from the Allitt Inquiry was that if the total inquiry is made public it does not always allow people the freedom to express their views about the situation they find working within these hospitals. It will be for the inquiry panel to determine whether it should be held in public or in private or, indeed, part private and part public. With the sensitivity of the issues and the need for patients to give evidence it may be that at least part of the evidence should be taken in private, but that would be a matter for the panel.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, taking account of the fact, as my noble friend the Minister said, that these are but allegations, nonetheless they are very serious and disturbing allegations. I accept that my right honourable friend the Minister acted with dispatch, but I should like to know what supervisory system was set up in the wake of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report. Who was operating it? How often were visits made? What was found? If there were no visits or if nothing was found, why was that so? I do not think that this is the sort of situation—allegations; yes, but terrifying ones—which one can slough off in any way.
I heard what my noble friend said about there not being a public inquiry. I beg my noble friend to reconsider. I think it should be a public inquiry with evidence given on oath. This is a very serious matter. There may be difficulties with certain patients who may not necessarily understand the nature of the oaths, but

39
some of the staff presumably do. This should be treated with the utmost seriousness. I made a similar request when the Matrix Churchill matter was raised in your Lordships' House. There are two other aspects. Is this entirely within the remit, the responsibility, of the Secretary of State for Health? I do not know. Has not the Home Office—the noble Baroness raised the point—any responsibility? Is it not involved in the supervisory arrangements? Can this not be reconsidered? It is not a matter for Judge Fallon whom I know personally. He is a first rate man. It is not a matter for him. It is a matter for government. The responsibility lies with some ministry or two ministries. It is not for Judge Fallon really to make recommendations.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are dealing with questions to the Minister.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for some of those comments. Of course my right honourable friend and, indeed, all his Ministers share with him the view that this is a very disturbing set of allegations. It is serious, and that is why we have taken prompt action. My noble friend suggests that there should be another body to supervise these hospitals. That is something that the inquiry will clearly want to consider.
At the moment we have the Health Advisory Service and the Mental Health Act Commission. They are two bodies which have overall responsibility for looking at the clinical practice within these three special hospitals. I am not sure whether a third would do the trick. Perhaps one must look to different mechanisms and to different lines of accountability. The hospital authority board, which has a chairman and non-executive members, is in many respects set up like a hospital trust. The chairman has direct accountability to the Secretary of State. The commissioning board, which purchases the services for the National Health Service, is part of the NHS Executive. The chairman of that board also has direct responsibility to the Secretary of State. There is a clear line of accountability, but it is for the inquiry team to see whether it worked; if it did not, why; and how it can be improved.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the inquiry should be in public? There is widespread public concern about the matter which will not be allayed by an inquiry taking place behind closed doors.
Will the Minister also tell us more about the report of the Health Advisory Service? I believe she said that in 1994 the report indicated that there had been an improvement. Is she aware that if there had been an improvement, heaven alone knows what the conditions were like previously?
Finally, what is the Minister's reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord McNally? Is it not already clear that there should be some external inspection of such hospitals; the kind which operates within the Home Office with the chief inspector of prisons? Is it not
40
obvious that if such an inspectorate had been in existence many of these shocking episodes would have been identified earlier?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord asks what the Health Advisory Service found and if the situation had improved. The Health Advisory Service went in after the Blom-Cooper report in 1992. It found improvements but said that there was more work to be done. Perhaps I may put that into context. Before Sir Louis Blom-Cooper compiled his report allegations were made and evidence was found within Ashworth that it was a brutal system and a more therapeutic service should be provided. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper put forward about 25 recommendations. We have implemented all of those except for one which relates to seclusion.
The Health Advisory Service found that the situation had improved. It is for the inquiry to decide the matter, but it may be that one regime has been superseded by another and the swing has been too great. Clearly, the inquiry will wish to examine that matter.
I believe that I dealt with inspections when I replied to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. There are inspections by outside bodies and it will be for the inquiry team to decide whether a third body carrying out inspections will improve the standards or whether we should be using other mechanisms.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I deeply sympathise with the Minister in the position in which she finds herself with regard to the allegations. Can any of the allegations to which she referred by regarded as criminal? If there are suggestions that criminal actions may have taken place it is difficult to understand why the police were not immediately called in. Can the Minister enlighten the House about that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, the police are very much involved in these allegations. They are in the hospital at present, which is one of the reasons why we have some difficulty with the inquiry. Clearly, we must in no way obstruct what the Merseyside Police are doing at present.
I have been to Ashworth on two occasions and I have spoken to those responsible for the hospital. I know that in parts of the hospital extremely good work is being carried out. We are talking about one unit within the hospital, and that needs to be seen in context. The personality disorder unit contains people who, in the old jargon, were called psychopaths. They are very disturbed, violent people. I believe that they are the most challenging patients with whom we must deal anywhere in the health service and it is not surprising that on occasions we have difficulties.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the terms of reference. I finished today for publication next week an inquiry into allegations against the hospital trust in Leeds. Constantly, during the past three years I found that the people concerned had not read the terms of reference. The Minister referred to wider matters and my noble friend Lady Jay referred to more

41
general matters. Will the wider matters include resources and staffing of a wider nature than the narrower hut important issues that we have discussed today?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the terms of the inquiry will be focused on the clinical care, the policies and the procedures carried out within the unit. They will also take into account the security and management arrangements. To my knowledge there have been no problems regarding financial resources to the hospital. That has not been an issue. As regards whether the inquiry should look wider, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he wants it to focus on the personality disorder unit of the hospital. However, if the inquiry wishes to follow up wider questions which are necessary to the proper consideration of these issues it has the freedom to do so.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as we have a little time, perhaps with the leave of the House I may return to a few questions which I asked in my original remarks. The Minister has not responded to them but I believe that they are important and are not covered by the terms of the inquiry which she says make them difficult to comment on. The first is the issue of staffing levels at Ashworth, which must have been known to the management and to people in the wider healthcare community before the allegations became public. If the suggestion of considerable under-staffing at Ashworth is true, what was being done about it before the allegations came to light?
My second question related specifically to the member of the medical staff who, the Minister said, was suspended today but whose suspension was not referred to in the Statement.
My third question related to the mechanisms for reporting upwards from the hospital through the health service. There appears to be a considerable lacuna between the reporting of individual members of staff and the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is responsible for the hospital. Although the Minister said that the hospital trust will report directly to the Secretary of State, my suspicion remains that we are seeing another example of the fragmentation of proper responsibility and accountability within the health service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer in detail the issues concerning the staffing levels at Ashworth. All I can say is that all such hospitals are both professionally and geographically isolated and find difficulty in attracting staff. As regards staff reporting, in this case it was not a member of staff who was reporting but a patient who was making allegations. I am sure that noble Lords who are aware of such institutions will know that frequently allegations are made by patients about their personal treatment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that there was also an ex-nurse who was very much
42
involved in those allegations, which were substantiated, it is true, by the patient. However, there was the involvement of that ex-nurse.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, an ex-nurse was in charge of the patient Daggett, who absconded. He was subsequently dismissed by the board. I am in no position to judge the veracity of the allegations and, again, I am sure that that is something which the inquiry will wish to take up.
The accountability of this particular hospital is very clear. I explained it to my noble friend. It is as clear as it is with a trust or a health authority: it goes through the regional office of the NHS Executive to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness is a member of a health authority and no doubt she knows the lines of management accountability as well as I do.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister has told us for the first time that a member of the medical staff has been suspended. Can we have some more information about that? Who is the person and what position does he hold? What is his connection with the allegations?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have the name of the member of staff. All I know is that allegations have been made about him. I do not know what those allegations are in the same way that I do not know any details about the two nurses who have been suspended and the allegations made about them. But they are all suspended pending the inquiry, as is the chief executive.
Lord Richard: My Lords, what position does he hold?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the medical member of staff is a clinical psychiatrist.

Education Bill
5.11 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in returning to the Second Reading of the latest and, it is hoped, last Education Bill which this Government will present to the House, we all owe a very great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for exposing very clearly the contradictions in the Government's arguments. On the one hand, in his opening remarks he suggested that the Bill will enhance the choice of parents—but that will be done by extending the ability of schools to choose the parents. That is one of the fundamental contradictions of the Government's position. By talking about extending choice for parents, they imply that that is good, and that is what they are doing. But in fact, they are reducing parental choice by giving schools the choice as to which parents are allowed to send their children to a particular school. That demonstrates the Government's complete lack of understanding of the nature of comprehensive schools and comprehensive education.

43
I speak from my experience as a member of the Manchester education committee and also from visiting other schools in other localities. I am also a governor and the chair of governors of a high school. Therefore, I should explain to the Government that every comprehensive school is unique and has its own ethos and separate identity. It may come as a surprise to the Government, who look at these matters superficially, that two schools, which have an almost identical building, with almost identical numbers of staff and pupils, may have a completely different ethos and arrangements within them for the education of the children. Therefore, by and large, parents have a wide range of choice within the comprehensive system.
I could go through all the aspects of the Bill in detail, but that has been done most ably by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. What I aim to do—I hope not to take too long over it—is to illuminate one or two aspects of the Bill which have been mentioned.
I was concerned about the way in which the Minister talked about the home-school contracts. At the moment, it is virtually an unwritten contract that all parents are required to present their children at school and that the school must educate the pupils. But home-school contracts take that a stage further. My reason for raising that matter is that I had experience of a school where the concept of home-school contracts had not been thought through and had not been well explained to it. Its view was that all that was required was that it should present the pupil and the parents with a piece of paper which said that the parents must get the child to school and must ensure that he did his homework and that the pupil must be attentive in class and do his course work. That seemed to be the implication of what the Minister said.
I suggest that a contract is between two or three parties and all the parties must have something to contribute to it. It is unfortunate if only one party or two parties to the contract are required to provide or produce something or adhere to any constraints and the third party—the school—does not. It would be well worth the Minister discussing and talking to people who have experience of devising those contracts and utilising them so that he understands what it is all about.
My next point is the effect of selection. Those of us—I include the noble Lord, Lord Henley—who are "baby boomers", born shortly after the war, experienced the divide in our education system between grammar schools and the secondary modern schools. There was that distinction at the age of 11 between a child being a success or a failure. There was a distinction as to whether he went on to a university or to some other form of usually lower class education.
One of the effects of that was that quite a large number of mistakes were made. People who should not necessarily have progressed through grammar schools to university did so, and quite a large proportion of the population who should have benefited from grammar school and university education did not do so. One result was that when those young people went into work in industry and commerce there was a distinction between what one might describe as the officer class and other
44
ranks. The result of that was an extremely deleterious effect on the performance of British industry and commerce, because we had the wrong people with the wrong qualifications in the wrong job. Having spent 20 years in industry, I can testify to that experience.
One of the other problems is the importance of sensible consultation. Again I speak from experience. When my children were fairly small, just coming up to primary school age and going into primary school, the local education authority planned to merge a girls' school and a boys' school. On the face of it, that was a sensible proposition. But when it came to the legal requirements of the consultation exercise, the only people whose opinions were sought were the parents of children already at those schools. If one bears in mind that the timescale of the change was five or six years, it will be understood that all the children at both those schools would have left the school by the time the merger took place. Effectively, the wrong group of parents were consulted. Those parents who had children at the feeder primary schools for both those high schools were not consulted at all. I suspect that, if they had been and had the right questions been asked about the future of the education which they wanted for their children, the results would have been rather different.
In conclusion, comprehensive schools have worked for this country. We can judge that in a number of ways. One way is to see the massive expansion of the numbers of young people who are qualified to go into university compared with the numbers under the previous system. A grammar school in every town means three or four secondary moderns. Education should not be a lottery, with a four out of five chance of failure. Education should be beneficial for everyone; in other words, everyone should have a 100 per cent. chance of a good education.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome some parts of the Bill. Fortunately, I do not have to go into questions of intellectual property with regard to those parts. However, there are many aspects of the legislation that I find very disturbing. I do not want to talk about the whole Bill—that is, either the good or the bad bits—but will concentrate on certain aspects of it on this occasion.
I find the Bill somewhat confusing. I believe that the confusion in the first part of the Bill arises from the use of the concept of choice, and it is very familiar in the present educational climate. Of course the existence of more and different kinds of schools involves in principle a choice, just as the existence of the independent sector involves more choice. But to suppose that a school that is selective offers each individual parent more choice is, as has already been pointed out, totally fallacious. We might as well say that an individual parent has a choice of sending her child to Winchester. That is correct, of course, provided that her child is clever, is a boy, and that she has enough money to pay the fees.
Similarly, with a selective school, or a school which has more selective places than it had before, individual parents cannot choose to send their children there to the

45
extent that they could before. Parents can choose to let the child apply but they cannot possibly choose that the child should actually attend the school. For that, the child has to be clever enough to pass the entrance examination.
I am not at all hostile to selection as such. I do not believe that it is an intrinsic evil, with one proviso; namely, that the other schools are good and should be seen by parents to be good. I believe that they can provide a good education to those children who are not selected. I know, for example, of one London girls-only maintained school which is a Church of England school. I am told that this year there were 90 places to be filled—it is a three-form entry school—and that there were well over 490 candidates. That school selects partly on academic grounds and partly on Church membership grounds. But the point I wish to make is that it is incredibly important that any education Bill which advocates selection should say something about, say, those 400 girls who will not be going to that excellent school.
The main defect of the Bill, as I see it, is that it has very little hope to offer to schools which are not going to be selective schools. There is one exception to that and it is a most important one. The Bill does offer hope in the new qualifications. I believe that it is thoroughly admirable to have a new authority which covers all of the curriculum, including the new qualifications.
The worst feature of the legislation is that new powers have been given to the funding authority to start up new grant-maintained schools in any area. Moreover, the governors of existing grant-maintained schools can expand their school or change its character so far as concerns selectivity without proper consultation. We are told that they will be given advice or guidance from the Secretary of State, but we do not know what kind. That is a fragmentation of the policy making powers of the LEAs in relation to schools. As one speaker has already said, it is another nail—possibly not quite the last one—in the coffin of the local education authorities.
So far as I can see, the local education authorities will have only two functions in the future. One is to issue statements on children with special needs who will merit statements, if I may put it that way. But, even there, the local authority will not have to place those children with statements because, if your child has a statement, you really have a choice of schools. Indeed, schools and local authorities are almost bound to allow the child to go to the school of first choice, which will make things extremely difficult for schools such as the one in London that I mentioned. However, LEAs will have to issue statements and ensure that those children go to the schools which their parents prefer.
The other task of the LEAs is a new one and seems to me to be a terrible task; namely, to provide education, very expensively, to those children who will, if the Bill goes through in its present form, become "disqualified persons". Whatever else is claimed about the Bill, I believe that that title must go. I am sure that there is some other way to refer to those unfortunate children who will not be accepted at any school. However, I am afraid that they will be rather numerous. So a new and
46
sad task will fall to the LEAs and it is only to be hoped that they will have enough money to fulfil it. They will have to devise other forms of education for the children who will be excluded from every school, not just from the one at which they started. We should be ashamed to have legislation which contains such clauses about "disqualified persons".
As I have said before, I believe—and even more strongly on reading the Bill in detail—that the slaughter of the powers of the LEAs will turn out to be one of the worst things that this Government have done. We must restore local policy making to the education scene. Governors of schools are interested in their own school and they cannot have, and should not be expected to have, an overriding interest in the common good of all the children in their area. It is not their task to make policy. It used to be the task of the LEAs. I hope that some of that power will he restored to them somehow or other.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. It appears to me neither as a curate's egg nor, to take the example of the right reverend Prelate, a half-burnt piece of toast, but as a very wholesome slice of daily bread for the children in our schools. I should particularly like to address the topic of selection which many speakers have referred to and which seems to result in a great deal of misunderstanding—not least a misunderstanding of what the Bill is actually saying and what it proposes to do.
However, perhaps it would be salutary, first, to ask why selection is on the agenda at all. It surprises me somewhat that there is a belief on the Opposition Benches—and, indeed, in some of the daily newspaper reports—that repeating like a mantra that comprehensive schools have been a success will somehow make that come true. Unfortunately you cannot have it both ways. You cannot produce the wonderful rhetoric which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, produced, and which I greatly enjoyed, about the failures of the education system where, for example, 85 per cent. are not performing as well as they should, and point out how desperately the children from deprived homes in poorer areas are being educated, while at the same time claiming that the comprehensive schools which all these children have been attending are a howling success.
However, surely as people who genuinely care—and I know that we all do—about what is happening to the young people in our society, we ought to be asking much more fundamental questions without ideological presuppositions as to what it is that is going wrong. It is patently obvious that we are not doing as well as we would like to be doing, especially as regards the less able or at least those who are perhaps less well endowed in terms of home background and so on. Indeed, we are not doing as well as we would like to do. We are not doing as well by them as they deserve. Therefore something must be wrong somewhere within the system that we have set up.

47
Comprehensive schools are not a howling success. When they were first introduced I was one of those who believed that they would be a great step forward. It is extremely disappointing to read the research of the past 10 or 15 years which consistently shows that children from more deprived backgrounds continue to perform poorly even though they are now in the comprehensive system. Many of us as educationalists thought that it was the failure of the secondary modern schools that made that happen. However, it is not; it seems to be something which continues despite the reorganisation of the system.
Sadly, the success rate of young people from less well-off homes in getting into higher education has not been radically changed. In many ways the social composition of those who enter higher education is not greatly changed from that of 20 or even 30 years ago. We need to look at this matter again and we should do so with open minds and without all this ideological baggage of repeating—as I said, rather like a mantra—comprehensive schools, good; every other kind of school, bad.
Having said that, as I listened to spokesmen from the Benches opposite this afternoon, I found myself re-reading the Bill rather nervously in case I had misread it. Were we being presented with proposals for 100 per cent. selection in some schools? Were we being invited to sign up to the idea that some schools should select all their pupils and others should select none—the old bipartite system of grammar schools and secondary modern schools? No, it is no such thing. The most that is being proposed is that local authority schools should be able to select up to 20 per cent. of their pupils and grant-maintained schools should be able to select up to 50 per cent. of their pupils on any range of criteria which they choose, not just academic ability but perhaps giftedness in the performing arts or music, or even in sport. The sort of picture we have been offered of how wicked it will be for a child to fail to get into a school and therefore be "in the sink" is absolutely not the picture which this Bill presents us with.
I have said before in your Lordships' House that to allow schools which are situated in deprived areas where achievement has been low to select a proportion of their pupils on grounds of ability might be a good thing. I remember that one of the aspects of the ILEA's policies that I liked—I am sure that noble Lords on the Benches opposite approved of the ILEA, which I, largely, did not—was that it attempted to achieve a mix of ability in its schools. It used to band pupils into the very bright, the medium-bright and the less bright and ensure that each of its comprehensive schools had a mix. That is the kind of possibility which is opened up by this Bill. In an area which has a long history of low achievement it is difficult for the head and the staff of a school to raise that level of achievement unless they can admit some pupils into the school who have the possibility of reaching higher achievement. Then one can begin to reverse the downward spiral. Therefore I strongly welcome that aspect of the Bill.
48
Nor does the Bill in any sense restrict choice; it widens choice. It always seems to me odd that we hear a repeated statement—as if repeating it made it true—by those on the Benches opposite that one cannot have parental choice and selection. I have said before in this House that people choose which university they wish to apply for. However, that does not mean they are guaranteed to obtain a place there. The universities select the students who best suit them. When young people enter the world of employment they choose which jobs to apply for. However, that does not mean they are guaranteed to obtain the job they want. There is a wide diversity of choice. However, the fact that they may sometimes suffer disappointment and not get the job they want or get into the university they want is surely not a recipe for going to the other extreme and becoming like the People's Republic of China and saying, "You have no choice at all. This is where you go and be blowed to your choice and your inclinations". I have seen young Chinese men and women in universities literally in tears when they describe to me how they were directed to study engineering although they wanted to become doctors or they were directed to become teachers when they wished to become actors or actresses. Surely we are not advocating that kind of thing.
Let us keep an open mind about what selection can achieve. What is more, we should keep an open mind about the effect of including in the criteria for selection the home-school agreements for parents. It is unfair to expect schools and teachers on their own to cope with all the difficulties that young people face nowadays in reaching their full potential. There must be a partnership, with parents being prepared to sign up to their part of the bargain. Schools alone cannot make good deficiencies that may exist in people's ordinary lives outside school. Schools must have help from parents. This surely is a way in which that can be achieved. I believe it is right to sign the agreements before the young person enters a school, because afterwards it is too late to find out that, however hard the teacher works, he or she is in opposition to the parents, who may be pulling the child away from what the teacher is trying to do. Having these agreements signed in advance gives the parents a choice too. If they do not like the criteria the school has set out in the home-school partnerships, they have the choice of choosing another school where the criteria are more to their liking.
I wish to refer to another aspect of the Bill; namely, the setting of targets by individual schools. I give this provision a particularly strong welcome. It has quite rightly been referred to rather tangentially by other speakers as being part of the package of raising standards. I wish to emphasise how important a part school targets play in raising standards. One of the courageous things which this Government have done is to set national targets, year on year, up to the year 2000, for the achievement of young people. Each year they have courageously published the performance tables to show how progress towards those targets is being achieved. The effect obtained by the annual publication of those tables has been beyond even my wildest

49
expectations. The raising of standards and pupil achievement has been quite remarkable. However, we are still not as far down the road as we would like to be, and we never shall be until we raise standards for all pupils in our schools. Simply to set national targets, or even regional targets through the training and enterprise councils, cannot reflect the whole picture. Targets must be set at the level of individual schools.
I refer to a depressing experience when I attended the education forum of one training and enterprise council at which regional targets were being discussed. The three representatives of three Labour local education authorities began the discussion by saying, "Of course you cannot possibly expect our kind of children to achieve anything like the national targets. Our kind of children can only reach a half, a third or even a quarter of the standards that the others can attain". I want individual schools to consider that kind of statement and say "nonsense". I believe that individual schools will not be tempted to lower their standards and to set themselves low targets. They will have to answer to parents and to pupils as regards the targets they set. I should like to see every school set itself realistic targets for the achievements of its young people. That way, most certainly, the achievements of young people will be raised throughout the entire population and not only in the leafy suburbs.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I rise to speak about the Bill with mixed feelings because some parts are very acceptable and are, as my noble friend Lord Morris pointed out, Labour Party policy. But there are other parts which are far from being acceptable and will, I hope, be extensively amended before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
First, however, I should declare an interest (especially perhaps as in this instance my accent may be misleading). I am chair of governors of Fairlawn Primary School, a county school in the London Borough of Lewisham; and I also serve as one of the chairs of Lewisham Admissions and Exclusions Appeals Panels.
There are many aspects of this long and wide-ranging Bill which are of interest. However, at this stage I should like to make some points only about those parts of the Bill dealing, first, with selection, and, secondly, with exclusion. I turn to the proposals on selection in Part I, whereby all schools will be allowed to select up to an increased percentage limit without central approval or any public or community consultation. For county, voluntary and grant-maintained primary schools the limit is now to be 20 per cent.; for specialist schools it is 30 per cent; for grant-maintained secondary schools it is 50 per cent.; and, for reasons I cannot understand, grant-maintained schools requiring "special measures"—which means that they are considered to be failing on inspection—should be allowed a 20 per cent. increase.
One of the striking factors in the proposals is the way that parental choice—it was supposed to be a guiding light for this Government's education policy—is being eroded. Rather than expanding the choice for parents, an extension of selection will mean that those parents
50
whose children fail to meet whatever entrance criteria schools impose will not have their choice. Increasing selection gives the schools greater choice—not the parents of children who are not chosen. The effect on other schools of a local school becoming more selective has significance for the whole local community; and schools and planning authorities will face even more difficulty than they do already in planning provision for their local communities. Even the Government seem to see the risks in this since Clause 11 gives them reserve powers.
The question of the parental choice of school is already very vexed indeed, as anyone who has had anything to do with admissions appeals will testify. Parents say, sometimes despairingly, sometimes aggressively, "But this is the school of my choice", and have been misled by the propaganda poured out about this by the party in power into thinking that that should be enough to decide the matter. But of course it is impossible to satisfy all the demands for entry into a popular school. Proposals to increase selection will create further havoc in local admissions and planning.
I have felt for some time that we are looking into an abyss already; and I find that view endorsed by the Audit Commission report, Trading Places, of December 1996. It uses the word "gridlock" for the crisis. I make no apology for quoting this part in full because it is exactly the position that recent policies have produced. It has to be recognised and dealt with rather than further compounded by the proposals in the Bill before us. The audit report warned:
"Unwanted and unnecessary school places lock up scarce resources which could be used elsewhere. Class sizes continue to rise in popular schools. Appeals are on the increase. Schemes for school rationalisation are decreasing. Government and LEAs blame each other. The system risks gridlock".
That is an indictment with which I completely concur both from my own experience and from conversations with others who have to try to help deal with the flood of admissions appeals which pour in. Appeals clerks have a mammoth task to try to make the necessary arrangements and, not least, to find the people to sit on the panels day after day to hear the cases put by impassioned and sometimes distraught parents who more often than not have to be told that on the entrance criteria of the school their child does not qualify. Parental choice does not come into play when dealing with oversubscribed schools.
Before I leave selection, I wish to mention another worrying point in the Bill. I refer to the potential use of baseline assessments at the age of five for the purposes of selection. Those assessments are generally recognised as desirable to allow children's progress to be monitored properly, but it is not acceptable that they run the risk of being used for selecting children at such a young age.
Clauses 2 and 7 of the Bill require school governors annually to consider selection—a not very subtle attempt to encourage the growth of selection. It is an exact parallel to the requirement of annual decisions on whether to ballot parents on grant maintained status. The Government do not seem to have learnt from that experience that it does not achieve what they want. It is

51
yet another statutory demand on already overloaded governors who, not surprisingly, are becoming ever more difficult to find.
Turning to exclusions, we all recognise that other pupils and teachers have to be safeguarded from disruption, or worse, by individual pupils; and that as a last resort this has sometimes to mean exclusion. However, in dealing with the mechanics, let us never lose sight of the many and complex reasons for the fact that exclusions are a growing problem.
Disruptive children are often from emotionally and/or economically deprived backgrounds. In many areas the resources are lacking to provide adequate help from specialist services such as educational psychologists. And when the child is excluded, the arrangements either for referral units or home tuition are often woefully inadequate so that an excluded child is too often found to be coming to the attention of the police. Let us not overlook the real pressures in a league tables climate on a school to divest itself of problems which affect its overall performance and statistics.
Lastly, Clause 28 deals with,
"persons permanently excluded from two or more schools".
I am horrified to read the provision at Clause 28(2) which states:
"Where a child has been permanently excluded from two or more schools, he is a 'disqualified person' for the purposes of this section during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the latest of those exclusions took effect".
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. The term "disqualified person" should not be used of any child. It is completely unacceptable to label a child pejoratively in this way. I do not know what brilliant bureaucrat thought up this term. Perhaps—I do not know whether I dare say so in this House—it was one with a legal background. But surely someone should have thought of the consequences of such a term coming into usage about a child and the effect on the child and the parents. One does not need to be a child psychologist to see what harm it could do. And what civilised society would brand a child a "disqualified person", however many times that child has been excluded from a school? This term surely has to go.
There are many other sections of interest to me in the Bill upon which I shall not comment now. I conclude by saying that, although there are good points in the Bill, I find the whole thrust of the extension of selection very depressing. It is turning back the clock and it would do nothing to address the real problems of our current education system.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, there is much to praise in the Bill, since it addresses some of the problems which have plagued education in this country for years. The early clauses deal with the question of selection that has occupied so much of our debate. In the 1960s I was one of those in favour of the comprehensive principle. I see no reason at all to go back on that belief today.
52
When I became Provost of King's, in Cambridge, in 1956, 69 per cent. of the intake came from independent schools; a further 12 per cent. from direct grant schools; and the remainder from maintained grammar schools. Today, 70 per cent. of the intake come from comprehensive schools and a few maintained grammar schools. Has the intellectual level of achievement fallen? It has not. For five years running that college came top of the academic achievement table. Who can doubt that the principle of selection at 11-plus failed to identify boys and girls who would have gained entry to university and distinguished themselves there?
Yet people like myself should admit that the move to comprehensive education did not serve the country as well as it should. The tragedy of the comprehensive system was, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that it coincided largely with a revolution in teaching methods—a revolution that was responsible for lowering the standard of achievement in schools; and in institutes and colleges of further education theories of education replaced old-fashioned instruction in chalk and talk.
The ideal of head teachers in comprehensive schools in the 1950s was that their schools should be uniform-wearing, satchel-carrying schools with homework; and that was diminished. In addition, the NUT turned to the tactics of disruption to enforce its claims.
On the question of selection, I want to make it clear that in comprehensive schools I favour the maximum of streaming and setting.
That is why, in my opinion, the Government were right to set up special schools to encourage the teaching of maths and science. I only wish that they would pay a differential to those who teach these subjects in all schools. The schools are competing with business, which demands higher and higher numeracy skills—and can pay for them. Who can blame potential teachers for settling for vastly higher pay in industry than they can possibly receive from teaching in schools?
Good schools in good LEAs have a grievance. They see comparable schools from indifferent LEAs adjoining theirs opting out and being awarded capital grants sometimes totalling £1 million—and not only capital grants; sometimes they receive more in recurrent grant. Whereas good schools which remained loyally with their LEA because that LEA had treated them fairly now see their recurrent grant go down because the Government have imposed cuts on local government. Is it any wonder that they feel sore? I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady David, make that point time and again at Question Time, and I have never heard a satisfactory reply from the Minister.
Clause 30 of the Bill requires parents to sign a home-school partnership document. That is a welcome innovation. But how long will it be before parents begin to think of suing schools which have had to cut back on teachers and other auxiliary staff and activities because in their opinion a school has broken its side of the contract?

53
I still doubt whether we realise how far we lag behind our competitors in Europe. Our children do not emerge from school with the attainments of Dutch, German or French children. That is one of the most severe criticisms which those who support a positive grammar school policy can bring against the policy of comprehensive education. Both the Germans and the French have maintained the equivalent of a selective principle. In only one of the Lander in Germany, Land Hesse, are the Gesamtschulen (that is to say, comprehensive schools) entirely compulsory.
I notice that the French are complaining that the standard of the baccalauréat has fallen. Has the standard of A-level achievement fallen in this country? There is grave scepticism about the marking of scripts now that such immense numbers sit GCSE examinations. Is it not time now to refer to the GCSE boards? Should not the Government set up an inquiry into their work and the effect that their policies have had on higher education? Options proliferate —
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive my intervening. I assure him that we have had concerns about standards over time regarding A-levels. We set up an inquiry under both SCAA and Ofsted which reported last year.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed. I am sorry that I missed the results of that inquiry.
The clauses in Part IV of the Bill about discipline are admirable and long overdue. The upper limit for expulsion is set at 45 days. That allows time for social services to sort matters out. The previous period of 15 days was far too short. It is also right not to allow a pupil to be excluded indefinitely. However, I should like to see provisions that bring home the responsibility, and if possible the cost, of expulsion to the parent or parents of a child. I am sure it will be argued that that is impractical. How is a single parent, often living on support, to pay fines or costs resulting from the insupportable behaviour of her offspring? Yet much more should be done to compel parents to bear responsibility for the bad behaviour of their children. Has the Minister any further initiatives to pursue on this matter?
There is one comprehensive school under a particular LEA of which I have a little knowledge. Among LEAs, Harrow comes around the top of the table of achievement in secondary schools. I assure the House that I do not refer to Harrow-on-the-Hill; I refer to Harrow, the dormitory area of Heathrow Airport. It is one of the most multi-racial areas in the country.
My nephew is head teacher of a comprehensive school in Harrow. Twenty-five per cent of the pupils are white; 50 per cent. are of Indian origin but speak different languages such as Gujerati and Bengali; the remaining quarter speak a variety of mother tongues, including one speaking Japanese. The last count, in 1995, showed that 39 different mother tongues were spoken. The other day, 30 Somalis suddenly arrived, some of whom had received no schooling at all in their own country. They were admitted on the order of the
54
LEA. The teachers, naturally, are similarly multi-racial. Yet 50 per cent. of the 180 who enter for GCSE and A-level are awarded grades of between A and C.
There are head teachers with far more intransigent and devastating problems than those that face my nephew. I sometimes wonder whether we realise how formidable are the problems that teachers face. The grant-maintained schools do not have to admit children who cannot speak English. The LEA-maintained schools are obliged to do so.
The Government and the Chief Inspector of Schools have decreed that there should be league tables that show the attainment of schools in terms of examination results. I understand that the reports presented by inspectors refer to particular difficulties under which certain schools operate. But those are not reflected in the bare statistics; nor is any allowance made for them when grading a school, since grading purely reflects examination results.
I do not suggest that there should be an elaborate scheme of weighting which would reflect the inequalities. We do not want more unnecessary form-filling. But it would do a world of good for morale in disadvantaged schools if an asterisk could be placed against some of their names to show that inspectors are human and recognise that there are handicaps under which some schools labour. I am thinking particularly of a benighted school in the eastern part of Newham which received a dreadful report from Ofsted. Quite rightly, the weaknesses of management and staff were emphasised, but little was said about the deplorable condition of the buildings and the inadequate back-up facilities. By "back-up facilities" I mean all those aids essential for helping immigrant children to integrate with the school and learn the conventions and morality of their new country. Those facilities are the first to he cut by LEAs which are forced to economise.
I do not blame the chief inspector for his brutally frank remarks about the failings of some head teachers and staff. He is quite right to wake us up and face the truth. But I am bound to say that neither his record nor his pronouncements gain the confidence of teachers. I think he needs some guidance and he would find it were he to consult some of the noble and gallant Lords who sit on these Benches such as the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Lord Bramall. They understand how to lead men under their command and inspire them, as well as tearing a strip off them when things go wrong. The chief inspector has something to learn about leadership. He should go himself to visit some good schools, accompanied by his PR officer and, if possible, a television crew. He should compliment the staff on the admirable work they are doing, praise them, encourage them, esteem them; and then add: "O si sic omnes!".
6.2 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, since I became a Member of this House in 1991 we have had an education Bill every year. At various times I remember Ministers saying: "This is the last education Bill we are going to bring before the House". But each year there is another one. I understand that this is now called the

55
"evolutionary approach", as if we were going through the stages of a carefully matured programme of legislation based on a coherent vision. I should like to believe that that is so, but it seems to me that the evidence is against it.
As I have said before, the Government have a choice: they can either try to raise standards by increasing bureaucratic control or they can try to raise standards by freeing schools to respond to the varied demands placed on them by parents. I do not think they have ever made up their mind which they want to do or perhaps even realised that beyond a certain point there is a contradiction between the two approaches. So each Bill we have had has had elements of both approaches. That is why I do not think we have yet achieved a stable framework for our educational system.
But that is all I want to say by way of criticism of the Bill. The great achievement of the Government has been to introduce the language of parental choice into educational discussion. So much so that even the Opposition parties feel constrained to pay lip service to it. However, I do not believe that they have the slightest idea what it means.
This is what Margaret Hodge said on Second Reading in another place:
"If all schools were good, parents and children could exercise real choice".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/96; col. 101.]
I quote her because she said succinctly what the other Opposition Front Bench spokesmen said verbosely. I suggest that she is simply misusing ordinary language. What she seems to be saying is this: "Trust us to make all schools equally good. Then we will trust parents—and only then—with the right to choose". But what sort of choice is that? Not only does it deny parents the right to choose things of which Margaret Hodge might disapprove, but it also ignores the role parental choice has in making and keeping schools good—choice as a mechanism. It shows no understanding of what choice can do in improving the quality of education.
Most people understand the difference between having and not having choice, even if the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokespersons do not. Having choice means the freedom to choose. It means having a variety of things to choose from. It means getting what one prefers. It does not mean a bureaucrat in Whitehall or town hall deciding what people ought to have and stopping them from having anything else. That is why I support the Bill. It allows more variety to develop; it gives parents more to choose from.
In theory, the Labour Party is all in favour of variety. Did not David Blunkett say so? Did he not say on Second Reading that:
"the development of specialisms within schools … can be operated perfectly reasonably within the framework of comprehensive schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/96; col. 51.]
Specialism is variety. How can it be developed within the framework of existing comprehensive schools? He is much too bashful to say. How can a school build up strength in music, sport or anything without being able to select pupils with a talent in those areas?
56
The Bill proposes a modest increase in selectivity: up to 20 per cent. of places in ordinary LEA schools. The Opposition parties throw up their hands in horror. Again at col. 51, Mr. Blunkett says that specialisms can be developed as part of
"a sensible admissions policy that covers the entire area".
If you pierce that fog, what it seems to me to mean is that the LEA will decide which school is to specialise in what and allocate places accordingly. In other words, the LEA will do the selection. Mr. Blunkett turns out to be in favour of selection after all, provided neither the school nor the parent does the selecting. What sort of hypocrisy is that?
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has followed her party in seeing a fundamental contradiction between schools selecting pupils and parents choosing schools. But I do not believe that that is true. It is not true of the independent sector, it is not true of universities, it is not true of the labour market, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out. Let me ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, a question. Do parents who send their children to fee-paying schools claim that they are deprived of choice because they cannot get their children into Eton, Winchester or Wycombe Abbey? Of course they have choice. Selection by schools and choice of parents are not contradictory. There is no conflict between them provided there is a sufficient supply of places for which parents or pupils have a preference. That is not necessarily a first preference, but a positive preference. The contradiction only arises if parents are forced to send their children to schools they actually dislike. That can only happen, I suggest, if over-subscribed schools are not allowed to expand or new schools are not allowed to be set up. That is why those of us who genuinely believe in parental choice have attached great importance to allowing the supply of school places to vary with demand.
The Bill made a modest contribution to that aim. In particular, it allowed over-subscribed grant-maintained schools to expand by up to 50 per cent. without getting permission. What happened? The Opposition parties combined to ambush that clause—Clause 3 in the original Bill—in the other place. I welcome the announcement by my noble friend Lord Henley of the Government's intention to re-introduce that clause in this House. The belief underlying the Opposition's attitude seems to be that no school should be allowed to be more successful or popular than any other school, that all should rise together or not rise at all. That is classic socialism and I do not accept it. On the contrary, I endorse what the Secretary of Sate said in another place that competition between schools is a powerful lever for raising standards. It seems to me to be much too generally accepted that if some schools are temporarily more popular than others, the others will simply become sink schools.
Why should it not be assumed that competition encourages emulation? It does in most other walks of life. Why should education be particularly immune to the stimulus of competition in raising standards? What worries me about speeches such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is that they are full of phrases about what we should do and do not pay nearly

57
enough attention to how those things—many of which I agree with—can come about. I suggest that competition is one of those mechanisms.
We must remember that what makes schools attractive to parents is not just good examination results but intangibles such as discipline, ethos, moral standards and so on, which are often, but not invariably, associated with good academic performance. Competition between schools is one of the surest ways of spreading what is called "good practice" as well as variety.
Mr. Blunkett said:
"We will not deny people the right to opt for the school of their choice".
That was tactful. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, rather let the cat out of the bag this afternoon when he said "People don't want choice". There speaks the candid planner. His party has supported him. Whenever the Government have tried to extend parental choice, whether by allowing popular schools to expand or by allowing a variety of schools to develop, the Opposition parties always vote against it. The only thing that they consistently support is more control and more planning. The only choice that they allow is Hobson's choice—take it or leave it. If that is one of the grounds on which the election is to be fought, I welcome it. We have nothing to be ashamed of, a lot to be proud of and further to go.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I wonder whether I might just correct him. I have the exact script of what I said. I said:
"People do not want some vast, bewildering range of choice".
Lord Skidelsky: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the exact quotation. In other words, people might accept a small amount of choice, the kind of choice that a Labour controlled local education authority is willing to give them; but if the choice is extended in any way, they would find that bewildering, entirely unacceptable and would reject it. I assume that is what he means. I believe that my original quotation gives the gist of the attitude that he expressed.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I declare my long-standing interest as chairman of Mencap and wish to speak briefly on an issue of great concern to people with learning disabilities and their families: namely, further education. Although the issue to which I shall refer is not yet covered in the Education Bill, my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) will move an appropriate amendment in Committee unless the Government feel able to deal with the matter themselves. Ignoring Charles I's dictum of 1636:
"Never make a defence or apology before you be accused"—
unfortunately, he did not take his own advice—I should like to apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to be present at Committee stage owing to a commitment overseas. I should also apologise to the Minister and your Lordships if I have to make a slightly early exit from this Second Reading to attend a long-standing
58
charitable occasion of the Lords Taverners this evening. I have given the Minister notice of my intention to move on from what the Bill does contain to what it should contain under the umbrella of the Long Title.
Further education colleges already provide courses for substantial and increasing numbers of people with learning disabilities, many of whom 25 years ago would have been deemed ineducable. Further education is often a vital part of the development of a person with a learning disability; it helps greatly in enabling them to lead more enriched lives. The full titles hardly trip off the tongue, so I beg your Lordships' indulgence for simplifying them and saying that the 1992 FE Act, Schedule 2, gives the funding council the criteria for funding courses of further education. Paragraph (j) of Schedule 2 states that the council shall fund:
"a course to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above".
In plain English that means that one does not get money for a basic lifeskills course unless there is a strong possibility of moving on to a more advanced course. In practice, it is a limiting clause and stops some people with severe learning disabilities getting the further education they want and need because of lack of certainty about what they will be able to cope with later on.
I give your Lordships a practical and recent real life example. Robert Parkinson is 20 years old. He is severely mentally and physically disabled. He wished to continue his education after his statement of special educational needs had expired at the age of 19. His former school confirmed that his intellectual capacity was still expanding but could not predict its eventual level. He was offered a place by Pengwern College, a residential college run by Mencap, which felt that Robert would benefit from further education. The funding council was approached to fund his place but refused the application because, given the level of his disability, it was uncertain that he would be able to progress beyond a basic lifeskills course. His family appealed against the decision but lost because of the restriction in the Act. His local education authority, which has a residual responsibility in this area, also felt that it could not fund him. His family finally decided that the only way to resolve the matter was to seek a judicial review. The court ruled that, as the law currently stands, the funding council could not fund Robert. Meanwhile, Robert attends a day centre and his mother says, "Robert was making progress at school but now his only option is the day centre. He has already slipped back."
Many of your Lordships are resplendent with academic distinction. But, for some, a law which did not allow them to take their O-levels unless there was a good prospect of getting an honours degree later on would have been rather inhibiting. So is Schedule 2(j). Robert is being discriminated against because he is severely disabled. If his disability were milde37r, the funding council would have had to pay for his further education.

59
If we are to embrace the principle of lifelong learning, it must cover everyone in our society. Severely disabled people must not be disenfranchised. I hope that, through an amendment to the Bill which embraces further education as well as schools, this matter can be rectified. I believe that the value of further education for people with severe learning disabilities, in terms of greater independent living skills and enhanced ability to communicate, should not be diminished. People with learning disabilities and their families should not be tossed between the local education authority, the funding council and the social services department to seek funding for essential courses—which will greatly enrich their lives and will only apply to a minimal number of individuals anyway—only to find that no one will fund and therefore a vital opportunity is lost, perhaps for ever.
If education means giving the mind the chance to grow and giving the person the chance to use their mind, can we legitimately deny that to people with learning disabilities? I cannot believe that the Minister, or indeed any Member of your Lordships' House, would be party to such a denial.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I must offer a deep apology to your Lordships' House but the Chancellor of my university will be in Cambridge and I should be in his presence in the not very distant future. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to excuse me if I withdraw when I have made my remarks.
My contribution might well start with appreciation of those comments made by such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and other noble Lords who have drawn attention to the non-technical side of education. I strongly believe that we must never forget the spiritual as well as the general education of the young people in our country.
I want to spend a few moments directing your Lordships' attention to Part VII of the Bill concerning the supervision of the curriculum for schools and external qualifications. I shall be speaking particularly about the new body which is to be called the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority.
Others have given their reasons for feeling that they can come today to this debate and speak. In my case, I am conscious that many Members of this House will have 30 year-old relatives who took their O-levels and A-levels while I was vice-chancellor at Cambridge. They will find a facsimile of my signature on the no doubt framed and much treasured certificates for which they qualified. While I was at Cambridge involved with teaching and the affairs of Downing College, I entertained examiners from the local examination board who came during the summer months to re-mark their efforts and equilibrate the standards that they were demanding of the examinees.
I want to make the point that, altogether, 30,000 school teachers are involved in the process of examining for the various boards, 2,000 of them being involved in the actual affairs of the board. I regard those people as
60
the most dedicated of all our teachers. Not many people are prepared to go to meetings and have their marking criticised as being too tough or too weak; yet they do that in the summer months and equilibrate the marks.
I should perhaps advise your Lordships that around a decade ago we had 40 examining boards in this country; now we are down to only four for the school examinations and three for vocational qualifications. They are based in Manchester, the Midlands, Cambridge, Guildford and London. I am speaking to your Lordships today to try to make your Lordships aware of the anxieties felt about the new body, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority.
Around 750,000 young people sit qualification exams each year. As I said, around 30,000 people are involved in the marking of those papers. Your Lordships will be aware that in that activity the examiners are divided into many and various committees. They all now fall under the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority or the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. In the past few days Ofsted has stated that it is not now so displeased with the results of the A-level examinations. If that is so, the people in the universities are asking whether this is the best time to disturb the ongoing arrangements. They are also concerned because they hear from the Department for Education that there will be a restructuring of the boards; that a consultation paper is to be published in that regard, but only after the restructuring has been defined. Being academics, they want to know whether or not there will be consultation before the restructuring proceeds—and I agree with them.
Specific anxieties centre on how widely the new regulations will extend and whether the rules being developed will be in conflict or otherwise with the regulations. Is it appropriate that the new body should have powers to cap the fees that boards are expected to raise without reference to the boards or to the Government? What appeal facilities will there be when difficulties arise between the boards and the new over-arching organisation, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority?
Schedule 6 is concerned with the establishment of committees by the new authority. My colleagues are concerned that it has not yet been made clear what kind of committees they will be, with what kind of responsibilities. All that may sound pernickety to Members of this House. But I am anxious not to antagonise that large group of dedicated teachers who are concerned with checking the end point of the academic processes and the qualifications for vocations. We rely on them to tell us how we are doing compared with the French and the Germans. Therefore, when my colleagues say that they are concerned that the board's membership will be so small that it cannot cover the whole range of interests in the examining field, I am sympathetic to their anxieties.
Perhaps the Government could consider organising a self-regulatory system involving the existing bodies and the new authority could then monitor the situation. Your Lordships will be aware that academic people always

61
hope to be able to show their support and interest for systems by self-regulation. That is certainly how doctors behave.
I want to conclude by reminding myself in your Lordships' presence of the wonderful guidance given to me when I went to Nottingham University by its first vice-chancellor, Bertrand Hallward, who, in his nineties, is still alive. He said to me that the universities would be making decisions at their peril if they did not take great interest in the training of the people who leave the schools to enter university and those who will teach them. It is of course from that group that examiners are recruited.
Perhaps I may put down a marker on this occasion that I shall be tabling amendments for the consideration of the Committee in relation to the structure and functions of the newly established authority, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority. But that is for another day. I am grateful today for your Lordships' attention.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, for the past 20 years around 90 per cent. of the children in this country have been educated in the comprehensive system. So far as I am aware, I am the only person taking part in this debate who himself attended a comprehensive school. I suspect that says more about the make-up of this House than it does about me.
I too wish to restrict my comments to selection and the issues surrounding the introduction of greater selection. Mantras were mentioned earlier this afternoon, but it is indeed a mantra that selection itself will drive up standards. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that competition is a lever for standards for children of all abilities. That is an assertion which I believe to be quite untrue.
Last autumn I attended an education conference where I spent a long time talking to the head teacher of a girls' independent school. The school is in an area where there is a long-established tradition of grammar schools. They have their natural partners in a number of secondary modern schools going under other names. The head teacher explained to me that one of the reasons her school was so successful was that a large proportion of the intake was of girls who had failed the examination for the local grammar schools. She went on to explain that her school achieved examination results that were at least on a par with and in some years even exceeded the results of the grammar schools. Naturally, she was proud of the results of her school, and quite rightly so. I went on to ask her what she thought that said about the 11-plus or selection at 11. She said that to her the attitude of the girls' parents was far more important to their likely achievement at the age of 16 and 18 than any examination at 11 years old. I noticed that she was careful to talk about the parents' attitude to education rather than their social class or income. But I suspect that she was probably being duly sensitive to her audience.
Is that really a system we want to return to, where a minority of bright children are well educated by the state and those who fail the exams with parents who can
62
afford it opt out of the state system, while those who cannot are labelled as failures and go to institutions which are perceived as second best? I do not accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about schools selecting fractions of pupils. My experience in the London Borough of Wandsworth is that parents know very well which are the truly selective schools and which schools are just using magnetism and selecting fractions of pupils as a smokescreen for the sink schools. Parents know when a school is truly selective.
The Bill has a number of methods by which it seeks to impose greater selection and it is doing that without any of the normal consultation procedures. I shall go through seven such paths that I have identified. Clauses 2 and 7 require the governing body annually to consider selection. Here we have the thought police in action again and they will probably be just as successful here as they have been in encouraging more schools to go grant-maintained. Nevertheless, the governing bodies will have to think about it every year. Under Clause 3(6), grant-maintained schools, both primary and secondary, can select up to 50 per cent. of their intake. It is a bizarre proposal that primary schools will be able to select pupils. I read the Hansard report of the Committee stage in another place, where the Minister assured the Committee that she was thinking of music schools and things like that. However, even selecting on the basis of the musical ability of five year-olds is a lottery in the best of circumstances.
Under Clause 13 the FAS is given power to create new schools. That will overturn the thresholds laid down in the 1993 Act and gives the FAS unrestricted powers. If anything, that is an admission of the failure of the take-off of grant-maintained schools that the Government had anticipated. In Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, county and voluntary aided schools are able to expand their selection up to 20 per cent. In Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, county and voluntary sixth forms can discount age for the purposes of their overall percentage of selected pupils, which will effectively increase the number of selected pupils. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State power to direct LEAs to implement increased selection for specialist schools. Finally, Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 gives county secondary school governors power to request LEAs to publish proposals for a school to go selective. If the LEA does not do it, the school can go ahead and do it anyway. Today we heard from the Minister that the Government will bring back the old Clause 3 from the Bill in another place to enable grant-maintained schools to expand their size by up to 50 per cent. every four years, which will increase the total number of selected pupils.
It says something about the problem the Government anticipate with introducing greater selection that they have to use all these methods of requiring schools to consider selection. They know they have a fight on their hands. They are using every mechanism they can to try to force this on to the education agenda.
I wish to close by talking again about Wandsworth. I know a 14 year-old boy who, I suppose one could say, is a friend of mine. The boy is well behaved and is keen to learn. He is probably of below average ability. He is

63
probably what we would call a band 3 child. When he was 11 his mother and teacher assumed that he would be unable to pass the exam for the local selective schools that were in place in Wandsworth at the time so he went straight to the local non-selective comprehensive school, which is sometimes called a sink school. The school is a rough school where the teachers do well even to keep the class quiet let alone teach the children anything. The boy was bullied and he took a lot of time off school. He fell behind in his lessons and after two years he was moved to another non-selective school in the borough. Over the past year he has done better. He has settled down but he is still behind in his lessons. It has now been diagnosed that he has a sight defect which has led to his problems with reading. The boy is nearly 15 and it has only just now been diagnosed that he has this sight defect. He is someone with what we might call non-statemented special educational needs. It is a tragedy that the boy has reached this stage in his education and only now has the problem been diagnosed.
I would ask the Minister this question. What will the rhetoric and mantra of choice, diversity and selection do for children like that? I am not talking about someone who is stupid. I am talking about someone who is slightly below average and whom the system has failed. All the rhetoric we have heard today has done nothing for this child in his educational life. I reached 20, where I lost count of the number of times the Minister used the word "choice" in his speech. I heard the word "choice" numerous times when I was a councillor in Wandsworth. I have given the House a specific example of where "choice" has failed a boy.
The challenge for the Government and for my party is to find a mechanism which rewards success and is intolerant of failure. I look forward to a Bill which is specifically targeted at enhancing diversity and choice for children of below average ability.
6.38 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, a few years have gone by since I was an LEA officer responsible for a number of comprehensive and special schools, and even more years since I taught modern languages in the maintained sector and before that in a good old-fashioned boys' public school. I must admit that my feelings on being confronted with the Bill that we are looking at this afternoon include relief that I am no longer on the receiving end of yet another piece of educational legislation—the 21st, on my reckoning, since the present Government came to power. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I see is not in her place, I have taken part in discussion of a good few recent education Bills. In fact I seem to recall one of the points that she raised earlier coming up in the middle of that memorable night in 1988 when we all sat until a quarter to nine in the morning.
I do not look back to any golden era in education. But I do believe that, among improvements that have undoubtedly been made in recent years, much that is valuable has been thrown away. This Bill, it seems to me, continues that trend. If I pass rather speedily over
64
the sections of this many-faceted measure which deserve a welcome, this is chiefly to save time in the face of a longish speakers' list, and to leave room for a hard look at the more contentious areas.
From Part IV of the Bill onward, as many speakers have pointed out, there is a lot of good, practical sense. Disciplinary arrangements needed attention. Baseline assessment, performance targets, inspection of LEAs, emphasis on careers education and regulation of supply teachers are all uncontentious in principle, even if there is some devil in the detail which will emerge doubtless in Committee. On the whole there has been wide consultation and preparation here, for which the Government can take much credit.
Just over four years ago John Patten, then Secretary of State, introduced the White Paper Choice and Diversity which foreshadowed the major 1993 Act with the comment—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has stolen my point here—that it was the last piece in the educational jigsaw and that no more legislation could be expected during this Government's lifetime. Plus ça change, my Lords. In terms of good management practice there is a limit to the amount of reform any institution can be expected to absorb. I was by no means the only one of your Lordships who maintained several years ago that that limit had been reached and that what the education service now needed was a period of stability in which the reforms could bed down. Constant change is not good for morale, and low morale attracts poor performance.
The changes have often been piecemeal, and sometimes self-contradictory, giving an impression of amateurishness in an area which cries out for clear, strategic thinking. The 1988 Act saw the introduction of the NCC, the National Curriculum Council; by 1993 we had SCAA; now it is to be QNCA. The ground is always changing, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, it is mostly structural organisational change unrelated to the classroom.
The most significant changes in the present Bill, as we have seen, relate to selection, which is to be encouraged by a variety of means. It is hard to see what this is going to achieve. There is no good evidence that selection of this kind raises standards, particularly in the areas where they most need to be raised. There is good evidence that most people do not want it. If the worry is that we do not educate to the level of our industrial competitors, then we need to note that few if any of them select by ability. Is it about choice? But, as we have heard, the Government want to give parents the choice of school, not schools the choice of pupil, which is what selection by ability produces. These proposals will indeed reduce the choice that already exists. I cannot agree with the analogy used by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, of university entry where students do at least end up in some selective institution. The situation with local schools is quite different. Is selection about diversity? Well, yes, but that is hardly an end in itself in the absence of positive benefit. I am not against selection in every form, but I cannot see why the Government should want to pursue what is in no

65
sense a winning formula unless it is simply to satisfy the Prime Minister's wish to see secondary moderns in every town.
I can. however, see some of the harm that will come about. Selection is possible under present arrangements, but there are checks and balances, at local as well as central level, and there is accountability. From now on, if Parts I and II of the Bill go through, there will be minimal opportunity for comment and objection on the part of those in the neighbourhood who are affected by a school's decision to select unilaterally. LEAs are not perfect, and in some areas schools may have found their influence stultifying. but many people are grateful for the democratic accountability that has meant that no one part of the community can affect the operations of another just like that, without the fullest consultation. If there were to be more selection—and selection by one school, just as opening a sixth form or a nursery, has a knock-on effect throughout the entire community—let it be introduced by a body such as the local authority with an overview of the situation on the ground. Individual choice is admirable, but in a civilised society it needs to be balanced against the needs of the community as a whole. A reserve power under Clause 11 for Whitehall to intervene does not adequately meet the case.
For what this Bill does is increase the fragmentation—in the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—in the education service which previous Acts have started, and to which some of us in past debates have tried to draw attention. The more freedom an individual school has to go its own way unchecked, in terms of size and nature of intake, the greater the incoherence in the system as a whole—indeed the less there will be a system at all. This makes inevitably for inefficiency, and for the near impossibility of sensible planning by the agency—the LEA—which still has the statutory duty of seeing that there are the right schools at the right time in the right places, and that pupils can get to them without too much difficulty and public expense. I do not believe (and nor, as it happens, does the Audit Commission) that the Government have ever satisfactorily resolved this tension between choice of schools and the need to manage resources such as school places efficiently. In parenthesis, when I worked in Oxfordshire we achieved a success rate of around 97 per cent. in parental choice of schools before legislation on the matter was even a gleam in the Government's eye. At the same time I am glad I am not a parent who will have to face the confusion of entrance exams and criteria which the new arrangements may bring about. As ever, those who are already least advantaged will find it hardest to cope.
All this raises the fundamental question whether the Government still see education as a public service. They have gone far towards abandoning the concept of a community of schools, and of local partnership, and this is sad. Once again we have an Education Bill which erodes local democracy, nowhere more so than in Part II which empowers an unelected body to set up grant-maintained schools in any local authority's area and send it the bill, a total change from the provisions
66
of the 1993 Act. Partnership is out, and we are moving towards a free-for-all in education which I do not believe is in the best long-term interests of our children.
Leaving aside for a moment the matter of pace and frequency of recent reform, another bout of change might be acceptable if it were well targeted, or if the service were in acute crisis which, contrary to what The Times would have us believe, the objective evidence shows it is not. Let me end by pointing to what the Bill does not do. Other noble Lords have done the same.
It does not do anything for the lowest 40 per cent. of the ability range, as others have said. It is here, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, that this country falls down, and has so for years: the achievements at the top end are not the problem. It does not do anything for resources: not the factor, certainly, but a significant factor which continually crops up in surveys of schools, and one which the inefficiencies of a free-for-all are bound to make worse. If you want to see what resources can do for the educational league tables, look at the major public schools.
Above all, and this includes my two previous points, except for a couple of commendable clauses on discipline it does not touch the classroom. Surely, this is where it begins and ends. Since 1980 we have been so concerned with structures and systems and administrative bodies that too little attention has been paid to the actual teacher, and his or her skills, training, morale and status—I was glad to hear the General Teaching Council mentioned—conditions and professional pride. I am not saying we should legislate directly for what goes on in the classroom, nor am I saying that there have not been worthwhile initiatives directed to the quality of teaching and learning, because there have. My point is that this has been overshadowed by an avalanche of structural changes, the majority of which do not, I believe, make the slightest difference to how our children perform in the classroom. Instead they have siphoned energy and resources from where they should properly have been directed, the point of interaction between teacher and pupil. Given the things of value that we have lost on the way, I think I would willingly trade all the administrative reforms of the past 17 years, apart from special needs, against that one consideration.
So while there will be much of a practical nature to support, I cannot welcome the provisions of the early parts of the Bill which I feel will be profoundly unhelpful to what goes on in schools. I regret that I shall probably have to miss some of the later stages, but I hope that changes can be made to soften some of the more unfortunate effects of this latest measure in a seemingly endless sequence of legislation.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, at my age I tend to be autobiographical when this subject comes up. I vaguely remember being taught about evolution as a small boy. The teacher told me about dinosaurs and said that they were extinct. Had that teacher been alive and present in the Gallery tonight he would have had to withdraw that statement because the noble Lords, Lord Morris of

67
Castle Morris and Lord Tope, are the best examples of living dinosaurs that I have come across for some time. They still repeat the opinions of left-wing educationalists of 30 or 40 years ago when the damage was done to our education system, which all of the Bills in the last three Parliaments have still not been able to correct.
On the other hand, I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his extreme honesty. He gives us a picture of what is in the minds of the party he represents. It is important to know what is in its mind, not merely what is contained in the press releases or statements that are made on behalf of the leader of that party. No one listening to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, can deny that he hates the very notion of a grammar school or any kind of selective school. Therefore, when people are told that the existing grammar schools will be safe in the hands of the Labour Party they must be very gullible to believe it. They would have to be like those in Albania who have lost all their savings on pyramid investments. Luckily, there are not many Albanians in the Wirral.
The more important point is that which has been referred to obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and, in a rather different way, by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley; namely, that what matters in the end is not structure but what goes on in the classroom. It is that which has been affected by the progressive educational philosophy that it has been the lot of trainee teachers to receive for a whole generation or more. That is at the root of the problem rather than any form of structure. No doubt there were some comprehensive schools in which teachers took no notice of the kind of nonsense that came from, say, the London University Institute of Education when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was there. They would still teach subjects and would not be child centred. They would insist on children learning by rote, which is a very good thing for children to do. That could happen in a comprehensive school, although it is perhaps unlikely that that would happen in such a school in a Labour-controlled authority. I believe the Government agree that we find ourselves in a rather unfortunate position in which we experiment with various structural changes in order at least to create some centres of excellence from which we can derive the kind of people that we need at all levels of the economy and society.
I thought that in the speeches of some noble Lords and noble Baronesses there was far too much about what was popular with children or parents. What matters is the national interest in having a state system of education at all. Surely, what matters is the selection of quality wherever it is and whatever the level of ability of particular pupils. In a sense we are skirting round the issues. I do not share the belief of some of my noble friends that parental choice is all important. I doubt that some parents are good at making choices. But there are parents who feel that their children are not being taught very well. I have read that in the borough of Islington almost one-third of parents try to find places for their children in schools in neighbouring boroughs because they have a better reputation. Lenin would have said that
68
they were voting with their feet, but since mostly they belong to the champagne tendency of the Labour Party they may be described as voting with their Volvos. These are expedients adopted by individuals.
That leads me to one of the matters on which, autobiographically, I can assent to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I believe that there should be a general teaching council. I say "autobiographically", because the Conservative Party committee which advised the Government before the 1983 election made that particular suggestion. It was turned down by the late lamented Lord Joseph, who was then Secretary of State for Education, because he believed that such a body would be captured by the teaching trade unions. I agree that if we had a general teaching council that was run by the likes of Mr. de Gruchy or Mr. Doug McAvoy it would not be of much use. But I believe that Lord Joseph's fears were unfounded. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has said, we need a general teaching council to root out bad practice and make sure that teachers in the classroom are acquainted with good practice. I hope that in the end my noble friend will accept that.
My other autobiographical point relates to discipline. I remember telling your Lordships when the measure was brought in to abolish corporal punishment, at the behest of that foolish court in Strasbourg, that the people who would pay for the excesses of those continental jurists would be the teachers in the classroom. I was right. I do not say that corporal punishment should now necessarily be restored. It may be that that is no longer possible. But certainly it has produced a problem of discipline which is relatively new. The degree of violence and assaults on teachers, which the trade unions quite rightly are concerned about, is a matter that must be tackled. Whether the measures in the latter part of this Bill, which appear to have general approval, will do the trick I do not know.
There is, however, another possibility that we have not examined in this country but which is followed in certain continental countries, notably France. In that case discipline in schools is the responsibility not of the classroom teacher but a person specially designated for that purpose. It is a pity that any classroom teacher should have to bother with discipline. It is difficult enough for the teacher to keep up at all in these days of expanding information, information technology and matters of that kind, let alone to be distracted by wondering whether he or she can intervene to stop one little boy from hammering another. There are matters that we can think about and learn from.
I was surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, assert that the comprehensive model was one adopted by our major European neighbours. France and even more so Germany have highly differentiated school systems. They have never gone in for the comprehensive model. We are told—and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, frequently reminds us—that their results are better. I do not say that that cannot be done. I agree with streaming and setting which, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, is the solution so long as one keeps the comprehensive system. However, I would point out that mixed ability teaching was part of the

69
doctrine with which teachers were imbued in institutes of teacher training for very many years. One still sometimes hears from the Campaign for State Education, and such bodies, objections to anything but mixed ability teaching. There are many things that we could do and many things that I hope we will do. Meanwhile, for what it is worth, as another step forward in the right direction, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because I cannot help enjoying his speeches. But there is a great deal of what he said that I should like to challenge. If I went into it in detail, there would be a great deal to go into and my speech would be even longer than it is going to be, and I do not think that that would be popular with your Lordships. I may find a few remarks to make as I go through.
First, I must apologise to the Minister for missing his opening speech. I really do apologise for that. It was very bad manners indeed. I shall explain privately later why I missed it. I missed also a little bit of my noble friend's speech.
I intend to speak on Part VII of the Bill which has not been much discussed, but to spend most of my time on Parts IV and V—the parts dealing with discipline, exclusions and admissions. There has been agreement on a number of clauses and disagreement on others. In some cases, the ideas behind the proposals may be accepted, but better ways of achieving their aims can be found which would be more likely to work better for school, parent and pupil.
Those clauses were not sufficiently discussed in another place. And the anxieties of a large number of children's organisations, which make up the Children's Consortium, were not given enough attention. The Children's Consortium is made up of 14 bodies: the NSPCC, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardos and the Children's Society, to name but four of them.
I would like to make my position clear. It is essential that there is good discipline in schools. Schools have very real problems, and there must be sanctions when classes are disrupted, where there is bullying and serious behavioural problems.
This part of the Bill is largely amending the 1996 Education Act, passed only last year. Indeed, it was still 1996 when this Bill was introduced. Clause 19 would require all schools to publish a discipline policy. In this Bill, it is for the governing body, rather than the head teacher, to draw up a statement of general principles to which the head teacher must have regard in performing his duty to promote good behaviour and discipline. The head teacher must publicise the measures he is proposing in order to bring them to the attention of pupils, parents and schools.
What we would like to see is for the governing body, when drawing up the statement, to take into account the views of staff, parents and pupils. This would reflect advice in the current government circular 8/94 and the recommendations of the Elton Report. A behaviour code
70
will obviously work better and be respected if it has been produced with the involvement of the whole school community. The rules should promote self-discipline and respect for others, ensure that necessary action is taken to prevent bullying and meet the needs of all children involved in incidents of bullying.
Clause 21, which gives members of staff in independent schools as well as in maintained schools power to restrain pupils, is unfortunately needed and will reassure teachers who could in this litigious climate become victims of assault charges. I am sure that that part of the Bill will please the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
I am very glad that corporal punishment of any type will remain unlawful in maintained schools. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that that was following the European Court. A good many of us here feel ourselves fairly responsible for getting corporal punishment banned in maintained schools in this country. I said that corporal punishment is banned in maintained schools. Of course I think that it should be the case in all schools, independent as well. I sincerely hope that no misguided person in this House will produce an amendment to bring back beating. That happened in another place and it was soundly and satisfactorily defeated.
I am not happy with Clause 23 which gives the head the power to detain a pupil after school without the parent's consent. This does seem an erosion of parents' rights. One can see complications, even though travel home is mentioned in the Bill. There could be great difficulty in rural areas for staff as well as pupils.
We then come to exclusions. Of course exclusion must be available as a sanction. Disruptive pupils can be a menace to the whole class, to the teacher and indeed to the pupil himself. Only last Friday the father of a primary school teacher who had a class of over 30 told me how she had one very disruptive pupil—this was a class of eight year-olds—who disturbed the whole class, although there was an assistant in the mornings to help look after him. Not only did he disrupt the class; he would follow her to the staff room, kick her and try to bite her. This teacher managed for the whole of last term and part of this before that child was removed. She felt sorry for the child because he had been rejected by his family and now she said that he had been rejected by the school. It is not a happy situation.
One day that child crawled under the computer table, clutched a radiator and would not come out. No one in the school could move him. The foster father was sent for. He could not get him out. The foster mother came. She said, "Come on, Jamie, time to go home". He came out. I think that they were excellent foster parents. But it is not something that teachers can hope to cope with. What we must have are plenty of special units for this type of child. No one can cope.
We must bear in mind—and this applies to detention too—that a great many of those who are likely to be excluded may be children with special needs—not the 2 per cent. of children with statements but the children who make up 18 per cent. of the school population, who have very definite learning disabilities or who have emotional or behavioural problems. Are they to be treated in the same way as children without those special needs?

71
We need also to take account of the Chief Inspector of Schools when he said that some schools are "trigger happy" on exclusions. We know that Afro-Caribbean children are more likely than white children to be excluded for the same offence. The Commission for Racial Equality conducted research on this, and that is its finding.
I believe that the Secretary of State should make regulations to secure that head teachers take appropriate steps during any period of fixed term exclusion to return the child to school as quickly as possible, including assessing special needs, and meet parents, pupil and staff. I am aware that this costs money.
I am not happy with the extension of the 15 days' exclusion in any one term to 45 days in a school year. This could happen in one term. That means nine weeks out of school. There must be proper education during these periods, not just a few hours a week, as can happen now.
The LEA is at the moment under a duty to provide:
"suitable full-term or part-term education at school, or otherwise than at school".
This is surely unsatisfactory. It contradicts the duty of parents under the 1944 Act to ensure that children have sufficient full-time education suitable to:
"age, ability and aptitude … and any special educational need".
Excluded children are arguably more in need of full-time education than any other group of children, not least because recent Home Office research identified exclusion as one of the main factors leading to juvenile offending. My noble friend Lady Ramsay referred to that also. I very much dislike the term "disqualified person". These children should not be labelled. My noble friend Lady Ramsay and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, both referred to that. I understand that it is the parliamentary draftsman who wanted the phrase used. It must be deleted, and most certainly it should not refer to primary schoolchildren.
In relation to the whole of Part IV, I agree with the Local Government Association's summing up. It states:
"These are piecemeal actions. We need a national focus on the importance of school discipline, which should be considered in the context of the overall strategic planning for pupils with difficulties. There is much current good practice from which we could learn".
Finally, I turn to Part V, admissions and home-school contracts. As with school statements of policy in Clause 19, the home-school contract—the concept of which I agree with, if not the name—would be much better and more likely to be effective if it was drawn up in consultation with the head, the staff, the parents and the pupils. Research has shown that schools successful in both academic achievement and behaviour have a common feature; that is, good home-school relations. What I totally dislike and disapprove of is Clause 30, which would prevent a pupil being admitted to a school if the parent refused to sign the document. That is selection by the back-door and I hope that we can delete the clause. Admission dependent on signing could conflict with the duty of LEAs and the FAS to secure
72
places for all children. An alternative could be to set out in the Bill a framework for our expectations of all parents' roles in relation to their children's schools.
I have two special worries about these two parts of the Bill and I wish to emphasise them. How will the Bill affect those 18 per cent. of children who have special educational needs but who have no statement? And who is to act in the important role of parent to those children in care who make up a large proportion of children excluded from school and in difficulty with the courts?
I turn to Part VII. Most public discussion on the Bill has focused on education at school level and for young people, but Part VII has wide implications for the education and training of adults and also for higher education. Part VII proposes the merger of SCAA and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The merger was recommended by Sir Ronald Dearing and has been generally welcomed in that context.
However, the Bill goes way beyond qualifications for 14 to 19 year-olds and gives to the new body very wide powers over all vocational qualifications, including higher level NVQs, an area which is bound to overlap with universities. The House will recall that Dearing's review of higher education is still in process. Seventy per cent. of further education students, most studying vocational courses, are adults and there are some 20,000 different qualifications. What is more, even before the Bill has been passed, the appointment of Dr. Nicholas Tate, currently head of SCAA, has been announced as its new chief. This smacks of unseemly haste and appears to imply increasing political control of the content of the vocational education system.
There is now widespread agreement on the importance of lifelong learning and the achievement of the national training and education targets for adults as well as for the young. But there has been little discussion about the implications of the proposed changes for adult learners, for further education providers, for awarding bodies or for higher education. And the Bill proposes to give the new body the power to impose payments for the accreditation of qualifications; the phrase, a levy on any "vocational qualification", is used without any definition of vocational qualifications. Unlike young students, many adults pay their own fees and do not use public funds.
Lastly, there is concern about the small size of the board and its composition. The right reverend Prelate commented on that and made a suggestion which I totally support. It needs to be representative of a wide range of interested parties, including FE, HE, professional bodies, employers and adult learners. A number of those questions must be addressed seriously in Committee.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, all of us who are concerned with education are delighted that it has become a major factor in the policies of all the main political parties. However, today's debate shows how sad it is that progress and improvement in English education are restricted—dare I say bedevilled?—

73
by arguments that belong to history. Nowhere is this more true than when that frightening, devil-like word "selection" is discussed.
There can be no doubt that in the past—and it is sad that most of the debate has related to the past—selection meant entry to the grammar school without any satisfactory alternative for those who were not suited for that type of education. I point out to your Lordships that that was realised as early as 1938. In 1938 the Spens Report, on which the Butler Act was based, stated that secondary education had come to mean grammar school education, with little being done for children who could not benefit from that style of education. Spens stated:
"the establishment of parity between different"—
I underline the word "different"—
"types of secondary schools is of fundamental importance".
That was in 1938.
We never achieved that parity and, as has been mentioned many times in the debate, unlike the whole of continental Europe, apart from one state of former west Germany, we decided that the answer to these difficulties was the area comprehensive school. It is an interesting historical fact, an interesting tale of what might have been, that, while some of our neighbours—notably the Netherlands and Germany—refined, developed and improved the tripartite system of the Butler Act, we abandoned it entirely. I am honest when I say that my own party bears a large measure of blame, since it did little to refine or improve the tripartite system when it held power in the 1950s. I suggest that many of our problems spring from that decision.
I was a headmaster for 17 years and a school teacher for more years than I care to remember. I can say from my experience that it is difficult in one school to provide highly specialised courses in advanced mathematics as well as to teach a variety of modern languages unless there are sufficient pupils of the ability and interest to benefit from such courses. We are not all capable of learning Russian, French and German. If a set is to be viable there must be enough people in that set to make it worth while to employ a teacher to teach German, Greek, Latin or whatever.
Equally, it is hard to run demanding and expensive vocational and technical courses unless one has a concentration of pupils of the ability and interest to benefit from such courses. Let us imagine a situation in which one is trying to sustain in one institution—as we ought if we are to compare ourselves with our continental neighbours—courses in Russian, French, Spanish and Italian and also to provide courses in technical and vocational subjects which are of the same quality as those on tap in Germany and Holland. The point I am making is that at present in English education the butter is spread too thinly. All education suffers and talk of improving skills becomes mere rhetoric.
As a headmaster I was responsible for specialist subjects as well as the manner of setting and streaming. I can assure your Lordships that, even in a school where the pupils are of broadly similar ability, that is a nightmare task. Imagine trying to do that when one has to cover the whole gambit of education. Of course, the problem is further compounded if schools are required
74
to take all their pupils from one geographical area. Inevitably, the school merely reflects the problems or virtues of the area; Richmond is better than Hackney.
I support the Bill. It is not my ideal Bill—if I were the Minister, I could improve on it in many ways. Vanity makes me say that. But I support it because it sets out to break the rigid structures of the past. My hope is that, by allowing schools more flexibility in their choice of pupils, we shall secure a situation in which especially, and most especially at post-16 level, schools will be able to specialise in different styles of courses. Some may specialise specifically in technical and vocational courses while others specialise in more narrow academic courses such as modern languages and so on. I emphasise what other noble Lords have said: such is the norm in the whole of eastern and western Europe.
I make three points about that. First, apart from that one state which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned, the whole of Europe has a system of selection and choice. Secondly, it is agreed generally by noble Lords opposite as well as by my noble friends that in many ways, the education system, particularly in Holland and Germany, is better than ours. Thirdly, I assure your Lordships that our continental neighbours, left and right, would be utterly amazed at the way we have argued about these matters. We are uttering the cries of the past when 21 miles across the Channel, people who hold much more radical views than noble Lords opposite are quite happy with a system of selection and choice. Therefore, it is reasonable for those of us on these Benches to ask why noble Lords opposite are so much against that when the French, German and Dutch socialist parties all welcome a system such as this Bill offers us.
We are not talking about the old style of selection. We are not—and I repeat not—talking about grammar schools and nothing else. The idea of sheep and goats has gone. We are thinking of a humane style of analysis so that each person can find an institution and course appropriate to his needs. That is crucial to our society and we should all work to secure that. We should not allow the political nostrums of the past to govern our thinking. We accept that for music and sport; why not for everything else?
My belief is that one school or college cannot cater for all needs. That has been shown to be an illusion. And yet in some eyes that has become more than a mantra. It has become an article of faith which is not open to discussion. At times when I talk to some noble Lords opposite, I feel like Galileo. "Behold it moves", I say, "and yet they will not listen". They have the dogmatism almost of the Holy Father.
The results are obvious to all. When we praise our comprehensive system—and I had sympathy with it when it started—how do we explain that our vocational and technical courses are not as good as those of our neighbours? How do we explain that schools are restricted in their choice of subjects? A school which I govern in Somerset cannot provide more than two modern languages and yet in the modern Europe, we should be teaching our pupils three or four languages.

75
That is particularly true of languages. Your Lordships will notice how Latin and Greek have almost vanished from the curriculum.
I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill offers hopes of a change and I suggest that it will be a change for the better. I urge your Lordships to support it.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in this Bill the Government have offered us diversity. I hope sincerely that they will offer us also an element of choice on some issues. I can only pick and choose the matters which I think are important in the Bill within the time available to me. First, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions, simply for the purpose of clarification.
What do we mean by a selective school and by selection for ability and aptitude. Ability for what? Aptitude for what? Are we talking only about doing well in the league tables, because that is what will make schools popular and that is what will make parents choose those schools? That is the only information parents have; that the children who go to those schools do well in GCSEs. Is "success" measured by that limited criterion of success in purely academic subjects? If so, are the Government convinced that that will really prepare children for life and work in the 21st century?
I draw your Lordships' attention to the Government's own White Paper, Learning to Compete. In that there are identified six different characteristics which will give children and young people the ability to compete in the world of tomorrow's business: the ability to communicate, applied number, information technology, working with others, problem solving and self-motivated learning and relearning. I have set those down on the left-hand side of a piece of paper. On the right-hand side I have set down the core curriculum subjects for GCSE. They are English, maths, science, one modern language and design and technology. I identify a mis-match.
I am not saying that good teachers with intelligent pupils cannot use the core curriculum subjects to teach the skills and knowledge which young people will need. But I wonder whether parents who are making the choice about which schools are successful should not be given access to more information. Should they not have information, based on Ofsted inspections, on how well each school is doing not only in relation to academic exams but in relation to preparing its pupils for the portable skills and flexibility which they will need if they are to take up the responsibilities of adult life and be suited to employment in the 21st century?
I should like to ask the noble Lord what the Government mean by a "selective school". I am not entirely sure whether that is the same as a specialist school as defined in Schedule 1 to the Bill. In the Bill, a selective school is defined as what the Secretary of State says or will say a selective school is. The Secretary of State is very coy. Until we have given her authority to implement the decision, she will not tell us what it is to be. It seems to me rather insulting to Parliament that
76
Parliament should not have the opportunity to know what the Secretary of State has in mind until legal authority is given to her to implement the legislation.
I gave notice to the noble Lord that I should be asking about four subjects, and I use them only by way of an example. Can a selective or specialist school be a school which is selective for children with ability in the arts or in music? Can it be for children who are good at football? Can it be for children who are good at engineering? Finally, can it be for children who have an aptitude and a desire to learn the whole range of academic subjects in the context of the Christian tradition? That last question is important.
I turn now to my concerns about the issue of selective admissions. My concern—and in this I join with many noble Lords—regards what will happen to those children who are not selected. My concern is pragmatic, non-political and non-doctrinaire. I want an assurance that the Government will guarantee that enough non-selected places will be available within a reasonable travelling distance for every child who is not selected for a selective school.
My second worry is that the Government are focusing too much on the top 30 per cent. and ignoring the bottom 30 per cent. In that context I take the liberty of quoting from a letter which I received from the director of education of Business in the Community. He says that,
"this nation can no longer afford an education system which is world class for the top 30 per cent. reaching higher education, [but] leaves nearly 30 per cent. functionally illiterate and almost unemployable in the 21st Century. This so called 'tail' of underachievement undermines the UK skills-base for investment, creates a costly dependent group living in relative poverty and threatens social cohesion".
My own experience of working with very deprived children from Tower Hamlets each summer is that when we ask them whether they want to write a postcard home to Mum a significant number have to dictate what to write on the postcard to one of the voluntary helpers. I am talking of 14 and 15 year-old children; in other words, young people. They cannot read or write. I believe that those children have been betrayed by the schools and by the local education authorities. I believe that it could be described as a form of child abuse not to teach those children the basic skills that they will need to survive in our society today and tomorrow.
If some schools have selected pupils, other schools will have a concentration of less able pupils. Can the Minister give the House an undertaking that non-selective schools will get the resources they need to cope with that concentration of less able children? Those children, too, are entitled to an education which will give them a reasonable chance in life.
I turn next to behaviour and discipline. The good behaviour and discipline statement is an admirable idea, though it is in need of one or two improvements. In my view, it is absolutely essential that pupils and staff—pupils in particular—must participate in the formulation of that policy. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to which I believe the noble Lord referred, strongly recommended such participation. It is important because young people then have the feeling of ownership of the

77
policy and it addresses their real needs. There is need for a clear statement of objectives in the policy statement and it must include the legitimate interests of children as well as adults; for example, protection from bullying.
I move on now to sanctions for unacceptable behaviour. In that context I should like to try to distinguish between the two categories of pupils to whom sanctions are particularly applicable. There are those pupils who misbehave, and do so probably regularly, because they have emotional difficulties or because they have an unidentified learning difficulty. Indeed we heard this evening—and I have seen the figure before—that that could amount to as much as 18 per cent. of those who regularly misbehave in school. The other category covers pupils who misbehave simply because they are naughty. They do not have any particular problems but they are tempted; they are naughty; or they are "trying it on". Those two categories of young people need different responses.
Some experts on the sentimental end of the spectrum said in a meeting which I attended recently about this Bill that there was no need for punishment and no need for any kind of sanctions. That is nonsense. All children and, indeed, all of us sometimes overstep the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour. In that context, I am going to stick my neck out. I will stand any noble Lord a drink in the Bishops' Bar after tonight's debate if he can honestly stand up and say to me that, if there were no penalties for doing so, he would never leave his car on a parking meter over and above the time paid for.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Northbourne: I do not see any takers in the Chamber. So it must be accepted that teachers must not be left entirely without sanctions.
Corporal punishment has rightly been excluded. But I want to say that I believe that exclusion is a lousy sanction; it is a very bad sanction indeed. It is damaging to the child because it interrupts his or her education; it puts the child at risk on the streets; and it is ineffective because it is, in effect, legalised truanting. The suggestion that the exclusion period should be extended by 45 days in any one year is, I believe, a very grave mistake. Structures should have ensured that damaged and emotionally disturbed children and those with special educational needs were picked up much earlier in their school careers. Indeed, they should have been picked up in the primary schools.
Clause 28 designates a twice excluded child as a "disqualified person". That would be a disaster for children and those words must be struck out of the Bill. In my view—and, indeed, that of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—those children should never have been allowed to get that far. The fault lies with the adults concerned. Those children who are emotionally disturbed and those with special educational needs should have been identified at primary school level.
I say to the Government, finally, that it would pay much better to provide resources to achieve the identification of those pupils and give them the help
78
they need while they are still at primary school than to have to provide very expensive special education for them when things have gone badly wrong in secondary school.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I should like to begin by picking up the gist of comments of a number of my noble friends. I had supposed that Mr. Blunkett's pronouncements last week signified that the policy gonks from Walworth Road had undergone a sudden conversion. However, thanks to the honesty of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the elucidation from my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, I see that the instincts of the more cynical side in my nature—that the focus groups at Millbank Tower had revealed some advantage in muddying the water a little—are likely to be a little more reliable.
Having got that off my chest, perhaps I may turn to the Bill. Notwithstanding the putative risks of salmonella advanced by noble Lords opposite, I am broadly content with the Bill in all its parts. I recognise that eggs are a dangerous subject in a political sense but I would even go as far as to say that this particular egg is entirely fit to eat. The basis for my reaching that conclusion stems from my firm belief that the role of parents in the upbringing and education of their children is exceptionally important.
My impression is that there is general agreement about this across the political divide, and, as an aside here, I wonder to what extent the American research highlighted in last week's "Panorama" programme, demonstrating the significance of a mother's role in determining the behaviour and academic performance of her children, especially her sons, may in due course impact upon the development of education policy.
This general precept of the importance of proactive parental involvement in their children's schooling has to be juxtaposed, in policy terms, with the part to be played by the education process with respect to preparing children for adult life. Here, I suspect, I echo some of the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and my noble friend Lady Young. As a parent of school-age children, I sometimes despair at the capacity of our education system to appreciate this. Indeed, at the height of the troubles at the Ridings School, I was quite frankly appalled by some of the bland pronouncements that were bandied about, seemingly implying that schools are not and should not be guardians of their charges' morality.
Above all else, education is concerned with people—real parents and children, with their attendant hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future. With that in mind, it is nonsense to suppose that time spent at school should simply be a matter of acquiring knowledge within the framework of the curriculum. The ethos of a school, pastoral care and the learning of lessons for life are in many respects even more important in so far as they equip our children for adulthood and living usefully within society. In reality, it is the interaction of these elements, together with the purely academic, within the upbringing of our children that makes the individual

79
achievement of our hopes, dreams and aspirations possible. It is just as much nonsense to presume that parents, in sending their children to school, base their judgment on academic criteria alone. Again, the ethos of a school and the ways in which it reflects the values and beliefs of the parent concerned are an equally critical factor.
Accordingly, my judgment of the Bill hinges upon the capacity of its provisions to add impetus to the process of empowering parental involvement in the education of their children, which has been such a significant feature of the Government's previous reforms in this area. I turn, first, to the dread subject of selection. I accept that the evidence as to its merits or otherwise remains inconclusive, although many noble Lords have expressed their support for it within rather than between schools. The observation from Christopher Woodhead that,
"In secondary schools setting by ability, particularly in Years 8 and 9, is leading to more effective teaching and therefore to higher standards",
is of mild relevance here. That said, there is a dichotomy—one that I suspect I share with the noble Lord, Lord Morris—of how best to achieve the aim of driving up standards (no one would dispute the desirability of that) and maintaining choice and diversity without compromising principles of universality and equality of provision.
If I were to analyse the Bill's proposals with respect to selection in an historical vacuum, I could well be drawn towards the reasoning of noble Lords opposite. However, they do not exist in a vacuum. They are underpinned by the Government's previous reforms—league tables and so on—by Ofsted's watch-dog role and by the voluntary nature of the proposals. These mechanisms provide safeguards with respect to the maintenance and improvement of standards among all our schools and the protection and enhancement of parental choice. It seems to me that they go some way towards addressing the concerns of various noble Lords with respect to "sink" schools.
There are more compelling reasons for supporting the Government here. Common sense suggests that disaffection, in an educational sense, is a function of comfort. Any child who is not stretched or engaged by his or her schooling is much less likely to benefit from it than the child who is constantly stimulated by the process. This view is endorsed by Christopher Woodhead who states:
"The classrooms where children make most progress are those where teachers have high expectations of all pupils and where the bulk of the lesson is taken up by the teacher explaining, questioning, pushing back the frontiers of the children's knowledge".
As a principle, selection accedes to the concept of the child as an individual in ways that the comprehensive system is hard pushed so to do. In our modern age there exists a detectable sense in which our children are growing up very much faster and earlier than was the case, say, in my youth. They are perhaps being required to take on the burdens and responsibilities of adulthood at a much younger age. That being so, selection has the advantage of affording schools a mechanism that lends
80
credibility to a child's sense of individuality and independence. This is equally important for parents in so far as it encourages their engagement in the education of their children.
For many of the same reasons, I am supportive of the Bill's provisions with respect to baseline assessment and target setting. The usefulness of these measures lies in their capacity to identify the differences in the abilities and aptitudes of children as a means of planning their future education on an individual basis. The key word here is "difference". What is important above all else is that our education system should recognise the individuality of our children and the individuality of their talents. I am grateful for the confirmation of my noble friend the Minister that this is the intent of the Bill's provisions here.
Finally, I turn to the Bill's provisions with respect to discipline in our schools. There exists a widespread concern that problem behaviour in our children is on the increase. Although it is difficult to quantify this, the circumstantial evidence of recent events would seem to favour such an interpretation.
In this context we should not lose sight of the fact that the causes of ill-discipline and problem behaviour are exceedingly complex, involving a wide range of influences, from the environmental (to include parenting skills and school ethos) through to the neuro-biological. As the recently released POST technical note entitled Treating Problem Behaviour in Children states,
"While there is broad agreement on this long list of contributory factors, there is much scope for debate over their relative importance".
However, there is a growing body of evidence, as exemplified by the American research to which I have already referred, that the role of parents in this area is absolutely critical. In this regard, the POST note further states:
"Home Office studies emphasise the importance of family relationships, parental interest, consistency of discipline, etc. to the behaviour of the children and that deficiencies in these areas predispose towards behavioural problems, delinquency and ultimately crime".
On this basis there is considerable merit in education policy seeking to establish greater levels of partnership between parents and schools in the upbringing of children. I concur with the views of my noble friend Lady Perry here. My interpretation is that the Government's proposals, particularly with respect to the imposition of the duty upon schools to draw up discipline policies and the establishment of home-school agreements, will do much to generate and cement such partnerships.
All in all, the Government's proposals in this Bill are a further step on the road towards establishing a much more parent centred system of education. They add impetus to the principles of enhancing choice and diversity—as in the measures for selection and grant-maintained and grammar schools—at the same time as ensuring that the drive to raise standards yet further (via baseline assessment, the setting of targets and the empowerment of Ofsted to inspect LEAs) will be facilitated. All of these are welcome developments and I am entirely happy to support them.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in preparing for this Bill I was not certain whether I was to start the proceedings on behalf of these Benches or end them. I therefore started by asking myself what was not in the Bill. It is interesting to note that a number of other noble Lords have started from the same premise and many of us have reached the same conclusion.
A notable exclusion is any reference to the introduction of a general teaching council, which I should have thought was one of the most obvious measures that the Government could support in order to raise the professional standards of teachers. Many noble Lords have emphasised the important role of the teacher in the classroom as the front end of the education system. I am amazed that that provision is not included in the Bill. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to take this on board, given remarks made recently by other education Ministers.
Also absent from the Bill is any real provision for dealing with some of the disorganising influences which will be let loose. My noble friend referred to the difficulties of local authorities as regards planning school places. That point was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cordoff.
Noble Lords: Cartvale!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I cannot read my writing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is said with a Scottish accent!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I do not mind her Scottish accent; it is charming.
I refer to the 50 per cent. enlargement possibility mentioned in the Bill. However, there is another problem here; namely, the interaction of changes in entry qualification and school size with the budgetary process. Can the Minister indicate an annual date in any budget year by which changes for the following school year have to be notified to the relevant authorities? If there is no date, I do not see how local education authorities will manage their budgetary processes.
As regards the more general matters in the Bill, we have had some interesting discussion about choice of schools as against the power of choice by schools. It is my understanding that the Government have admitted that parental choice is overridden by the abilities of schools to select pupils for their academic ability. I do not think there is any reason for us to discuss this matter further as it is set down in the Bill. However, many of us feel that is a dangerous element in the Bill and we shall no doubt wish to make that clear in seeking to amend various parts of the Bill.
I and other noble Lords were concerned about the provision as regards selection and primary schools. That seems to me to be absolutely contrary to the valuable ethos which has been built up by primary schools; namely, they are the basic local schools where children
82
from all social backgrounds and levels of income come together simply because they live in the same area. I admit that may not be the case in the more difficult and dangerous parts of our inner cities. However, that is no reason to set about destroying those schools in the many parts of this country where they achieve exactly the purpose I have referred to.
Who takes the decisions about changes in schools? It is interesting that Mark Carlisle, Secretary of State for Education, said in 1979:
"It is our belief that local education authorities and local people—not central Government—are best placed to determine the most suitable form of secondary school organisation in their area".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/79; cols. 1120 to 21.]
That was quoted in the House of Commons briefing on this Bill. I do not think that any noble Lords on this side of the Chamber would quarrel with that. When choice over change is given to parents whose children are currently at a given school, the alteration in school characteristic becomes most dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made that point neatly. I shall not emphasise it further.
Some interesting remarks were made—there were not as many as I had hoped for—about the general nature of education. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon raised the point. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, mourned the decline of community schools and referred to their value as educational institutions. On the whole, perhaps noble Lords felt defeated by the detail of the Bill, finding it difficult to relate that to the broad requirements of education. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was an exception.
I turn to the clauses which caused the most argument—and most amusing and knockabout argument it was, too. My noble friend Lord Tope expressed fluently our views on the principles of selection. I do not need to repeat them. I am not sure that I join with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on the salmonella part of the curate's egg. The noble Lord expressed himself with his usual panache and fluency. No doubt the points will be made again by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton.
However, we had a spirited argument about comprehensive versus selective schools. Many noble Lords who defended the Bill in this argument defeated their own objective. They referred to the fact that the situation was not good when we had grammar schools; we then changed the organisation and it was still not very good; so we propose to change the organisation again. No doubt many noble Lords are familiar with the well known words written by Petronius more than 2000 years ago about reorganisation. He said that reorganisation can be a wonderful method for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation. That is the argument which many hold against the series of Bills since 1979 which have sought to change our educational process. We are not sure whether there were 21, 19 or 18, but there have been too many.
I apply that response to the amusing suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that all noble Lords sitting on this Bench are dinosaurs. I cannot see what good there can be in returning to some previous situation

83
because one is not happy with the current position. Perhaps I may take this opportunity on behalf of the education authority with which I am associated, and most other education authorities with which I am familiar, to deny categorically that there has been any unfair participation of education authorities and their officers in the election processes which have or have not determined movement from local education authority to grant-maintained schools. I believe that it was a most unwise comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I hope that she did not mean it in quite the way it sounded. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what she said. It seemed an uncharacteristically disagreeable comment.
Rather than changing constantly from one organisational mode to another, I believe that we should concentrate on what is wrong with our educational process today and direct our efforts towards ensuring that some of those wrongs are put right in the classrooms. Noble Lords from all Benches have made a number of suggestions. I agree that the main problem that we face today is under-achievement by those of average and below average ability. I add only one point. We are storing up real problems through the comparative lack of success of boys in our schools. I cannot think of anything more dangerous than to leave large numbers of young men with insufficient educational attainment at the age of 16 or 18. That is dangerous for society and for them. We should ask ourselves why that is occurring and spread good practice to ensure that such under-attainment ceases.
I could continue, but I shall not; I have spoken at reasonable length. A number of interesting points were made. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady David, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and others suggested that we shall have a considerable number of amendments to the Bill. I began to be thankful that three days have been set aside for Committee stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is four days.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, four might be better or worse, according to one's point of view; five would be over-egging the pudding.
My noble friend Lord Tope said that we had some reservations about the section of the Bill on discipline. We shall return to them later. Almost everyone agreed that the words "disqualified person" attached to school children are utterly unacceptable. I hope that the Government will respond today by indicating a willingness to consider a better phrase. To describe someone of seven, 12 or 15 as "disqualified" seems terrible. We seek to encourage young people to be good citizens, not to consider themselves as disqualified before they even reach adult life.
On home-school contracts, real doubts must be expressed as to whether or not they will be used as part of the admission process. We believe that those contracts should be part of activity in school after children have been admitted. In that context, I find it difficult to understand what is meant by parent-centred
84
education. I am not sure that education should be centred firmly on a specific aspect of the general partnership which surrounds education. I have no doubt that education is for pupils and not for parents.
The baseline assessment provision has been widely welcomed. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, drew attention again to the danger of the assessments becoming yet another qualification or reason for refusing applicants to a school.
Finally, I cannot bear to use the acronym for the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority. Someone will have to consider how to improve it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to it most delicately. He suggested that we should solve the problem by broadening the remit of the new authority to cover the whole of the school's curriculum. That might be a good way round the problem. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, we hope to improve the Bill.
8 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of a local education authority. The debate has been very wide-ranging and informative. The Bill is one of the major measures of the last Session of this Parliament. Like many other speakers, I shall also refer to the various parts of the Bill.
The Bill's stated intentions are: to provide greater power to extend the selection of pupils by schools and the specialisation of schools in terms of subjects; to allow the funding agency for schools to create more grant-maintained schools; to extend the assisted places scheme to children of primary age; and to change the framework of school discipline.
The Minister intimated that the Government intend to seek to restore Clause 3 at the next stage. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will forgive me if I ask at this stage whether a similar Labour ambush can be arranged in this House. My understanding is that the Conservative Whip on the Committee was locked out, and then failed to count correctly when it came to a vote. I therefore ask whether it is possible to have similar co-operation from the Government in order to ambush the defeated Clause 3 when they seek to reintroduce it.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris referred in detail to many parts of the Bill which, it is agreed, need close scrutiny. My calculation is that there have been 18 new education Acts since 1979; and, as previous speakers remarked, this Bill includes amendments to the Education Act 1996.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, accused the Opposition Benches of being negative. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that the Government, too, have changed their policy on many occasions, in some cases in line with points raised during the passage of the initial legislation. I refer for instance to the matter of the national curriculum, when the Government had to climb down, having wasted public money and having caused stress and distress to teachers and pupils alike in our

85
schools. On those areas of the Bill where there is agreement, we shall table a range of amendments to secure the best possible success.
Many speakers raised concerns and questions regarding selection and the rejection o pupils because of their lack of ability or aptitude. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede raised an important point about parental attitude to education to which I shall return later. This area also caused concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose knowledge and background in education will contribute greatly to our debates at later stages of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, posed a question as to why there were so few girls' schools to meet parental demand. In my experience, parents of daughters are happy for them to be educated apart from boys more frequently than the parents of boys wish their sons to be educated apart from girls. That produces a problem for those who have to provide education. We cannot force girls to be educated with boys at all times; however, their leavening influence is to be desired by those who, like myself, produce only boy children.
The changes proposed and the issues raised were stressed very clearly by my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. She made an extremely important contribution relating to the way in which schools are perceived by very many parents.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to the large number of church schools in this country and the large number of pupils educated in those schools. It is extremely important that during the Bill's passage something is done to tackle the lack of proper control or consultation that will emerge as a result of the proposals in the Bill as it stands unamended, and were the Government successfully to reintroduce the defeated Clause 3.
Many speakers referred to the report of the Audit Commission and the devastating effect of what has happened. No organisation concerned with the education of our children can fail to share the concern of the National Association of Head Teachers that the sort of proposals placed before us by the Government will lead to gridlock. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale said in referring to parents, siblings with special needs need to have access to schools; siblings with special needs need resourcing. How can we justify wasting public money on a system that would increase the problem already referred to by the Audit Commission? Perhaps the commission should do a survey on effectiveness, efficiency and economy resulting from the Government's policies and proposals in the Bill.
The changes will affect all schools; and all schools will suffer if finances are made available to allow schools to extend their premises and catchment area, and, worst of all, if advisory funding is extended to additional schools in a locality. How can it be fair, in an area where parents are already complaining and struggling in relation to the level of resourcing for schools, to allow, without adequate consultation and without heed to the effects on adjacent schools, an
86
increase in assisted places at the cost of existing schools? That cannot be a sensible use of public resources.
The extension of the assisted places scheme to primary school children is proposed as against reducing class sizes for half a million other children over a period of years. As my noble friend Lady David said, those excluded pupils referred to in later clauses include large numbers of children—by Ofsted's calculation some 75 per cent.—who have unmet special needs.
Turning to resources and the result of the proposals before us, it is extremely important to examine whether those resources should be spent on ensuring special needs measures. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the importance of tackling problems before they become too great. It is very important that those resources are spent on primary school children and are not dissipated as a result of a government whim to mess up the planning system for schools, affecting 90 per cent. of parents and children in this country.
In seeking to examine the whole issue of pupil exclusion, perhaps the Minister will tell us, at a later stage if he does not have the information to hand, whether any links between family poverty and low levels of achievement in our schools have been detected as a result of HMI or Ofsted work. Has any work been done on the correlation between the number of free school meals and levels of attainment by our pupils? Perhaps we could be given full details.
University entrance figures show that the system is successful. Many speakers referred to the increased number of pupils leaving the comprehensive system, as well as the grammar school and independent systems, who go into higher education. When he replies, will the Minister tell us whether the press reports are correct that the Government's answer to their failure to create a climate of high quality, highly paid, highly skilled job opportunities for graduate leavers is to reduce the number of graduates rather than to carry out the policy which is their responsibility? They have the responsibility to increase the number of job opportunities at that level for graduates.
I ask that because during the debate I have been concerned that some speakers have implied that there is a small amount of butter to be spread either generously for a few or widely and too thinly for the many. From these Benches, we reject that approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made an important point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about the importance of a general teaching council. My noble friends Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Monkswell referred to the need for the overwhelming number of our children to be given good, high quality education. Fragmentation will not achieve that objective. Parents of statemented pupils will have a choice if there is fragmentation and greater selection in the education system: the parents of statemented pupils will have a back-up guarantee. But what about the 18 per cent. of pupils who the Government know have special educational needs? Most, if not all of them, achieve low levels of attainment when measured by selection procedures. Are we really going back to a

87
situation where a family which has regard for its neighbourhood and community and has three children whom it wishes to see educated in the same local schools will no longer be able to do so?
This has been a very sad debate in some ways because it has failed to tackle the reality of the lives of 90 per cent. of parents in the community. They are not concerned about increasing choice, they are concerned that, if money is available, we should not have a situation where people who are not democratically accountable to anyone can, without regard to the needs of the adjacent area, waste scarce capital resources on building schools that are not needed while schools that are used, loved and valued by parents are crumbling from lack of capital investment. That is the kind of issue with which we cannot deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, cheered me up because he reminded me of someone for whom I had enormous respect, although I never shared his views on monetarist economic policy. That is the late Lord Joseph. I remember working with him when I represented the ACC on education matters. I discussed with him many of the proposals that went through. I remind your Lordships that Lord Joseph was an extremely interesting speaker on the subject of education. He would have differed from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and would have shared the views of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. They are that the starting point of education is to motivate and attract the attention of the children whom you seek to educate. Yes, you can teach children to learn numbers by rote. It is possible, it is even essential as part of the learning process and the skills they acquire. But education goes beyond that to self-motivation and self-understanding. I recollect that—
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and for her comparison with Lord Joseph, which I regard as an honour. However, I did not talk about rote learning.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise if I confused the noble Lord's speech with that of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is difficult to read my writing at this stage. However, I intended offence to neither in making that statement. The comment stands, I do not have time to repeat it but I now attribute the remark to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
Lord Joseph was of the opinion that the first call on resources ought to be for children who under-achieve and those for whom much needs to be done. From these Benches, our view is that a great deal needs to be done. Some of it will be achieved by co-operation on the second part of the Bill. The first part will neither tackle the problem nor solve it but will make the system anarchic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to a sort of dying situation. I believe that was her phrase. I take the view that this last gesture towards anarchy and market forces is something that we hope the
88
Government will never see on the statute book. If we were to see it, like so much of the Government's legislation over the years, it would have to be rectified.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to an article which I suspect was in the Guardian. It claimed that the Government proposed to cut the number of students in higher education. I wish to make a brief recommendation to the noble Baroness. I do not often read the Guardian and I suggest she tries another paper. When I do read it, I am always amazed by what I find in it. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that there is no truth in the allegation. It comes from a complete and utter misreading of the evidence which the Government put forward to the Dearing committee. That evidence is publicly available and the noble Baroness can look at it as and when she wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, posed me a challenge at the end of his fine speech when he mentioned a verse from The Revelation. I was grateful for the presence of my noble friend Lord Elton immediately behind me, who informed me of the content of the verse. If I have got it right, I understand that my response must be to "spew you out of my mouth".
I look forward to the Committee and later stages of the Bill. There is a great deal of discussion that we can have and moments when there will be considerable agreement in the House. It is important that the House should perform its revising function well and properly when we reach those stages. I look forward to the detailed grammatical discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and others. I shall greatly enjoy listening to his drafting skills.
By way of introduction, I wish to say that I note the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and others raised and what they said about disqualified persons. I also note the comments from the noble Baroness that the provision was likely to have been drafted by a lawyer. She is probably right; most Bills are drafted by lawyers. I speak as one, but not one who could ever draft a Bill. I wish to give one brief assurance to the noble Baroness that I note her concerns and those of others. We shall examine the wording, without getting away from the principle of the clause, to see whether between now and the Committee stage or between the Committee and Report stages we can bring forward something slightly better.
In opening, I wish briefly to check the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about lack of funding. I find it quite extraordinary that when he and the rest of his party are trying to establish their credentials for fiscal rectitude, they should complain that there is a lack of funding and say that, should they be in government, they would provide more. Let me make it quite clear that we have increased spending by up to 50 per cent. per pupil in real terms since we came to power in 1979. The party opposite cannot claim that it could increase

89
funding, as I think the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition has done, by taking money away from the social security budget.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I just hope for the sake of my political reputation that he will agree that at no point in my speech did I make any spending commitment.
Lord Henley: It is not for me to defend the political reputation of the noble Lord. He might not have made any demands for further public spending but he did talk about a lack of funding and lack of resources. I shall look at his precise words in the Official Report. If there were a lack of resources and the party of which he is a member happened to be in government, and if he admitted that there was a lack of funding, surely he would do something about that funding. His right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place has said that yes, they would take money from the social security budget. I should just like to ask how they will do that and why they have opposed every single attempt that we have made over the years to make reductions in the social security budget. I should like to know just how they will manage.
I also make the point that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector made it quite clear that there is no relationship between funding and how well schools do. He made that quite clear in his report. There are schools with quite different levels of spending and LEAs with different levels of spending. Some are doing well and some are doing badly.
In passing, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with regard Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's report that I was rather saddened by what the noble Lord said. I recommend him to have a look at that report. He will note that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in fact goes out of his way to praise those schools that have done well and those that are improving. He lists them by name. Last year we held a number of receptions to praise and thank those schools. I recommend the noble Lord to look at the report, if he has not already done so. I shall make sure that he receives a copy and will personally send him one. The reporting of that report is a matter for the press. Sadly, it will always concentrate on the more lurid aspects rather than point to the successes.
In the brief time available to me, I should like to address a number of questions. I dare say I shall not manage to address them all in the course of this evening. But, as always, I shall write, where appropriate, to noble Lords and try to deal with some of their concerns before we reach Committee stage.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon raised a number of concerns about the provisions in the Bill to extend selection and other measures such as adding sixth-form schools. He asked whether they should apply equally to voluntary schools as well as grant-maintained schools. I was interested in his proposal that voluntary schools should be given the same deregulatory freedom as grant-maintained schools to change their character. But I was not sure whether the right reverend Prelate's colleagues in the Catholic Church shared his views on
90
that. It would be helpful to know just how far a proposal of that sort would have general agreement. Certainly I hope that between now and Committee stage we can come back to it.
Similarly, on the question of whether Church secondary schools would have to consult the diocese, I can give the assurance that Church schools will be expected to consult their diocese before making use of their new powers on selection or on a change of character. That will certainly be specified in guidance. But it would cut across a fundamental principle of the Bill as it stands if schools were required to obtain the consent of the diocese itself.
The right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords also mentioned their concerns about the new successor body to SCAA and NCVQ which at the moment it is proposed to call the QNCA. I gather that there was broadly a general welcome for the concept of bringing together the two bodies. That is very much in the spirit of the merger of the Department for Education and Employment, a merger which has gone very well and one that we should like to see extended.
With regard to the name itself, I quite understand that some people, for one reason or another, are worried about the acronym and how it might be pronounced. The right reverend Prelate quite rightly had other concerns of a more serious nature about its naming. I am prepared to look again at that when we come back to the matter at a later stage.
Perhaps I may just correct one noble Lord who spoke about Dr. Nicholas Tate having been appointed as chairman. He has been appointed now as chief executive designate of the new authority. We shall shortly announce the appointment of a chairman and we are looking very hard to make sure that we have exactly the right kind of chairman who will command respect from both the world of education and the world of work. I can also give an assurance to noble Lords opposite that we have kept their colleagues in another place fully informed about the selection process. In no way will they be seen as political appointments.
I understand that there are a number of concerns over the size and possible representation of the new body. My concerns and those of the department are so far as possible to keep it relatively small and relatively strategic and not to have it take up representatives of specific interests. As soon as one starts to produce a list of all the specific interests, one quickly finds that the body becomes far too large and unwieldy. Again, we can address that matter at later stages. But our desire is to keep it small and we hope that others can be co-opted on to specific committees for that particular body.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, first raised the question of whether the Bill should include a general teaching council. Again, that issue was echoed by many other noble Lords, one of whom was, I understand, my noble friend Lord Beloff, from my own side. We should be happy to see teachers coming together to share examples of good practice and to promote positive images of the profession. But I must make clear that we would not wish to create a statutory body until there is a very clear view of the precise role that it should play

91
and how its membership should be determined. I am not sure that that can be done in the space of the Bill. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to come back to this matter at later stages, as I said. It is perhaps a matter for later discussion.
My noble friend Lady Young raised a number of questions about the extent of the use of physical force and how far parents could go in terms of breaking up fights. Again, that is a detailed point to which I should like to return at a later stage. Clause 21 was added to the Bill in another place and provides clarification of the teachers' proper powers of restraint in that area.
My noble friend also had a number of concerns about assisted places at the British independent schools in Europe and the European schools. These are interesting proposals and it will be interesting to extend the assisted places scheme to give British citizens resident in the EU our support with those at some of those schools. Again, however, there are a number of issues which need to be addressed before we could proceed with such a scheme. In addition to the very great cost which it might have, there are obviously also difficult technical and legal issues, particularly when dealing with the circumstances of residents from so many other countries.
I should now like to say a few words about home-school contracts. I believe that point was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but it might have been mentioned earlier. Again, other noble Lords have concerns about the issue. Let me make it clear that the Bill leaves the details of the home-school partnership documents to the admissions authorities themselves, the LEAs or others which adopt them. Such authorities will be required, first, to consult and, secondly, to have regard to guidance that comes from my right honourable friend. I can assure the noble Lord that the guidance will contain advice on including a clear statement of the school's own responsibilities and on consultation with parents.
I can also make it quite clear, in terms of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about parents suing for breach of the home-school contract, that the Bill provides—in what I understand is Section 413B, subsection (6) inserted by Clause 30 (which I think must be last year's Bill, the Consolidation Act)—that home-school partnership documents cannot be used as a basis for legal action by the schools or parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, outlined his anxieties in relation to the FE sector and said that he would be tabling an amendment. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of that fact. I do not wish to comment in detail at this stage, particularly since his proposal is analogous to one of the recommendations of the FEFC's learning difficulties and disabilities committee—the Tomlinson Committee. The recommendations of that committee, including one that the FEFC should take a wider view of progression within the wording of Schedule 2 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have now gone out for public consultation. In those circumstances, further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-emptive.
92
The noble Baroness, Lady David, voiced a number of anxieties in relation to Parts IV and V, particularly in regard to the Children's Consortium. She is right when she says that the concerns of the Children's Consortium have so far been relatively little discussed. That is not surprising as the consortium only raised those concerns with my department in the past month; that is, as the Bill was leaving the Commons. It has an eloquent advocate in the noble Baroness. I am sure that she will bring forward further detailed discussions on those matters in Committee.
I turn to the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he referred to specialist and selective schools. I suspect that there was a degree of misunderstanding by the noble Lord as to what they are. Specialist or selective schools can be different animals. A specialist school is one that has been so designated by the Secretary of State. It is one that will specialise, currently, in up to two—though two more are being added—different areas. First, technology, science and mathematics are specialised in at technology colleges; secondly, modern languages; and to come into existence will be arts colleges specialising in fine arts, performing arts or media arts and sports colleges, but not for one specific sport, so a student could not simply specialise in, say, football. They are secondary schools following the national curriculum but specialising in their own speciality. As specialist schools, if they wish—they do not have to—they will be able to select up to 30 per cent. of their pupils without central approval. They can select on the basis of aptitude in those specialisms or on the basis of more general skills or talents.
I turn now to what might be termed the meat of the Bill; it certainly took up most of the time in another place and has received a great deal of comment in this House. I suspect that it will also take up a bit of time in Committee. I refer to Clauses 1 to 18 or what were originally Clauses 1 to 19. They deal with extending choice, extending deregulation and developing grant-maintained programmes.
Originally I felt that there was considerable clear blue water between ourselves and the party opposite. Its hatred of any degree of choice or selection seemed clear in the statement made 18 months ago by the noble Lord's honourable friend Mr. Blunkett—"Watch my lips", we were told memorably. "Watch my lips. No selection by examination or interview." Since then we have seen a number of changes. We saw the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Blair and his honourable friend Mrs. Harman sending their children to grant-maintained schools, to selective schools. And we have seen in Islington itself—I can pass this figure on to my noble friend Lord Beloff—that some 43 per cent. of the parents, not "barely a third", take their children to schools other than those in Islington.
I felt that possibly we had arrived at the position where the Labour Party was changing. But listening to noble Lords opposite we find that that is not the case; they are not in favour of any degree of choice or selection despite the fact that Mr. Blunkett said only the other day, in relation to grammar schools, that there was no threat to their continuance, their ethos or their quality. I dare say the fact that there is a by-election in

93
The Wirral where there are six selective schools in the constituency may have affected his wording. I am grateful that noble Lords opposite have now made it clear that they still believe in his original remarks: "Watch my lips. Watch my lips. No selection by examination or interview". I imagine that more recent comments did not go down particularly well. We heard Mr. Graham Lane making it clear that he envisages, if Labour takes power, closing down every single selective school by the year 2000. We know therefore the views of the party opposite.
The noble Lord accused us of only being interested in school structure; he seemed to suggest that we had no interest in other matters. We believe school structure to be important and that is why we have done so much to get it right and are doing yet more. This Bill is not designed. as noble Lords implied, to bring back the old grammar school/secondary modern divide. As my noble friend Lady Perry made clear, we are not trying to force schools to go selective. We are trying to create a whole range of different structures. Some schools may want more selection; some may not; and some may wish to stay as they are. Therefore let us have some schools going selective, some going partially selective and some going grant-maintained either as comprehensives or selective schools.
The noble Lord said nothing in relation to the plans of the Labour Party for grant-maintained schools. I say to grant-maintained schools as a whole that if they listen carefully to what the Labour Party plans to do to grant-maintained schools it will make their flesh creep. I remind the noble Lord of what I understand the Labour Party is planning to do by way of taking away their freedoms—two LEA governors on the board and funding by the LEAs themselves—but allowing them to continue to call themselves something like a "foundation school".
Going back to the rich variety that we wish to see, let some schools remain comprehensive if they wish; let some remain grant-maintained comprehensives or LEA comprehensives; let some specialise. Again, we heard nothing from the noble Lord opposite about specialist schools. I have heard occasionally that the Labour Party supports specialist schools, but with the idea of selection coming into selective schools, I would be interested to know what degree of selection would be allowed to operate within a school's particular speciality.
All of us as parents know that children possess different talents and needs. That is why we want variety and choice in schools. There are many parents who want selection and that is why there are so many applicants to existing grammar schools. The simple point is that we want to allow schools to respond to what parents want; we are not suggesting compulsion.
My noble friend Lady Young made an interesting point about the effect of selection in Northern Ireland. We heard interesting comments from other noble Lords about the lack of selection throughout Europe, most of which has been proved conclusively not to be the case. There is selection in places like Germany in a system that is much admired by many in this country. On the subject of selection in Northern Ireland, one interesting
94
piece of evidence in relation to the impact of selection comes from that area. There the system of grammar schools and selection still obtains. In 1996 52 per cent. of 15 year-olds in Northern Ireland gained five good GCSEs compared with 43 per cent. of pupils in England. That seems to indicate that everyone benefits from a degree of selection, not only the elite.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way; I have been challenged three times on this point. I do not claim to be a world expert on international education but my firm information is that the majority of the large western European nations—Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and France, together with the USA and Japan—base their education systems on the comprehensive intake system.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Earl does not profess to be a world expert on these matters, I suspect it would be better if he refrained from making comments such as "every other country has a comprehensive system", as he seemed to imply. It is clear that Germany does not; that France does not. My noble friend made that quite clear.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I happen to know a little about this. The position in France is comprehensive until 16 and then selective after 16. In Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium it is the old tripartite system from 11 or 13. Italy is somewhat the same as France, and Spain is more varied. But it is not a comprehensive system. The French system has certain peculiarities in that the less able are siphoned off at 14.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for adding his world expertise to assist mine.
We have seen a great many changes in education during the past 18 years. We are not ashamed of our record of the number of Bills we have brought before this House and another place. We have done a great deal to increase choice and diversity, to involve parents and to raise standards. The noble Lord, Lord Moms, said that the Bill does nothing to raise standards. But what about all the things we have done? What about the structural changes we have made, with grant-maintained schools, LMS and specialist schools? What about the national curriculum? What about the performance tables? What about testing, regular assessment and inspection—the vast comprehensive framework that we now have in place? That has done a very great deal and virtually all of it—virtually every single Bill that came before this House and another place to bring in those measures—was opposed by the party opposite. This Bill will yet further extend choice and diversity for parents—
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister must be used to me challenging him on this matter. I was here before him and went through a great many—not quite as many as the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of those Bills. The Labour Party did not oppose everything that was put forward. It accepted some things—LMS and the national curriculum but not the prescriptive variety that

95
was proposed. What happened later? The Government went back on the curriculum. They made it more flexible. They also went back on some of the testing. I hope the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not continue to make that charge because it is quite untrue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall argue another day about whether the noble Baroness has been here longer than I have. I am not sure whether that is the case. However, the simple fact is that the vast majority of the reforms we have made—the important structural reforms—have been opposed by the party opposite.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I referred to the late Lord Joseph. Will the Minister confirm that Lord Joseph opposed and criticised the Government's proposals for the prescriptive national curriculum in exactly the same way as noble Lords on the Opposition Benches did; that both the late Lord Joseph and those on the Opposition Benches were found to be right; and that the Government, at great public expense, changed back in line with the criticism that was made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness will frequently find that there are those on her Back Benches who do not necessarily agree with everything her party says. That happens very frequently. What Lord Joseph might or might not have thought is another matter. The point I was trying to get over is that we have brought in a large number of reforms. We have a comprehensive framework in place to raise standards, improve quality and provide a good service for parents and pupils. The vast majority of those reforms were opposed by the party opposite.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not take any more interventions. I have been speaking for 26 minutes and I see that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip would like to go home to bed.
This Bill will yet further extend choice and diversity for parents. It will yet further raise standards and improve discipline in schools. It will further promote diversity between schools and thus increase choice by encouraging pupil selection, giving grant-maintained schools more power to develop their identities without central imposition. As I said, the Bill will do much to raise standards and improve discipline. I certainly expect a very lively Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sundays (Dancing and Licensing) Bill [H.L.]
8.44 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Permitted hours in premises used to provide entertainment on Sundays]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("force),") to end of line 3 and insert ("after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the permitted hours on Sundays in any premises or part of premises to which this section applies shall extend until thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday, except that—

(a) the permitted hours shall end at midnight on any Sunday on which music and dancing is not or, in the case of casino premises, gaming facilities are not provided after midnight;

(b) on any Sunday that music and dancing end or, in the case of casino premises, gaming ends between midnight and thirty minutes past midnight, the permitted hours shall end when the music and dancing end or, as the case may be, when the gaming ends; and

(c) in any premises or part for which a certificate is in force subject to a limitation imposed in relation to Sundays in pursuance of section 78A or 81A of this Act, the permitted hours shall not extend beyond the time specified in the certificate.

(3B) In relation to any Sunday which falls immediately before a day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, other than Easter Sunday, subsection (3A) of this section shall have effect—

(a) in the case of premises which are situated as mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, with the substitution for the references to thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday of references to three o'clock in the morning following, and

(b) in the case of any other premises, with the substitution for the references to thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday of references to two o'clock in the morning following."").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to the other amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I reflected very carefully on what was said during the Committee stage about protection for residents, and the series of amendments tabled in my name offers three complementary ways of tackling the problems raised. Concerns were expressed by a number of your Lordships about the difficulty for people who live near licensed premises and who want to object to the grant of a licence. It was said that it was very hard for people to persuade licensing authorities that the premises in question could be the cause of disorder or nuisance. Added to that basic difficulty was the sheer effort for an individual to register and support his or her objection. particularly when confronted with a skilful lawyer.
A possible remedy would be to attempt to reverse the burden of proof so that the onus would fall on those applying for a licence and not on those who simply want to ensure that their lives are not unreasonable affected. I made that suggestion at the Committee stage and I have looked carefully at the possibility, but have reluctantly reached the conclusion, after receiving legal advice, that

97
that remedy cannot effectively achieve what your Lordships wish to achieve. I must emphasise that that conclusion had nothing to do with reluctance on the part of the industry to co-operate. In fact the industry was very willing to adopt the proposition. However, as I said, there were other reasons. So we went back, as it were, to stage one and looked at what I think is a more radical step to meet the concerns that were raised in Committee.
My solution is, first, to impose an earlier closing time on premises. After consultation, I have concluded that the fairest answer all round would be to impose a closing time of 12.30. That would be the latest closing time. If any local authority set an earlier closing time the premises would have to close at that earlier time. One could argue that the time should be earlier—it could be 11 o'clock or perhaps even 10 o'clock—but I tried to be realistic. This is a deregulation measure and a balance needs to be struck between removing unnecessary burdens on business on the one hand and ensuring protections for individuals on the other. My proposal achieves that balance. If one compares it with what happens elsewhere on Sundays at the moment, for pubs, last orders are at 10.30, with a closing time of 11 p.m. In restaurants it is 11.30, with drinks finished by 12 o'clock. So 12.30 for nightclubs is not an unreasonable hour.
The details are set out in Amendment No. 1. There is one small exception to which I should bring your Lordships' attention. On the four or five occasions in the year where there is a Bank Holiday Monday, the normal week-day closing time would be retained unless the local authority or licensing court imposed an earlier time. However, the same would not apply to Christmas Eve, or when it falls on a Sunday, or Easter Sunday. So it would not affect any religious holiday. Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment consequential on Amendment No. 1.
There are two further amendments of substance which address the other concerns that were raised in Committee. Amendment No. 4 is in effect a "Keep Sunday Special" amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Brentford is not in his place this evening. Its effect is to place a requirement on the licensing justices to take particular account of the special nature of Sundays when considering applications for a special hours certificate. The amendment would give the licensing court special powers either to limit the hours of the certificate on a Sunday or to refuse to allow a certificate to operate at all on Sundays if it considered that the special nature of Sunday so required.
The final amendment in my name appears in recognition of the concerns about nuisance to residents. At present a special hours certificate can be revoked on the grounds of disorder or indecent conduct on the premises. The amendment would substitute a much lower test for that revocation and would allow a certificate to be made inoperative on Sundays where disturbance or annoyance is caused to residents. The new provision explicitly extends to disturbance and annoyance caused outside the premises. I think that that deals with the problem that was raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—I am equally sorry that
98
my noble friend is not in her place this evening—about the effects on residents of noise caused by the parking of cars and the coming and going of taxis.
I hope that, taken together, the amendments will deal with all of the concerns that were raised in Committee. We have worked hard to produce them. I hope that we have produced a Bill that will be satisfactory to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have again tabled an amendment to remove Clause 2 from the Bill entirely. My amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 1 which my noble friend Lord Astor has just moved. I should say straightaway that my noble friend has done his best to try to meet the concerns that were expressed so forcefully by all sides in Committee. I know, however, that he will not be altogether surprised if I say that I do not think that Clause 2 can be amended to achieve the degree of protection for which residents are looking, especially those who live in close proximity to the premises we are discussing. Such residents are already subject to disturbance from Monday to Saturday. For them, the Bill has become the last straw. I remind the House that in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea there are some 94 such establishments. Even if only one-third of them were to apply for Sunday licences, that must involve disturbance to many hundreds, if not thousands, of residents.
I understand the point that my noble friend makes about limiting the hours. However, although my experience of such establishments is extremely limited, my impression is that, as compared with restaurants, it is likely that clubs and dance halls will create a great deal more disturbance as the evening breaks up and the patrons depart. Therefore, I find it illogical for my noble friend to argue that a 12.30 a.m. finish is all right for dance halls because the hour for restaurants is even earlier. I should have thought that the argument should be the other way round. What happens outside pubs varies enormously, but that is not our concern here. I think that 12.30 a.m.—on a Monday morning—is an unreasonable hour for a dance hall to close, given that the residents will have to endure all that noise and disturbance.
I appreciate also that an effort has been made to keep Sunday special and that there will be a requirement to take account of the special nature of Sundays. That will no doubt have some effect on the way in which the licensing authorities or magistrates make their decisions. I recognise also that by imposing what may well be a lower test—namely, disturbance and annoyance of the public from noise outside premises—we may make it a little easier for those who wish to oppose a licence to make their case.
However, the fact is that none of the measures really addresses the mischief. It will still be necessary for the residents to demonstrate that patrons of a particular establishment cause a nuisance. Where premises with music and dancing licences are conglomerated, as is the case in Kensington and Chelsea, that will still be a substantial hurdle for the residents to overcome. It will be necessary for them to demonstrate that noise levels that may just be tolerable on Friday and Saturday nights

99
would be intolerable on a Sunday night. One has only to state that to realise what difficulties residents would face when making that case.
There is another problem, one which we should perhaps have raised at an earlier stage. One of the ways in which owners of such establishments can get round the way in which the restrictions are intended to operate is by making sure that the clubs change hands. New owners will often promise that the problems that occurred under the dreadful people from whom they finally acquired the premises will never occur under their management. The temptation for the magistrates or the licensing authorities to give the new owners the benefit of the doubt is overwhelming, but there may turn out to be absolutely no change at all. Furthermore, how can a new establishment be challenged, given that there will be no evidence of noise being caused?
Under my noble friend's amendments, the sale of liquor could take place up to 12.30 a.m. Given that patrons are allowed to finish their drinks, they will obviously disperse later than that—at perhaps 1 a.m. or 1.30 a.m. From experience, I must make it clear that I find that totally unacceptable—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I interrupt my noble friend to correct him on one point. I described what happens in pubs and restaurants, but the specified time of 12.30 a.m. for night clubs is to be the hour of closure. There is no question of anybody then finishing their drink and staying on. I repeat that 12.30 a.m. is the final time.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I accept that that is my noble friend's intention, but one knows what happens. I took some of my family to see Guys and Dolls, a most remarkable show, the other night. When the entire crowd of hoodlums comes into the mission hall with one great oomph, the audience automatically cheers, but if my noble friend thinks that that is the way in which dance hall patrons leave at the end of the evening, he must be a great deal more naïve than I am sure he is. Of course, they do not. They take their time. Residents then have to put up with doors slamming and cars revving up.
Although the amendments are helpful and I certainly would not dream of opposing them, I do not think that they will solve the problem. In fact, I believe that the problem of Clause 2 is insoluble. What I find difficult is the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised at an earlier stage. If there is to be further consideration of the results of the consultation and of the responses that have been given to the procedures to allow pubs and registered clubs to stay open until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, why cannot this proposal be considered within the same procedural ambit? Why do we have to proceed separately with the original deregulation measure and now with this separate Bill, which appears to have the support of my noble friend on the Front Bench, whereas for the Friday and Saturday problem an entirely different procedure, with much greater consultation, is simultaneously being argued for?
100
Only a few weeks ago the Home Office announced that there was likely to be considerable delay and that the proposals would be considered further in the context of the way in which changes in one part of the licensing system impacted on other parts of the system. My honourable friend Mr. Kirkhope said that he expected those considerations to be concluded during the spring. I am sure that that is the right way to deal with this measure. I do not think that Clause 2 is amendable to achieve the purposes of the objectors. I honestly think that this Bill should not proceed any further. I do not intend to seek to divide the House tonight—not many noble Lords are present. However, I do think that the Bill will encounter some considerable difficulties when it reaches the other place.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my welcome for these amendments is a little less unenthusiastic than that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, perhaps because I am a fraction of an inch further along the spectrum in favour of allowing people to do on Sunday what they can do on other nights of the week. Perhaps my presumptions are slightly different.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord on the desirability of reviewing all of the procedures together. We have a licensing system which at best is opaque to those who seek a way into it. It must be advantageous, particularly to those who seek deregulation, to clarify all of the procedure in one exercise.
I should like to put some questions to the noble Viscount. I believe he said that in the preparation of the amendments there had been consultation between the stages of the Bill. I would be interested to know who was consulted and who had an opportunity to have an input. I also ask, perhaps rhetorically, why it was not considered that the same hours should apply to clubs as to other establishments. I am concerned about the likelihood that disturbance will be spread over a longer period than would otherwise be the case. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that it would not invariably be the case that those who emerged from clubs would be worse behaved than those who emerged from restaurants. I hope that I am not too prejudiced in my approach. However, that is certainly possible.
I understand the words "until thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday" to mean Monday, but in other contexts, particularly traffic orders, I have seen the most convoluted language to describe what would be understood to be half past midnight on Sunday, or some other day that has to be described as part of the following day.
I believe that the phrase "the special nature of Sunday" is helpful. Can the noble Viscount give the House any guidance as to where else this can be found in legislation, in particular whether there is any case law on its interpretation. There may be challenges to the application of improper criteria by a magistrates' court or licensing justices in their assessment of that special nature.
Finally, the new clause in Amendment No. 5 enables a chief officer of police to make an application. No doubt the noble Viscount considered whether or not a

101
local authority should be in the same position and discounted it. Perhaps the noble Viscount would explain the thinking behind that amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose that in the spectrum that has been described I am slightly nearer the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, than the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and certainly nearer than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I supported the liberalisation of Sunday trading throughout the various proceedings in this House. I still feel the same. I also believe that to treat music and dancing on Sunday differently from other days when all other aspects of entertainment and catering are not treated differently is somewhat anomalous. In the end, I believe that the noble Viscount should recognise that if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is still against it this measure is dead in the water. If the honourable Member for Colchester North does not shout "Object!" no doubt someone will. At this stage of the Parliament the noble Viscount ought not to expect this measure to pass through both Houses.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the feeling of the House has been made very clear during the Bill's Committee stage, and in the speeches of the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Jenkin this evening. Further protections following the Committee stage were required to safeguard residents against disturbance and annoyance. I believe that the amendments which my noble friend has moved meet those concerns. They offer a substantial package of extra protections for residents on Sundays, both on the initial consideration of applications for extended licensing hours and subsequently should problems occur. The earlier closing time recognises the special nature of Sundays and would provide incontrovertible protection for residents without requiring any action on their part. It would also go a long way towards meeting the particular concerns expressed at Committee stage about people having to go to work on Monday mornings.
The requirement for licensing justices to consider the special nature of Sundays when considering applications for extended licensing hours on that day would also provide front-line protection for residents by giving the courts greater discretion as to whether to limit further the closing time or refuse an extension for Sundays altogether. The extended grounds for revocation would be an additional safeguard for residents against premises which, having had their Sunday hours extended, subsequently became the cause of disturbance. These measures would substantially increase the protections which would be afforded to residents should this Bill be enacted. They demonstrate great willingness on the part of my noble friend to respond constructively to noble Lords' concerns and to ensure that Sunday dancing can take place without detriment to anyone concerned.
The Government fully support my noble friend's amendments and hope that they will be accepted by the House. In particular, I hope that they adequately meet the concerns expressed at Committee stage, although
102
I have noted the comments made by noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am a born optimist and I hope to persuade my noble friend. I understand his difficulty. With great respect to my noble friend, he made what was in effect a Second Reading speech. His speech was not about my amendments but his quite proper objections to the Bill. I have taken account of what my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said at Committee stage and tabled amendments which I believe satisfy their concerns. However, my noble friend has not said that my amendments do not satisfy his concerns.
In Committee, my noble friend said:
"Perhaps we can write into the Bill an obligation that the licensing justices or magistrates, as the case may be, should have regard to the special nature of Sunday evening when considering the extension of a licence into the late hours".—[Official Report, 3/2/97; col. 1498.]
That is what we have done. We have taken account of those concerns, but my noble friend does not want any club to be open on Sunday. He particularly does not want any club to be open on a Sunday in Kensington and Chelsea.
That is an extreme view, because there are many areas in the country where local authorities are happy for clubs to be open on a Sunday, because they are in areas where they will not cause disturbance and nuisance to residents. We have built into the Bill a protection for those residents, because we have extended from inside the club to outside the club the protection they can receive. So, if there is noise in the street—to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—police can move for a revocation, and the public can instigate that move by the police. It is not just the police. Anyone can say that there is noise and move for a revocation.
In my experience, local authorities are susceptible to complaints about noise these days. In Kensington and Chelsea I received a complaint myself this summer because the air conditioning in my flat which had hummed away happily—I have to say fairly uselessly—for the past 10 years suddenly decided to make too much noise. The thing had immediately to be switched off. There are remedies. Those remedies are used. We have substantially increased the powers and protections by the amendments and the Bill. I am sorry that my noble friend has not taken account of that.
My noble friend said the Bill does not address the mischief. I believe that it does. The noble Baroness asked what consultation we had had about hours. We consulted the industry and compared what happens on weekdays where, for example, pubs are open to 11.30 p.m., restaurants until 1 a.m. and clubs of course until 2 a.m. The hours we came to seemed to be a reasonable compromise and used those same staggered times. We used the same basis of stagger for Sunday.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may take that point a little further. Did not the noble Viscount find it possible to make a distinction between the location of

103
premises? Points were made at earlier stages about some clubs being in areas where residents are directly affected, while other clubs—I am making a point in favour of deregulation here—are well away from residential areas. I wonder whether consideration was given to allowing those clubs to have a further extension of hours.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, indeed there was. We considered carefully why a club in an out-of-town centre needed to be closed at 12.30 a.m. and why it should not be allowed to open until 2 o'clock in the morning. Because of the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House it was felt that wherever one put the hours clubs could seek to argue to be allowed to open until that time. Therefore, in the spirit of trying to keep Sunday special we felt that an earlier time would be more acceptable to your Lordships, taking into account the special nature of Sunday.
The noble Baroness asked also whether we had thought about defining the special nature of Sunday. I cannot say whether that exists in other legislation. It may or it may not. I shall have to consult my legal advisers and write to her. I think that one of its purposes was to make that statement as wide as possible so that licensing magistrates and justices could take account of all the factors—noise, the special nature of Sundays, and so forth. There is no factor that they cannot take into account when considering whether or not these clubs should be open. That is the point we were trying to make. We have made it open and easy for those objections to be made.
I realise that I have a great deal to do to persuade my noble friend. I am glad that in another place the Member for Colchester is now a PPS. So he may be fully supportive of the Government, as of course he always has been. He will probably be busy in Colchester that Friday. After all, it is an important seat.
I take the point that the promoters must persuade Members of another place of the merits of the Bill and I shall try to do so. I hope that we shall persuade them that the proposals put before your Lordships tonight are satisfactory. I understand the concerns of people who say, "We never want anything open on Sundays". This is a deregulation Bill. In Scotland, clubs have been open on Sundays for 20 years, but I have not been bombarded by letters from people saying, "I have lived in Scotland for 20 years and my Sundays have been ruined". That is not the case.
We have sought to address the situation and dramatically to increase the protection available. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support my amendment and the Question, That Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DUTIES IN RELATION TO SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES EXTENDING TO SUNDAYS
(" .—(1) In section 78A of the Licensing Act 1964 (limitations on special hours certificates), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Before granting a special hours certificate which extends to Sundays, the licensing justices or, as the case may be, the magistrates' court shall consider in relation to Sundays—

(a) the exercise of the power to limit the certificate to particular days of the week, and

(b) the exercise of the power to limit the certificate to particular times of the day.

(3B) Subsection (3A) above is without prejudice to the functions of the justices or the court in relation to the exercise of the powers mentioned in that subsection in relation to other days of the week or in relation to the exercise of other powers."
(2) In section 83 of that Act (supplementary provisions as to special hours certificates), at the end there shall be inserted—
"(5) In considering, in relation to Sundays, the exercise of any power—

(a) to attach to a special hours certificate limitations to particular times of the day or particular days of the week, or

(b) to vary such limitations attached to such a certificate,

licensing justices or, as the case may be, a magistrates' court shall, in particular, have regard to the special nature of Sunday.").
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES: EXCLUSION OF SUNDAYS IN CASE OF DISTURBANCE ETC
(".—(1) After section 81A of the Licensing Act 1964 there shall be inserted—
"Special hours certificates: exclusion of Sundays in case of disturbance etc.
81AA.—(1) At any time while there is in force for any premises or for part of any premises a special hours certificate which extends to Sundays, the chief officer of police may apply to the licensing justices, or, if it was granted under section 78 of this Act, to the magistrates' court, for the imposition of a limitation excluding Sundays on the following ground.
(2) The ground referred to is that such a limitation is desirable to avoid or reduce on Sundays—

(a) any disturbance of or annoyance to—

(i) persons living or working in the neighbourhood, or

(ii) customers or clients of any business in the neighbourhood, or

(b) the occurrence in the vicinity of the premises of disorderly conduct on the part of persons resorting to the premises or part of the premises.

(3) If on an application under this section the licensing justices or, as the case may be, the magistrates' court are satisfied that the ground of the application is made out, they shall attach a limitation to the special hours certificate which has the effect of excluding Sundays."
(2) In section 81B of that Act (special hours certificates: appeals)—

(a) in subsection (1)(c), after "section 81A" there shall be inserted "or 81AA", and

(b) in subsection (2), after "section 81A(3)" there shall be inserted "or 81AA".

(3) In section 91 of that Act (procedure of licensing justices) for "or 81A" there shall he substituted ", 81A or 81AA".
(4) In section 92 of that Act (procedure on applications to magistrates' courts), at the end there shall be inserted—
"(d) an application under section 81 AA of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill
9.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am grateful for this, my first opportunity to introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House, In doing so, I thank my honourable friend Mr. Nigel Evans, who proposed the Bill in another place. With all-party support, it enjoyed a very speedy passage.
Noble Lords will be aware of the horrific rape and murder of 15 year-old Naomi Smith and the part that DNA played in securing the recent conviction of her killer, Edwin Hopkins. This Bill has the potential to make a significant impact on the fight against crime. Its central purpose is to add the DNA profiles of some 7,750 serious violent sex and burglary offenders who are currently serving prison sentences or are detained under Part III of the Mental Health Act to the national DNA database. All those offenders will have been convicted before 10th April 1995 and therefore escaped the operation of the new powers to take non-intimate samples from convicted persons introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. A number of these people might well, if tested for inclusion on the DNA register, prove to have been involved in other as vet unsolved crimes.
The immediate origins of this Bill are to be found in the Government's consultation document, published in June 1996, on the sentencing and supervision of sex offenders. That consultation document sought views on a number of proposals designed to improve the protection of the public from sex offenders and to enhance opportunities for the treatment of such offenders. The Bill would implement one of those proposals.
Convicted sex offenders have often established a pattern of repeat offending. Research has shown that, when interviewed under confidential conditions, men convicted of rapes have, on average, confessed to having carried out six or even seven rapes as well as other less serious sexual offences. However, the median figure was much lower at one or two rapes, which suggests that a small number of offenders may be responsible for a much larger proportion of sexual offences.
Given that incidence of repeat offending, it is clear that DNA profiling can make an important contribution towards increasing the number of convictions for serious sexual crime. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 extended the circumstances in which the police could take samples for DNA profiling purposes from persons under investigation for a recordable offence. It also created a new power to take such samples from persons charged with or convicted of these offences.
106
Crucially, however, the power to take samples from convicted offenders applied only to those convicted on or after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the 1994 Act; that is, on 10th April 1995.
The Government's consultation document proposed taking these existing powers one step further. In particular, it proposed that the power be extended to enable the police to take samples for DNA profiling purposes from all sex offenders who were sentenced to imprisonment before the implementation of the 1994 Act and who are still in custody. Such a measure would deter those prisoners from reoffending on release and aid their detection if the deterrent failed. This proposal in the consultation document received widespread support. I understand that the Home Office has received 74 responses, of which 82 per cent. were in support.
I believe that it is equally important for the police to have the power to take a DNA sample from persons who have been convicted of violent and burglary offences. We should take all reasonable measures to assist the police to prevent and detect such crimes. DNA profiling and the DNA database have proved their worth not just in relation to sexual offences but also in relation to violent crimes and burglary. With all those crimes, it is not uncommon for an offender to leave behind a blood, semen, saliva or other body sample which can subsequently be used to link him to the scene of the crime. Indeed, it is those three broad categories of offence which the police service has targeted when building up the DNA database.
The Bill will build on the tremendous success of the DNA database so far. It now contains more than 110,000 samples from suspected and convicted offenders and some 8,900 crime-scene stain profiles. Matches which either link suspects to crime scenes or one crime scene to another are occurring at the rate of 100 per week. To date, nearly 3,300 matches have been achieved.
As I mentioned, the core of this Bill is the extension of the power of the police to take DNA samples from persons convicted before 10th April 1995 of a sexual, violent or burglary offence and who are still imprisoned or detained under the Mental Health Act. That is covered in Clause 1.
Clause 2 enables DNA samples to be taken from certain other detained mentally disordered offenders. Not all such offenders will have been convicted of an offence but will instead have been found either not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead. It is appropriate that the police should have power to take DNA samples in such cases, as in the case of convicted offenders.
Clause 3 enables the powers to take DNA samples from detained mentally disordered offenders and juvenile offenders to be exercised in the place of detention. That mirrors an existing provision in Section 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which enables the police to take samples in prisons.
Clause 4 is a tidying-up measure. The new Section 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, omitted to impose a time limit on the exercise of a constable's

107
power to require a person informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence to attend a police station so that a non-intimate sample may be taken. Clause 4 corrects that omission by imposing a time limit of one month.
Schedule 1 lists the sex, violence and burglary offences which determine that a detained person may have a DNA sample taken from him under the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2.
Finally, Schedule 2 reproduces Sections 63 and 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as further amended by this Bill. That will be a welcome point of reference, particularly for lawyers—and I am sure that we all have sympathy for lawyers.
In conclusion, this is an important Bill. At the heart of it is the simple objective of protecting society from serious sex and violent offenders. The purpose of the Bill is to build upon the successes already achieved through DNA. Brian and Catherine Smith lost their only daughter, Naomi, at the hands of a sadistic killer, but with the help of DNA testing he was caught and convicted. Accordingly, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Taylor of Warwick.)
9.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I preface my very brief remarks by saying that, as always, we do not take a collective view on Private Members' Bills and, therefore, I speak for myself and not necessarily for my party. I also preface what I have to say by confirming that we have no objection to the Bill; indeed, we support it and wish it to go through.
That was the nice part of my speech, I shall now very briefly be slightly more sour. The Bill has clearly been drafted by the Home office and I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, in saying that. It has all the hallmarks of Home Office drafting and is none the worse for that. However, the real point is that this Bill is simply a reflection of defects in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. All the points concerned ought to have been—and, indeed, could have been—made in that Act.
I find it most unsatisfactory that the very limited opportunities that there are for Private Members' Bills for those who win the ballot in the House of Commons for such Bills should be taken up by government Bills which have been drafted to remedy the defects of their own previous legislation. I believe that Private Members' Bills should be for issues which come from outside government rather than being inspired by government, as this one clearly is.
9.26 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick on introducing the Bill and on doing it so concisely. The development of DNA profiling has made possible a major advance in the investigation of crime. The technique itself is now some 15 years old, and it
108
is with increasing frequency that we read in newspaper reports that some horrific murder or rape has been solved with the help of DNA. The purpose of this Bill is to build on the successes already achieved through DNA by enabling the profiles of over 7,000 of the country's most serious violent and sex offenders to be entered onto the national DNA database.
To put the Bill in context, it may help noble Lords if I explain some of the background to the creation of the national DNA database. The catalyst was the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations relating to the classification and taking of samples for DNA profiling purposes and the retention of such samples in order to facilitate the creation of a national database.
In relation to the classification of body samples, the Royal Commission recommended that saliva should be reclassified as a non-intimate sample so that mouth swabs may be taken without consent. As such samples are non-invasive and can be taken easily, the proposed reclassification would greatly facilitate the taking of samples for DNA profiling.
The Royal Commission went on to recommend that the police should have the power to take, without consent, non-intimate samples for the purpose of DNA analysis from all those charged with serious criminal offences, whether or not DNA evidence was relevant to the particular offence. It was also proposed that it should be permissible for the DNA profile to be retained for subsequent use if the person concerned is convicted.
The Government accepted those recommendations, but in one important respect believed that they should go one step further. The Government considered that the power to take non-intimate samples should be available to assist the investigation of a wider range of offences; namely, all recordable offences. That would enable the police to take samples for DNA analysis on essentially the same basis as the power to take fingerprints.
The Royal Commission's recommendations were implemented by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This amended the relevant sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and provided the legislative framework for the national DNA database. As I have indicated, in order to facilitate the taking of samples for DNA profiling, saliva and mouth swabs have been reclassified as non-intimate samples. Mouth swabs are simple to take and hence are the preferred method of obtaining samples. As an alternative, a sample of some 10 plucked hairs are taken. A sample of hair was already classed as a non-intimate sample, but the 1994 Act clarified this to include hair with the roots.
The amendments made to PACE also significantly extended the circumstances in which a non-intimate sample could be taken without consent. Prior to the 1994 Act, the circumstances in which such a sample might be taken were narrowly defined. A non-intimate sample could only be taken from a person without consent if he was in police detention and the taking was authorised by a superintendent or above. The

109
conditions were relatively narrow as the superintendent could only give authorisation where he had reasonable grounds for suspecting the involvement of the person concerned in a serious arrestable offence and for believing that the sample would tend to confirm or disproved involvement.
There are now three broad circumstances in which a non-intimate sample may be taken without consent. First, the original power has been expanded in respect of the offences for which such samples may be taken. Previously it was where a person was in police detention suspected of involvement in a serious arrestable offence. Now a sample may be taken if such a person is suspected of involvement in a recordable offence.
Secondly, a non-intimate sample may be taken without consent from a person if he has been either charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence, provided he has not had a non-intimate sample taken in the course of the investigation of the offence, or if he has had a sample taken that was not suitable or was insufficient for analysis.
The third circumstance in which a non-intimate sample may now be taken without consent is where a person has been convicted of a recordable offence. Crucially, this power to take a sample did not apply to anyone convicted of a recordable offence prior to the coming into force of the relevant amendment to PACE; that is, prior to 10th April 1995, as mentioned by my noble friend. It is this restriction which is the genesis of the Bill we are debating today and one I shall return to in a while.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 also clarified the law in relation to the destruction of samples and the use to be made of information derived from a sample. In particular, the Act provided that the information derived from samples may be the subject of a speculative search. This allows the DNA profile of a suspect to be checked against the DNA profiles derived from crime stains and so reveal whether he has been involved in another, yet unsolved, offence.
As I have indicated, these provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force on 10th April 1995. At the same time the police service launched the national DNA database.
The database, which is operated by the Forensic Science Service, contains the DNA profiles of persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of a recordable offence. In the case of persons suspected or charged with such an offence, I should explain that their DNA profiles are removed from the database and destroyed if they are not proceeded against or found not guilty. The database also contains the DNA profiles derived from crime scene stains.
The database now holds over 110,000 profiles of individuals and nearly 9,000 profiles from crime scene samples. The success and evident value of the database are fully demonstrated by the 3,269 matches
110
that have been thrown up. Over 2,000 of these have matched a suspect to a crime scene and some 1,200 have matched one crime scene to another.
The database itself does not tell the full story of the success of DNA profiling. In an effort to find the perpetrator of a particular crime, mass screens have been conducted on volunteers. In such cases, the profiles are not put on or searched against the national database but are held separately and compared only to the crime stain profile from the case. These volunteer samples and profiles are destroyed once the case is finished.
The 26 mass screens so far processed have resulted in 14 matches. These have all been for serious crimes; namely, murders and rapes. These range from the rape and murder of an 18 year-old woman in West Yorkshire, to the rape of a 78 year-old handicapped woman in her own home in Derbyshire. These are vile crimes and we can take some comfort from the fact that, in no small part due to DNA, the evil people who committed these offences will spend a very long time in prison where they can no longer be a danger to society. My noble friend's Bill will build on these successes by adding some 7,750 serious sex, violent and burglary offenders to the national database.
I have already alluded to the problem the Bill seeks to tackle. Under the provisions of PACE, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the police have the power to take non-intimate samples from persons convicted of a recordable offence. However, the power applies only in the case of persons whose conviction was on or after 10th April 1995. As a result, the database does not contain the DNA profiles of persons convicted before that date. It is this loophole which the Bill will plug.
While the law as it stands enables the police to take samples from offenders with a post-April 1995 conviction for a recordable offence, in practice, because of the numbers involved, samples are taken only from sex, violent and burglary offenders. A similar approach is adopted in Clause 1 of the Bill. In backdating the power to take non-intimate samples, the Bill targets those sex, violent and burglary offenders convicted before April 1995 and who are still in prison or detained under the Mental Health Act.
Clause 2 of the Bill brings the arrangements for taking non-intimate samples from mentally disordered offenders, dealt with under the criminal insanity legislation, broadly into line with the arrangements for taking such samples from convicted offenders. The clause will enable a non-intimate sample to be taken from certain offenders detained under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 having been found either not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead.
I shall not detain your Lordships further by going into the other provisions of the Bill, save to mention Schedule 2. This schedule sets out Sections 63 and 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the provisions of the Bill. It is not always easy finding one's way through legislation which has been amended on a number of separate

111
occasions. I am sure that the sections of PACE reproduced in Schedule 2 to the Bill in their amended form will be a welcome point of reference, as mentioned by my noble friend.
The Bill has the Government's wholehearted support. I once again commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and I wish him every success in securing a swift and smooth passage.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Courtown for their constructive observations on the Bill. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the past, I am delighted that he is now prepared to look to the
112
future. The Bill is designed to protect the public. I am glad that it appears to receive support from all sides of the House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Horserace Totalisator Board Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.