Lords Sitting of 24 February 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Industrial Tribunals
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider bringing in an order to allow the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals to adopt a test case approach when they are informed of mote than 100 cases on an identical issue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the rules of procedure already permit industrial tribunals to adopt a test case approach in such cases.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am glad to hear that reply from the Minister. However, is she aware that 60,000 cases are presently outstanding in respect of compensation for part-time workers who have apparently been illegally excluded from occupational pension schemes? Should not fast-track procedures be adopted in order to deal with those cases?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am aware of the matter to which the noble Baroness refers. However, we believe that existing rules of procedure are perfectly adequate to ensure that test cases are held where it is appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the present procedure may perhaps be appropriate, but will my noble friend tell the House whether it is being applied? Has independent advice been obtained? If Treasury counsel advised that there were 100 cases raising an identical preliminary point of law, would it not be possible to consolidate under the procedure? If so, why has that not been done?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the handling of these cases is for the judiciary to decide. For a test case approach to be appropriate there has to be a common principle attached to all the cases or to groups of them. One of the noble Baroness's honourable friends asked a very similar question in the other place. At that time there was agreement that we would seek the advice of the presidents of the industrial tribunals. They are absolutely convinced that this is the appropriate way to deal with such cases. They are dealing with the cases in that way; and I understand that about 100 other such cases are being dealt with on a test case approach.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that over the past four-year period for which figures are available there has been an increase of 25 per cent.—from 3,043 to 3,803—in the number
896
of unfair dismissal cases heard by industrial tribunals in England and Wales that have been successful? If those figures are correct, is there any action that the Government could usefully take to curb such violations of employment rights?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot confirm that the figures given by the noble Lord are correct. They may very well be; it is simply that I cannot find the page in my brief. I have to confess that I am not too sure whether those numbers are correct. However, I can confirm that we believe these matters are being dealt with appropriately. If there is a delay, we try to speed them up as much as possible.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the present cost to the taxpayer of industrial tribunals is very modest indeed? Does she also agree that if legal aid were to be extended to industrial tribunals—as is rumoured to be Labour Party policy—the cost to the British taxpayer would be exorbitant?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that is probably the case. The Government have no plans to make legal aid generally available for representation before any further tribunals. It will, however, still remain possible to receive advice for the preparatory stages of a case under the green form scheme; that is, before it arrives at the tribunal.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister's noble friend talks about the British taxpayer as if he or she were a mythical creature. It is worth bearing in mind that people who come before industrial tribunals are taxpayers, and they are very concerned about their position. I think that the House will still be a little puzzled by the Minister's Answer. She says that everything is okay, test cases are possible and the powers that be are perfectly satisfied. However, there are 60,000 people who are being badly done by. If I were one of those 60,000, I should not be in the least bit interested in being told that everything is okay and that there could be a test case. I should want my money and my rights. I should want someone to get a move on. Why are the Government not at least encouraging the industrial tribunals or whatever bodies are involved to do something?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord is labouring under a misapprehension. As regards the 60,000 cases, some are already being dealt with on a test case basis. The problem, as the noble Lord probably knows, is that recently the Court of Appeal refused to allow 21 women and one man leave to apply to the European Court of Justice, thereby effectively holding that the six-month time limit was not against European law. The problem was that, when the case was brought, it was outside the six months' time limit which applied for the industrial tribunal. I understand that there is a possibility that an appeal will be made to your Lordships' House on the matter. It is not a question of the Government not wanting to deal with the problem. In these cases, if the judiciary who deal with the

897
direction hearings at the beginning of an industrial tribunal think it is appropriate for a test case then it is dealt with as a test case. Certainly the cases which we are discussing are dealt with in that way.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if there is a backlog of 60,000 cases, what is the Government's best estimate of the date when that backlog will be eliminated?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have no idea. I am not in the business of guestimating or estimating. It would be improper for me to try to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not seek to oppress my noble friend or to cause embarrassment, but I have a simple, straightforward question which goes to the essence of the problem. Have Treasury counsel sought independent legal advice as to whether it is appropriate to consolidate on a preliminary issue of law? If not, will they do so? If they receive the advice, will counsel defer to it?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I imagine that this is a matter for the judiciary to decide. Whether or not advice has already been sought I do not know. However, as regards the whole subject, a system of individual rights and remedies underpins the whole of the United Kingdom's equality legislation. I am not certain whether the noble Lord refers to class actions or such matters, but it would be more appropriate if I were to write to him and give him an accurate answer.

West Coast Main Line: Track Maintenance
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the standard of track maintenance of the West Coast Main Line.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for safety regulation on the railways, is not aware of any major problems with the track on the West Coast Main Line. Since 1994 Railtrack has invested some £168.6 million on the line and expects to spend a total of £1.35 billion to renew the core infrastructure.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am glad that the Health and Safety Executive is not aware of any defects, but perhaps I may put the Minister right. In the January edition of the Locomotive Journal, train drivers quote several cases on the fast tracks between Berkhamsted and Bushey where eight out of 10 sleepers have no clips on them to hold the tracks in the right place. The drivers are concerned about safety. Will the Government ensure that the
898
Health and Safety Executive looks into the matter quickly and puts an enforcement notice on Railtrack to correct the defects?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, safety is taken extremely seriously on the railway, as it is as regards all transport modes. I understand that an HSE inspector visited the Berkhamsted and Bushey areas on 18th February to inspect the track condition. The HSE is satisfied that the condition of the track, as the inspectors saw it on that day, does not present a significant risk to the public or to staff.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, people in North Wales are particularly concerned about the state of the track between Chester and Holyhead. I have brought the question up before and have not received a satisfactory reply. Can the Minister say how much money is set by to be spent on the track?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question is about the track on the West Coast Main Line. Clearly, visitors to North Wales will benefit from the section of the West Coast Main Line on which they travel until they depart and head off to North Wales. The total amount for the West Coast Main Line is £1.35 billion. That is a major infrastructure spend and will benefit all those who use either the whole line or part of it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again but that is not a satisfactory reply. Can the Minister tell me precisely what is being done for the line from Chester to Holyhead? He dealt with another area which is very extensive, but we are concerned with North Wales. Does the Minister agree that Welsh people are entitled to as good a service as the rest of the country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to the West Coast Main Line. I shall, of course, endeavour to ascertain the details requested by the noble Lord and write to him.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is it not true that the West Coast Main Line qualifies for assistance under the European Union's TERN programme because it leads to the connection to Holyhead and Northern Ireland? So the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was relevant. Will the Minister comment on it? Furthermore, the noble Viscount referred to the enormous programme for the improvement of the line. Does not that suggest that Railtrack is not entirely satisfied with the situation as it is? Nor is it satisfied with the usage of the line, punctuality or the times kept by trains on the line to the major provincial cities in the North West.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, yes, the noble Baroness is correct, I understand that European Union TENs funding has been applicable to the line. Secondly, the fact that Railtrack has pledged to invest £1.35 billion plus the additional money for the passenger upgrade to accommodate tilting trains on the line signifies its

899
acceptance that a great deal of progress needs to be made on the line. I understand that it was last upgraded in the 1970s, so there is a wide and overall acceptance that, while the maintenance spend is appropriate at the moment, in addition the whole line needs significant upgrading. That is why we are talking about such enormous sums.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, had the West Coast Main Line still been under the fiscal control of the Treasury, the kinds of financial commitment that have just been made on its future would probably not have been possible?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend points to one of the very important elements of privatisation. Clearly, were it still subject to the scrutiny of public finances, it would not be possible to give certainty, in the way that Railtrack has given certainty, about the money that will be spent on that line. It will result in faster, more reliable and generally better services. We believe that everyone should welcome that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can we return to the Question put by my noble friend Lord Berkeley? Is it not a fact that an improvement notice was served by the Health and Safety Executive on 29th February 1996, following a derailment on 14th December 1995, for bringing track up to standard in the London (Euston) area? How has Railtrack complied with that obligation, bearing in mind that it was given a deadline of 28th February? Should we have some information about that as there are only four days left for compliance? Can the Minister explain why there is not a single word about that in the document sent by Railtrack to Members of this House—and presumably elsewhere—entitled Investing in Britain's Railways, which was received today? Is not that a singular omission? Why?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is for Railtrack to justify what is put in its document. It is not a document that has been prepared by the Government. The noble Lord should address his question to Railtrack. The HSE has inspected the track at Euston and notes that there has been a considerable improvement in the condition. HSE has granted a one-month extension to the improvement notice deadline of 28th February this year to enable completion of four outstanding items of work. I understand that HSE is satisfied that public safety is not compromised by granting that extension.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the noble Lord said that expenditure on maintenance on the line at the present time is appropriate. Does he realise that that is not much comfort to people like myself who travel on that line every week and are constantly told of delays due to signalling failure, engine breakdown and so on?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I understand that. That is why I imagine that the noble Lord
900
welcomes the major eight-year £1.35 billion programme. It is a massive project. It is not possible to accomplish it in a short timescale without major disruption. Indeed, it would be like digging up the M.1 and closing all the lanes at one time. So, while it is possible to maintain the current infrastructure, Railtrack looks much more into the long term and agrees with the noble Lord that massive improvement and modernisation is needed. That will be brought about by that very programme.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister mentioned Railtrack's interest in the long term, and that document bears it out. But does he agree that the chaos caused by privatisation has taken Railtrack's eye off maintenance to the severe detriment of the existing services?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no—no chaos—and no, I do not agree with the noble Lord's second assertion either.

Energy Saving Initiatives
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What savings in electricity usage have been achieved since 1994 as a result of the initiatives taken by the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Energy Saving Trust.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, under the energy efficiency standards of performance set for public electricity suppliers by the Director General of Electricity Supply, approval has been given to projects with forecast savings of 5,139 gigawatt hours. In addition, since 1994 initiatives taken by the Energy Savings Trust have yielded estimated lifetime energy savings totalling some 17,975 gigawatt hours.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I feel that Offer is to be congratulated on those results. However, in the circumstances, does she agree that it is regrettable that virtually no initiative has been taken by Ofgas? Can she say how the Secretary of State and the director general consider that they are carrying out their duties under the Gas Act 1986 to improve the efficiency with which gas is used?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, first, let me say that the gas regulator has agreed that all gas suppliers should be obliged to provide energy efficiency advice. But the Director General of Gas Supply expressed a concern that she was not happy to raise significant sums from consumers in a way that had many characteristics of a tax without parliamentary authority being granted in the normal way.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a large proportion of the figures

901
she gave as savings can be attributed to the shut-down of factories in the manufacturing sector, some of which were heavy users of electricity? That manufacturing sector is essential for our survival economically. Will she admit that that is not a saving but is in fact wastage resulting from closing down factories and the production that came from them?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I regret having to disagree absolutely with the noble Lord, for whom I have great admiration, but what he says has nothing to do at all with the matter. This Government have done more for energy conservation through proper means than has any of the suggestions from the noble Lord opposite. Let me give him an example—not to belittle the amount of money saved—which he might find amusing. Just one gigawatt hour is equal approximately to 1 million 100 Watt lightbulbs burning for 10 hours or the output of one large 1,000 megawatt power station for one hour. The Secretary of State for the Environment, my honourable friend in the other place, has had enormous influence on advising and promoting energy conservation throughout the country.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that both the supplementary questions which were given effect by the primary Question and her Answer have shown up a distinct lack of communication between the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Gas Supply? Is it not about time that the Government knocked heads together, so that they could have a common approach?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the two directors general—the Director General of Gas Supply and the Director General of Electricity Supply—are not only independent of each other but are independent of government. Independence of the regulators is the cornerstone of the Government's policy for regulation of the utilities. It means that regulators on occasion may exercise their discretion by coming to different conclusions. So far as the Government are concerned, they are independent. If their conclusions have been reached by proper methods, we are pleased about it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, that may well be. Nonetheless, is it not a little surprising that the Director General of Offer is positively stimulating the efficient use of electricity and carrying out what he is obliged to do under the Act, whereas at the same time the Director General of Gas Supply is doing precisely the opposite and indeed has gone back on what her predecessor was doing? Should not the Government be intervening in such a situation?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the principle of regulatory independence was reaffirmed by Parliament in the Gas Act 1995. Parliament had
902
an opportunity then to impose an energy efficiency levy on the gas industry in passing that Act and chose not to do so. That is the position.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, if, as the Minister just said, the gas regulator does not wish to introduce schemes, which are so effective on the electricity side, because of the lack of a statutory basis for so doing, what view do the Government have about what is clearly a request from the gas regulator for such legislation?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government believe, and I think that the regulators themselves believe, that competition will stimulate both industries to come forward with energy conservation programmes for equipment and also for promoting better use of energy by the consumers. That is the position. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who suggested that the electricity position was different. But the fact remains that the Director General of Electricity Supply himself imposed and agreed to only a very small levy of, believe, £1 a year per consumer. At the end of the day, both the regulators believe that the best energy conservation methods will come about when the markets are open to competition. We on this side of the House believe that competition is very much the best way of achieving the aims that everybody wants.

Gun Controls, Europe
3 P.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that legally-held pistols constitute a statistically serious threat to the safety of British subjects travelling to, or living and working in, continental Europe.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we do not have sufficient statistical information on which to base such a judgment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Will she concede that the Government's case and, for that matter, the case of the Opposition Front Bench for the Firearms (Amendment) Bill must logically rest on one of two assumptions? Either the British people are inherently more irresponsible and prone to violence than their continental counterparts—which fact would justify gun controls being much stricter here than over there—or, alternatively, the British are essentially little different from the continentals, in which case Her Majesty's Government must feel that the continental gun laws are dangerously lax and liberal. If that is the case, should not the Foreign Office advise British subjects of the risks of travelling to the Continent?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a sovereign Parliament and the issue before this Government concerned what was appropriate for this country in

903
response to the Dunblane and Hungerford massacres, and also in response to a comprehensive report from Lord Cullen. That is what Parliament considered. It came to the conclusion that there were compelling grounds for stringently restricting the use and availability of handguns. It is not uncommon for the Foreign Office to take the view that British subjects leaving this country to travel abroad need to be warned of specific dangers. However, to produce for people leaving this country a general advertising campaign about the dangers of guns in other countries is not something we are contemplating.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that there are tens of thousands of accidents in this country and on the Continent which cause death and which can in no way be contained or examined by those who own official pistols? I wish that all those who drive cars, lorries and trucks would behave in the same responsible way as those who own pistols. They should not be condemned because of the behaviour of one maniac a few months ago.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. However, this was the subject under discussion at all stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. This House came to a conclusion, as did the other place. We are only hours away from having Royal Assent for a Bill that has been properly debated in Parliament as a real response to the report of Lord Cullen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, at a rally of 15,000 people in Trafalgar Square last Sunday, grave disappointment was expressed that this House did not insist on the amendments that it had made to the Bill? Is she further aware that they are disappointed also that, instead of following and implementing the recommendations in the Cullen Report, the Government virtually ignored the report? They introduced into the Bill their own recommendations, which were completely unsatisfactory, unfair and obnoxious in a democratic society.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware of the demonstration that took place on Sunday. As I admitted at a number of stages of the Bill, I am conscious of the disappointment of those people who shoot for pleasure and for sport in relation to the impact of the Bill. But again I must remind the House that Parliament considered the matter seriously and took the view that it did. The noble Lord is an assiduous and consistent fighter against the Bill and was present at its final stages.
We considered all the recommendations of the Cullen Report; we accepted all of them and, in relation to recommendation 24—to which I believe the noble Lord specifically refers—concerning disassembly, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will know
904
that, while that was a preferred option of Lord Cullen, he nevertheless suggested that it might well pose practical problems. We considered that view. On balance—it was a finely balanced argument—we considered that we could give a better assurance of public safety if we took the view that guns could be owned, but only used in the secure circumstances of a properly controlled gun club.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does not the Minister find it curious, as I do, that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who are, to use the euphemism, long-established Euro-sceptics, should be asking questions whose only conceivable outcome could be harmonisation of gun control legislation in Europe?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not want to be dragged into that argument. This is a remarkable House and what I find so remarkable about it is that everybody has the right to pose these questions and we, as Ministers, have a duty to respond to them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that members of the British public are comfortable with an unarmed police force and that when travelling to the Continent they can be seriously disturbed to see police forces in those countries armed with side arms, have the Government taken any steps to persuade our continental partners that they should have unarmed rather than armed police forces?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may make the point again. The whole issue of gun control in any country, given that we are all sovereign nations, must be a matter for each government. We have taken the view that we needed to respond to the recommendations of Lord Cullen. We considered them in the light of gun controls in this country. It is not for us to decide what those controls should be in any of our European neighbour countries.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that I referred to continental Europe and not the EU? In other words, I included Norway and Switzerland. Norway, Switzerland, France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Belgium and Holland all allow people to own full bore pistols and to keep them at their homes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is a matter of fact.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Examiners.

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill
Lord Taylor of Warwick: 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 Taylor of Warwick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This Bill will be well received in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken an interest in it. I wish to thank my noble friend and kinsman Lord Lindsay and his Scottish Office team for the assistance we received. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Education Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13 at beginning insert ("Except in the case of any county school which has within the previous four years undertaken a significant enlargement of its capacity").
The noble Lord said: In order to cover the susurrus created by the movement of noble Lords whose interest in education seems to have expired some considerable time ago, perhaps I may begin by apologising to the Committee and begging its indulgence because I have
906
the mother and father of all coughs. Throughout the rest of our proceedings today I shall cough, hack and I hope not spit, but it is a question of whether my voice will hold out until the end of the day. May I therefore invite noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who cannot hear what I say and wish to do so to signal that fact by some modest eccentricity of behaviour?
In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 48 and 55. These amendments bring together the issues of enlargement and increases in selection. The first two amendments provide that county and voluntary schools are to be excluded from the greater freedom to select where they have enlarged their capacity to a significant extent in the previous four years. The third amendment, which is an amendment to the Government's new clause before Clause 3, provides that where a grant-maintained school has used that clause to enlarge its premises in the same way, the greater freedom to select conferred under Part I shall not apply to that school.
This Bill is about serial change. One might describe it as a series of salami cuts towards selection or a creeping barrage against the comprehensive principle. The best analogue I can think of is ecclesiastical. For some 10 years before 1980 liturgical activists worked to modernise the services of the Church of England and confine Cranmer to the crypt. Then, in 1980, came the Alternative Service Book; not a replacement, we were told, not a takeover, but one beside the other—alternatives. But, as some of us said, be ye not deceived. The intention was quite clearly to displace the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 and scrap 318 years of tranquil agreement; but slowly, slice by slice, introducing first of all series 1, series 2, series 3 and series goodness knows what, and then a little bit further down the line producing an Alternative Service Book, marginalising and reducing the old book, and pushing the new one, especially through the theological colleges. This same process of gradualism is at work in the Bill.
As we open our detailed discussion on it I would beg the Committee not to be taken in for a moment by the idea that these are only small changes, minor adjustments and little movements here and there to allow a bit more elbow room to those who really need it. This Bill offers alternatives and its aim is to restore the élitism of the 11-plus. We shall not see the 11-plus reinstituted in all its gory glory, but we shall see the same divisiveness in our education system. And unto him that hath shall be given and from him that hath not—the underprivileged—shall be taken away, even that which they hath.
In technical terms, the Bill completely rewrites the concept of "significant change of character" and "significant enlargement" by the provisions of Part I. This provides that in relation to the character of the school, increasing selection up to a threshold of 20 per cent. in a county school or 50 per cent. in a grant-maintained secondary school does not significantly change its character. It is the same beast really; nobody would know the difference; it is a minor matter; a mere adjustment. In our view, that is not so.
In the same way, the Government's new clause, which was twice not agreed to in the other place, tries to rewrite the concept of significant enlargement of premises so that an increase of 50 per cent. is not to be treated as significant. By altering these technical definitions, Ministers hope to liberate schools—and in particular grant-maintained schools—from a process of public consultation and seeking of consent and popular agreement which in most other areas of our legal system is considered the essential underpinning of a structured system, and especially of a structured system of school provision.
These amendments thus seek to draw out some of the implications of this gentle relaxation of control at the outset of our Committee stage. The contention behind the amendments is that either a substantial increase in the selective intake of a school or a large growth in its size are major alterations in both the practice and the ethos of a school and that they should not take place simultaneously. All those professionally concerned in education agree, as the Second Reading debate on this Bill reflected, that the education service needs, above all, a period of calm and recuperation rather than the perpetual fuss of ongoing and everlasting change. Teachers, head teachers, LEAs and educationists are sick of one Bill every year, churning up and overturning what they have been trying to assimilate and get through to their pupils in the previous 12 months. They go back in the autumn in fear and dread of what the Government will throw at them this time which will require more and endless returns and paperwork and keep teachers from their classes.
The principal problems in our education service are illiteracy, innumeracy, the position of our system in its rating against our international competitors, discipline, teaching methods, rotting buildings and demoralised teachers in a profession which does not even have a general council to look after its interests. Those are the major items that we ought to be addressing ourselves to, because, as the Prime Minister himself said—we shall repeat this shamelessly during the next days of Committee debate—15 per cent. of our children are equal to the best in the world but, in his phrase, the other 85 per cent. frankly are not. What we have is this great tail of under-achievers. We contend that those are the people to whom we should be addressing our work. Yet the Government's policy, at this fag end of a Parliament, is to loosen the foundations on which a formerly coherent system rests by creating, even more than they have to date, a market for pupils among schools.
I should also, I suppose, declare a sort of interest. I am the chairman of the Council of the Prince of Wales Institute of Architecture, which is part of a group of charities of which the Prince of Wales is the president. I was talking about this issue with the Director of Education in another of them, Business in the Community, which deals with education and business. He said this:
"We estimate that 25-30% of young people at 19 are functionally illiterate and this is costing business £10 billions per annum to provide training in basic numeracy and literacy as well as billions to the UK economy in terms of the costs of unemployment, social
908
security, exclusion, crime and related tax costs combined with low purchasing power and lowered tax-base in the economy and skills shortages undermining future investment.
We believe that this 'tail' is the result of the cycle of low aspiration and deprivation in disadvantaged communities with low literate adults…some 5,000 schools (4,000 primary/1,000 secondary) need focused support to tackle this issue which affects over 200,000 young people leaving school at 16 with virtually no formal qualifications (100,000 fail to achieve any grade in English or mathematics at GCSE each year)".
I could not put it better myself. It is right that, as the Committee begins to assess what the Bill says about greater selection, this is a matter to which we should give our attention.
The Government make much of the importance and the creative possibilities of competition. There is a great deal of truth in that. We on this side of the Chamber support competition wherever it can be usefully and creatively deployed; it is a necessary part of any educational process. It can be creative, stretching, enlightening, developing and it can be great fun. I recall that 50 years ago my grammar school, as it then was—it is not now—used to play rugby against every public school in the area that we could find. It was highly competitive. We played Blundells, Christ College, Brecon, Crypt Gloucester and Llandovery. In our view those schools existed for the sole purpose of being beaten by Cardiff High School at rugby regularly every year and by a large margin. Similarly, we competed against them in achieving scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge and we did extremely well.
But what was the price? Eighty five per cent. of our contemporaries, many of our friends, brothers, sisters, people with young children whom we had been brought up with, were consigned to the factories, the collieries or the dead-end jobs where they were simply "hands" that clocked on for the appropriate shift. They were the under-achievers—the tail-enders.
Those days are dead and gone. Competition must now be creative in a new way. I gave the best picture of it that I know at Second Reading when I talked about one school which introduced a new race on Games Day, in which the school was divided into teams. They raced against one another, but each team had a proportion of the weak, disabled, the unco-ordinated and the general losers. The winning team was the one which got all its members over the line first. To win one had to collaborate as well as compete. That is the kind of competition that this country needs: that is what we are aiming for with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, deserves the sympathy of this Chamber for the risk that he runs of the collapse of his voice. If I were to comment I believe that perhaps, for the sake of his voice, he could be a little less generous with his eloquence because his speech did range somewhat widely from the amendment that he was moving. That said, I sincerely hope that his voice will hold on for the rest of the day because I always enjoy listening to him even if I find myself disagreeing with so much of what he said.

909
I have a little difficulty with the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was introducing. Of course, he is right to be concerned about the level of under-achievement in schools, but that is something which, regrettably, has persisted for a very long time. Indeed, it was always there. I went to a moderately good public school and there was under-achievement even there. The fact of the matter is that if one looks at the other side of the spectrum—which I believe is the way that one should put it—and at university entrants, one finds that the percentage has risen from 8 per cent. in about 1980 to 30 per cent. today. That suggests that the schools are doing a remarkably successful job on behalf of a very large number of students. So there is another side to that particular picture.
I had a little difficulty with the argument that the noble Lord produced over the Book of Common Prayer because the original which we all grew up with was a very familiar and well-loved document and had been around for some centuries. To compare comprehensive education with that is being a little "radical" with the facts. I did not really like the process of gradualism from that being compared to this. In any event, even if we are now indulging in a process of gradualism back to something which existed for a long time before—it can be said that we are—that process is as nothing compared with the very blunt instrument that was used in two circulars from the Labour Government; namely, Circulars Nos. 1065 and 1066. They actually introduced the comprehensive system virtually at a stroke when in fact there was not a demand for it.
I come back to the amendments. The one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, left out of his proposition was consideration of the wishes and needs of parents. Not only are we talking about empowering schools as to how they should administer and organise their affairs, we are also talking about empowering parents so that they can make valid choices about the schools which their children attend. I remind the Committee that selection is not simply a matter of the 11-plus or bust. I come from a town with three very good schools and a sixth-form college. The rational way of organisation in that town would be for the three schools each to specialise in particular groups of subjects. It would make for much better use of resources. Such a system would imply a very heavy degree of selection by parents and the schools for it to work and the necessity to pick people with an affinity for the subject groupings on which the schools concentrated. I reject the remarks made in moving this amendment and I hope that the Committee will support the amendments proposed by the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may add my voice in expressing sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for the affliction which has overcome him. It may have affected the mellifluence of his voice, but it has not affected the eloquence of his speech. I listened with great interest to his opening remarks. I am delighted that, in addition to his
910
knowledge of the Bible, of the 1662 book and of clerical humour, to which I referred at Second Reading, he has added a knowledge of liturgical development.
He may be interested in a story which relates to the moment when the Queen was present at the General Synod of the Church of England and was to be presented with a copy of the alternative service book to which the noble Lord has referred. In presenting the book the Archbishop said that he had considered the possibility of making the point that the alternative service book stood alongside the 1662 book by presenting the Queen with a copy of each of them but, he said, "Your Majesty, we did think you might already possess a copy of one of them". I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, possesses a copy of the 1662 book. I am delighted to think that he uses it so frequently.
I had some difficulty—as did the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—over the application of that particular parallel because it seems to me, as has just been said, that the parallel was incorrectly drawn. Had we been considering the introduction of a new book, his analogy might have been right; but in going back to selection, we are surely doing something that might be paralleled by a return to the Book of Common Prayer—a restoration. Therefore, I found some difficulty with the notion that moving towards selection is paralleled by moving towards liturgical development. In fact, it seemed to me that the parallel was reversed.
I accept what the noble Lord said about the need for broad-based skills in education. When I listen to industrialists and a variety of other people talking about the educational needs of this country, again and again they paint the picture of an educational system which at the top produces marvellous scholars who are very well equipped, which produces a broad middle range of people with good skills, but which totally fails to produce the broad pyramid for the whole of our national workforce which is what we need. In other words, at the bottom end, the skills narrow down again. What we most need is an educational system which enables all those who pass through it to gain broad-based skills. Therefore, I accept the broad thrust of the noble Lord's remarks.
However, perhaps the noble Lord can explain my difficulty over the relevance of this amendment which, as I understand it, would mean that a school (either a county school or, under Amendment No. 4, a voluntary school) could not make two sets of changes within the four-year period. In other words, if a school has enlarged its capacity, it cannot then take the road towards selection within the same four-year period. I can understand the argument against selection, but I cannot at the moment quite grasp why a school which has enlarged its capacity should somehow be prevented from going down the road of selection. Perhaps the noble Lord can assist me with that. However, it may well be that as we move on in the debate, I shall find myself more in agreement with him.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: I hesitate to follow the ecclesiastical arguments that have so far characterised this debate.

911
Indeed, I do not intend to do so. I rise to support this amendment, which stands also in my name and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to whom I spoke on the telephone this morning. Unfortunately, the noble Earl has been taken ill and is confined to his bed. He asked me to explain that and to give his apologies to the Committee for his unavoidable absence today and to say—I think I quote him accurately—that he supports anything that can be done to protect the role of LEAs.
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Lord that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, communicated with me by fax to pass on exactly the same message.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister.
As I have said, I do not want to follow the ecclesiastical debate, but I should like to comment on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the large growth in the number of university entrants. That has been a welcome change over the past 20 to 30 years and I should have thought that it makes the need for selection even less than might have been the case all those years ago. I believe it undermines any argument that there might be in favour of selection.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, described the principal problems, as he saw them, of our education system as illiteracy and poor numeracy. He touched very gently and delicately—as I know that he must—on the other principal problem, the crumbling buildings and lack of equipment—basically, the under-funding of our education system. As we have said previously, the Bill does nothing to address that. Today, we are largely debating matters which, frankly, are irrelevant to the real needs of our education service. Nevertheless, we must now try to see how we can make a bad Bill better.
As I said on Second Reading, the only way to make this part of the Bill better is to remove Part I altogether. I urged the Minister to do that, but I did so more in hope than in expectation and I need to repeat it: the only satisfactory thing to do is to withdraw Part I from the Bill. We cannot do that, however, so we are seeking to make something bad a little less bad. That is the purpose of our amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to serial change. It reminded me of a card that I used to have on my office wall which said, "Constant change is here to stay". That is the case with the education system. There have been Education Bills every year that this Government have been in office. Although most people agree that the one thing that our schools really need now is a period of calm and recuperation, here we are changing things and churning it all up again—and for no very good reason.
The amendments seek to restrict that degree of change. We propose either that there should be significant growth or that there should be a selective intake, but not both at the same time. The upheaval and the disturbance to a school at such a time would be
912
considerable. Perhaps even more so—here I come to the query raised by the right reverend Prelate—in that the effect of allowing growth and a selective intake, particularly in grant-maintained schools, would ensure that the rate of change and the rate of selection in such schools would be significantly greater. Over time—probably over not all that much time—the proportion of selective places would rise above even the percentages suggested in the Bill, although many of us agree that they are far too high.
The purpose of the amendment is to give schools and admission authorities a choice: either to expand the numbers or to increase the proportion of selective places. The amendments seek to prevent the drift towards selection being combined with the wholesale expansion of the grant-maintained sector, without the approval of the parents, the Secretary of State or anyone else.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: First, I must apologise for not hearing all of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I am afraid that a large family crisis will forbid me from staying to the end of the debate; but, having spoken at Second Reading, I felt that I should say something now. Those parts of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that I managed to hear both in the Lobby and in this Chamber worry me because no one on the Opposition Benches is prepared to consider breaking the rigidity of our present system and that is something that we really must consider.
As noble Lords know, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and I had somewhat of an exchange over the continental system, so I should like to make the facts clear. Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Austria and Germany have the old, tripartite system. France, Italy, Spain and Scandinavia have comprehensive education up to age 16 although with repetition of years. If you fail a year, you have to repeat it. Furthermore, they do not have an examination that is equivalent to GCSE. In other words, an integral part of what we call their comprehensive system is a form of selection post-16. Although I say that at boring length, noble Lords opposite do not seem to realise it.
This Bill seeks to break the log jam. I understand noble Lords opposite want to keep a comprehensive system to the age of 18, providing vocational and academic qualifications. If they oppose the Bill, they must explain to the House how they think that such a comprehensive system will be better than those provided by all our continental neighbours, even those without the tripartite system who have selection post-16 and who, it is generally agreed in every survey, produce better results than we do. We are harping on old arguments and I have not yet detected any constructive proposals from the Benches opposite.
This Bill may not be perfect—I am a Back-Bencher and I can say that—but it is a step in the right direction. Unless we are prepared to think about it we will go

913
steadily further down. In the Second Reading debate I quoted Galileo. I now quote the old saying about the Bourbons:
"[They] have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing".
Lord Henley: I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, by making what amounts to a Second Reading speech on the first amendment of the day. However, I pick him up on one or two points. I am amused to hear that the Labour Party now supports competition. I am also amused to hear of his prowess on the rugby field. Perhaps he was referring to his school's prowess. I do not know whether the noble Lord himself took part when Cardiff High School used to thrash so many English and, I daresay, Welsh public schools. As an Englishman, one wonders whether the same would be true now of the Welsh and English national teams. One will have to wait and see.
I should also like to deal with one point raised by the right reverend Prelate. He spoke of skill shortages that faced British industry. He was quite right to say that it was necessary to get the education system right so that it could deal with any skill shortages that might arise in the future, but I can assure him that there are no skill shortages at the moment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Desai—who was briefly in his place earlier today—the British economy is in fine shape. I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling us that.
The right reverend Prelate also made the valuable point that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, had not really told the Committee what the amendments were about and had hardly addressed them in his speech. It may assist the Committee if I say a word or two about the amendments before a decision is reached on them. The noble Lord alleged that the Bill was about serial change and was a creeping barrage against the comprehensive principle. I assure the noble Lord that it is not that. It is about giving more power to schools and admission authorities to consider developing choice and diversity within those schools. I do not believe that that is a matter to which the noble Lord can object. One of the central purposes of the Bill is to give admission authorities greater flexibility to introduce or extend selection without needing central approval; that is to say, it is deregulatory in nature. That is what Schedule 1, to which Clause 1 gives effect, and Clause 3, which is referred to by one of the later amendments, provide for.
We believe that it is right for admission authorities, whether governing bodies or LEAs, to have extra flexibility to respond to what parents want. However, it is important to remember from where we start. Under present legislation LEAs and governing bodies must publish statutory proposals for any alteration to a school that would amount to a significant change of character. In relation to selective admissions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken the view that to select up to 15 per cent. of a school's intake does not constitute a significant change of character and that therefore the usual procedures
914
need not be followed. Paragraph 2 of Schedule I would enable the admission authority of any county or voluntary school to introduce selection or to vary the proportion of selective admissions by up to 20 per cent. rather than the existing 15 per cent. of a school's intake. We have yet to hear from the Opposition exactly what it feels about specialist schools. Does it believe that specialist schools should have the right to select a certain proportion of those by ability or aptitude within their own particular speciality? For technology colleges and other specialist schools the threshold would be 30 per cent. These are simply extensions to the flexibility that admission authorities already have. I see no reason why particular county or voluntary schools should be denied access to them, which is exactly what Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 seek to do.
Schools that have significantly enlarged their capacity tend to be popular schools or schools that happen to be in areas where there has been population growth. To penalise such schools seems to be particularly objectionable, but that is exactly what these amendments seek to do. Similar points apply to Amendment No. 48 in relation to grant-maintained schools. As for Amendment No. 55, there is no reason why introducing or extending selection should require significant enlargement or adaptation of premises. I suspect that in most cases governing bodies who decide to take this path will not want to commit themselves to major building work. However, there may be cases where governing bodies decide to combine selection with expanding the school's premises or, where pupils are selected by aptitude for a particular subject, providing specialist adaptations to support that particular subject. That is particularly appropriate for those schools within the specialist schools programme. We have no intention of preventing that. That does not mean that schools that want to carry out such projects should have any automatic right to capital grant from the Funding Agency for Schools beyond their normal formula allocation. But if the governors can find funding that they need from a variety of sources available to them I see no reason why they should be prevented by law from combining selection with expansion. Obviously, the noble Lord does not share my view because that is exactly what this amendment seeks to do. Presumably, the noble Lord is afraid that popular schools which introduce selection will become even more popular and draw away more pupils from other less popular schools. As a central planner, no doubt the noble Lord regards that as a bad thing, but I certainly do not.
If a school expands as a result of introducing or extending selection it must mean that it is giving parents what they want. I regard that as a very good thing and is much of what this Bill is all about. We want many more parents to be able to put their children into popular schools, like the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and Mrs. Harman. If it means that there are surplus places at unpopular schools there are ways of dealing with that.

915
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that it is necessary to press the amendment, but if he does so, I advise my noble friends and others that it should be rejected.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: In opening what I believed would be a pretty long haul and some fairly late hours, I felt that it was my duty to set the scene in which this amendment was tabled. After all, this is the first amendment of the first day. I am sorry that my ecclesiastical analogy caused such concern on the spiritual Benches, but I intended merely to illustrate the seductive power of gradualism in the move towards selection which this whole Bill represented. As to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, we believe that selection and growth during the school experience of one child represent too much disruption in the ethos of a school to be tolerated together. The central point is that schools now need a period of peace and quiet.
I could spend a great deal of time dwelling on the minutiae of each amendment, but there is no need to do so. The Minister has described them carefully and accurately, as he always does. But, sadly, I find the reasons that he has put forward for rejecting them unconvincing. I must ask the Committee to express a view upon the matter.
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Geraint, L.

Barnett, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bath, M

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Gregson, L

Blease, L.

Grey, E.

Borrie, L.

Hamwee, B.

Broughshane, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hayman, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Calverley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Judd, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Kirkwood, L.

David, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ezra, L.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Fitt, L.

Paul, L.

916

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taverne, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller.]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Richard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Tope, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rochester, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Russell, E.

Whitty, L.

Serota, B.

Wigoder, L.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Holderness, L.

Acton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Addison, V.

Hooper, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ailsa, M.

Ilchester, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lawrence, L.

Alport, L.

Layton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsay, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Long, V.

Annan, L.

Lucas, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Berners, B.

Marsh, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cadman, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Newall, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Northesk, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Palumbo, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Courtown, E.

Peel, E.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cuckney, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pym, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rees, L.

Davidson, V.

Rotherwick, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rowallan, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Donegall, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Slim, V.

Elles, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stockton, E.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hayter, L.

Tenby, V.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

917

Teviot, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Westbury, L.

Wilcox, B.

Torphichen, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at beginning insert ("Where the Secretary of State has in accordance with subsection (10) below designated the area of a local education authority as an area within which it is for the time being to apply").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 49 and 50. These amendments introduce five requirements before Schedule 1 and Clause 3 apply. It is the schedule, activated by Clause 1, which introduces the relaxation of controls over selection for county and voluntary schools. Controls over selection in grant-maintained schools are similarly relaxed by the clause.
Under the amendments those provisions could come into effect only in a given LEA area where the Secretary of State had designated. She could do so only where she was satisfied that selection would benefit that area and had come to that conclusion by testing the area against certain criteria. In addition, under the amendments designation could occur only after consultation with the relevant LEA, voluntary authorities and other concerned persons.
The criteria themselves pinpoint much of what is wrong with this insistence upon greater selection. The criteria need a little care. I shall deal with one or two of them and my noble friends will deal with others. I draw attention to the question of choice and diversity. Enhancing choice as well as diversity for all ranges of ability is one of the criteria. That cannot be achieved by more selection. Instead, the Bill will lead to large-scale selection and grammar schools by stealth through several routes.
Let us take, for example, the freedom to select up to the percentage limits in Schedule 1. The pressure of a domino effect, once selection is encouraged on the scale proposed, will be for schools to move to the maximum straight away in order to preserve their competitive position. They will all be scrambling in a somewhat undignified way for what look like the brightest boys and girls in the area, or, indeed, beyond the area. That domino effect will reach out from the school that goes first to all the others and is likely to bring in the highest rate of selection straight away.
In the grant-maintained sector under the new clause (the former Clause 3 which the Government seem keen to reintroduce, even though they were defeated twice in another place) the conjunction of increased selection with freedom to expand numbers each four years by up to 50 per cent. would mean—it needs no great mathematical ability to see this—that the overall number of grant-maintained selection places will increase substantially.
Under Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2), county and voluntary schools would then be able to select for all age groups within the school within their percentage limit, not just to move to or expand selection for the admission year group. County schools which wish to move to 100 per cent. selection and become grammar schools would be able to appeal to the Secretary of State over the head of the LEA under what seems to us to be a rather biased procedure, described in Schedule 1, paragraph 5, which favours the would-be grammar school over the interests of the community as a whole. Furthermore, 100 per cent. selection for sixth forms would become the statutory norm; that is Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1).
The direction set by the Bill is wholly opposed to retaining choice for the majority of parents for whose children selection will not lead to a place. It is those with whom I am concerned. The reality is that the parents of children who fail—I use that word advisedly—to he selected will be faced with fewer choices of school, if any at all, and the likelihood of longer travel to a school which is further away than the one which they would have preferred. The consequences in terms of the cost to public funds, moving them around, wasting pupils' and parents' time, and the safety and well being of pupils faced with long journeys have not been taken into consideration.
We all agree that the introduction of the 11-plus would be widely opposed if it were mooted—not least by middle-class parents who fear that a number of their children would fail. We believe that the Bill, led by Schedule 1 and Clause 3, threatens to reintroduce the 11-plus in many areas by a back door. That is why we are opposed to the Bill's proposals. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has given an explanation of the first of the criteria that we are setting before areas can be designated as an area to which provisions of the Bill should apply.
Perhaps I may deal with the next criterion, which involves no loss of resources to the LEA and enables resources to be better targeted. Selection will drive up costs for LEAs. I speak as a leader of an LEA. They will face increased costs of moving pupils greater distances, a more complex admissions procedure and an appeals system. I speak from experience of that. I seriously doubt the statement in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the changes are:
"unlikely to have a significant financial effect",
There is no evidence for that claim, but I hope that the Minister will be able to produce some evidence. It certainly flies in the face of all my experience of an LEA which still has a strongly selective increase. Any increase in costs is bound to mean a diversion of resources away from the classroom in ways which cause parents concern.
Another criterion proposed in the amendments is the enhancement of provision for pupils with special needs. Selection cannot achieve that. It moves precisely in the

919
opposite direction of the recent progress towards integration enshrined in successive legislation and in the special needs codes of practice.
Finally, the amendment seeks to promote the educational opportunities for all pupils in all areas. That point is important. Instead, resources, attention and a sense of achievement must necessarily attach to the more academically able. The effect of the school increasing its selective proportion may, depending on its geographical location, affect not only other schools in the authority's area but in some neighbouring authorities too. As regards voluntary aided schools, the effect may be even more widespread, disturbing the pattern of admissions over a considerable catchment area.
In proposing the amendments, we set out a number of criteria. I suspect that the Minister will not accept the amendments, but I shall be interested to know whether he accepts at least the criteria. If he does not agree with them as being desirable, I ask: why? If he agrees with them, how can they be achieved by the greater selection that is being proposed in the Bill? I support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. I speak partly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Baldwin, but more on my own account. An important proposal in the amendment is the reiteration of the necessity of working collaboratively with the local authority. I am not opposed to selection and therefore do not support the amendment on grounds directly connected with selection. Nevertheless, it is true that the more selective schools become, the fewer places there are for children of moderate or low ability, to say nothing of children with special educational needs.
One of the defects of the Bill is that the needs of such children, who make up a large proportion of school children, are not addressed. I refer not only to children with statements but children who for various reasons are of low ability. They used to be called the "Warnock 18 per cent.". I believe that they need particular attention.
Above all, it is a general principle that parents, although they should be able to choose selective schools, are not the best policy makers. There is no reason why they should make policy for a whole area covered by a local education authority. However, there must be someone, other than members of the funding authority, who understands the needs of a particular geographical area and who is consulted as a matter of first priority on any changes within the area. In concert with governors of grant-maintained schools, which are, after all, maintained schools, such a person should plan for the proper provision for all children.
One of the merits of the amendment is the setting out of criteria which should be agreed in general. The question is how the Bill as it stands will satisfy those extremely important criteria. I support the amendment on grounds of consultation and in terms of considering policy to meet those criteria.
Baroness David: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. In my Second Reading speech, I said
920
that I thought the people who would be damaged by the Bill in particular were the 18 per cent. of children who do not have statements but have special needs. They will not be the children selected by the schools—and we must remember that the schools will select rather than the parents. A little more choice for a few parents will mean much less choice for nearly every parent. We must consider that point. We are supposed to be helping to educate the whole body of children and not just the few who will no doubt get on perfectly well anyway.
Baroness Young: In discussing the amendment, we return to the important question of whether to accept the principles of diversity and choice, in particular the principle of selection. I was interested to hear the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Pilkington in respect of Amendment No. 1 about what is done in other countries and why we should be different from any of the countries in Europe. We are trying to crack a difficult nut, which is the education of average and less average children.
A long time ago I was chairman of a local education authority which operated a tripartite system. There were some very good schools. I recall an extremely good secondary modern school. On looking back at all my educational experiences, I shall never forget going to the retirement of the headmaster of that school. He was absolutely adored by both the pupils and the parents. People used to queue up to try to get into that school. All the children were numerate and literate, beautifully disciplined and had no difficulty in getting a job.
Not all schools are like that and I do not pretend that they are. But a good school is made by a good head with sound principles. I see no reason whatever for thinking that because some schools are selective, there will never be a good head in any other school. That is a positive insult to the teaching profession. There are very good people who would regard it as a challenge to teach other children and, indeed, the late developers, many of whom are very intelligent and who come into the schools. There will be people who will wish to make those schools into very good schools.
When the tripartite system ended we were told that it was very bad. The argument was—and it has been repeated several times this afternoon—that 15 per cent. of the children did very well and 85 per cent. did very badly. Therefore, we were told that we should all go into comprehensive schools. When I was chairman of that education committee, I recall clearly the circulars to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred—1065 and 1066—which committed us all, without any real experience of comprehensive schools, to going comprehensive, and so the authority went comprehensive.
But the argument now is—and I do not believe that anybody can have any pleasure in saying this—and the point on which I thoroughly agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is, that for average and less average children there are still failures in the comprehensive system. We are trying to deal with that. We still have the devastating statement that in comparison with many of our competitors, the average and less average children are

921
two years behind in English and maths. If that is still a fact, it is not one about which any of us can be pleased. We must ask ourselves how to deal with it.
We find that, for better or for worse, the comprehensive system has not dealt with that problem and those children are still suffering. I believe that part of the problem is due to extraordinary teaching methods for mixed ability groups in schools and for reading. That has contributed to the problem. It is extremely important for children that we should get these matters right.
The really successful schools and the schools that are doing well bring up the standards of the rest. In my speech on Second Reading I referred to Northern Ireland, which most people regard as having the best education system in the United Kingdom. There they have grammar schools and selection. I do not say that that pattern should be repeated here, but, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that where grammar schools exist side by side with comprehensive schools, the average and less average children do worse. Indeed, there is some evidence to show that they are doing better.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Baroness referred to grammar schools and comprehensive schools co-existing, which is absolute nonsense. You cannot have grammar schools and comprehensive schools co-existing. If there are grammar schools, by definition, we then have secondary modern schools; we do not have comprehensive schools. The only way that we can have comprehensive schools is by doing away with grammar schools and secondary modern schools.
Baroness Young: I do not wish to become involved in a long argument with the noble Lord. But there are authorities where there are grammar schools—I admit very few grammar schools—and comprehensive schools. That is a matter of fact and that is the position as it is today.
I hope that it will be recognised that with this Bill the Government are trying hard to raise the standards of the average and less average children. Grant-maintained schools are very successful and they have children of a whole range of abilities. I am certain that the right honourable Mr. Blair would not send his children to grant-maintained schools if he did not think they were good schools.
What parents want is an important factor. Parents may not always be very articulate but my experience is that they look for a school in which there is discipline. They want their children to be able to read and write well and at the end of their school days to be able to obtain a job. That is what the school should be aiming to do. The rest of the Bill, which we are not debating now, deals with testing, assessment and all those other matters that are so important and all part of it which are issues that we should consider.
We all have a common interest in trying to help these children. I hope very much that this amendment will not be accepted. The Bill is trying to help all the children of this country to be able to do their best.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: The amendment aims to make sure that we have regard to such matters as ability to consult the local authorities which are administering such matters as special educational needs. The Government have made considerable progress in that regard, but such matters are all administered through the local education authorities. That is one area in which the local education authorities are still dominant. If schools are pushed further and further out, through selection, there is bound to be a change in the way in which that help is given. That is a fact. That is bound to happen.
In a system of selection, the pupils with problems will be the ones who are excluded unless they are spotted early on, and a lot of them are not picked up in that way. If this amendment or something like it is not in place, there is a tremendous danger that a large group of children will be excluded from a certain type of school.
This amendment may not be perfect but it seeks to counter a de facto exclusion of pupils in that 18 per cent. who have special needs but who are not actually statemented. It seeks to prevent those pupils from being elbowed to one side. I do not wish to become involved in the argument as to whether grammar schools are good or bad. But we know that those with ability tend to succeed, whichever schools they go to, unless something goes severely wrong. The less able pupils will fail unless everything is done to support them. Surely that is what we are arguing about here.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I should like to make one or two points in response to her. First, I find great difficulty in seeing how both choice and diversity are to be maintained in the selection system. I accept entirely that selection will provide greater diversity. But I live in a city, albeit a tiny city where there is a grammar school and a secondary modern school. There is no comprehensive school. It is quite clear that in that city many of the parents have no choice because the children are not selected for the grammar school. Therefore, I find great difficulty in understanding how choice and diversity can be maintained if we follow that route.
I was most interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, and his comments on post-16 education. I would wish to talk to him further about that. There is a variety of provision in the post-16 sector through sixth-form colleges in the FE sector, other FE colleges and the sixth form itself. As I understand it, there is some measure of selection in part of that sector.
As regards what the noble Baroness said about mixed ability and mixed teaching, those are not issues here. Mixed ability and mixed teaching methods can be found within schools which are not selective. Therefore, I felt that in making those comments she was not helping us to focus on the important issues.
With regard to the points that the noble Baroness made about grammar schools and comprehensive schools, if there is selection, that removes from the total pool a number of the more able children. That is bound

923
to affect the mix to be found in comprehensive schools. I believe that we are arguing that they cannot be truly comprehensive because part of the total mix has been taken from them. There is much to be said for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I shall be supporting it.
Baroness Brigstocke: My mother always told me that I should not contradict anyone completely, but I have something to say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I do not know whether one is allowed to say that he is talking nonsense but, as the chairman of a city technology college, I can tell the noble Lord a little about Derby. I can also assure Members of the Committee that there is at least one grammar school in Derby, there are several secondary schools and another very successful comprehensive. There is also the city technology college which I should have thought would be called comprehensive.
We do not select on any kind of academic criterion in the college. We look only for those children who want to come and who are interested in a technological, mathematical and scientific curriculum. Their parents declare that they are determined to educate their children until the age of 18. They do not always keep their promise but that is what they say at the beginning. Parents want a specialised curriculum. They want an ethos of encouragement, and the aim of success. Those children, who, had they tried for a grammar school place, would certainly not have got in, are welcomed by us in what might be called a selection process.
We do not know the IQ of the children whom we take. We look at them in another way. We have several children with statements and many children are benefiting from our special educational needs department. In fact, we have so many that, with great delight, we have had to appoint several more teachers and assistants. Some, but not many, of those children have special needs because they are at what one might call the "top end" academically. We have many children with real special needs who are being looked after beautifully and succeeding in a way that makes me very proud. In our discussions we have always said that selection is automatically academic selection; it is not. When parents can see a school which is dedicated to its aims and which really cares about children across the whole broad spectrum, then selection can be a very good idea.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke for informing the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was talking nonsense. Of course, I would never use such an expression and, for that reason, I was grateful to my noble friend. However, the noble Lord raised some interesting questions from the Opposition Benches. He stated that a comprehensive school could not exist alongside grammar schools. If one takes that argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean that we would have to rule out all selection of any form whatever and the choice of all parents to make the schools fully comprehensive.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he was also suggesting that one should abolish the entire private sector. Would he remove what amounts to choice and
924
selection by means of mortgage—for example, parents moving into different areas in order to choose the school of their choice? Would he remove the selection by religious commitment, allowing people to attend Church schools? Would he remove selection by means of home-school agreements, which I believe is something that his Front Bench support?
The noble Lord seems to be saying that we should go back to the old ILEA policies of actually bussing pupils around to ensure that every single school reflects the community in its entirety—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not rise to defend noble Lords on the Labour Benches, but to ask the Minister whether he recognises that his use of the words "choice" and "selection" is totally contrary to the way that many people would use and understand them. A parent chooses a school. A school selects a pupil and, by doing so, may limit the amount of parental choice that exists in any area. That is the nub of the issue.
Lord Henley: Of course, a parent chooses the school and, on some occasions, a school can select a pupil. Exactly the same applies with universities. We have free choice about which universities we apply to. Indeed, I can remember one very distinguished university which did not particularly want to have me, so I went to another one which happened to be my second choice. I dare say that that is true for a great many people. However, that does not deny the fact that I had a choice about which university to attend.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, seemed to be implying that comprehensives could only exist if all schools were comprehensive. The logical corollary of that is that one has to go on and say that one would have to stop bussing pupils to ensure that every school reflected the entire social mix of the country.
I should like to pick up on one small fact that might encourage the noble Lord to consider the virtues of the selective system and those of grammar schools. My noble friend Lady Young referred to the success of schools in one part of the United Kingdom, possibly the best of all; namely, Northern Ireland, which still has grammar schools. I can assure the noble Lord that the percentage of 15 year-olds achieving five or more GCSEs of grades A* to C is 52 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 43 per cent. in England. Similarly, the percentage of 15 year-olds achieving no GCSE passes is lower in Northern Ireland than in England.
I turn now to the amendment. If I heard correctly, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, while talking about the domino effect, that the Bill would lead to large-scale selection and grammar schools by choice. I should point out to the Opposition that they have yet to make their position clear. In one breath they say that parents and schools do not want selection—but, in that case, there can be nothing to fear from giving schools such powers. In the next breath, as the noble Lord put it, they say that there will be large-scale selection presumably because they recognise, as we do, that many parents do want selection and that schools will respond to that particular request from parents.

925
Schedule 1 and Clause 3 of the Bill are about promoting that very real choice. As I believe I made clear earlier, they will do so by giving governing bodies and LEAs more freedom to respond to what parents want; namely, a freedom which would apply nation-wide. In contrast, the proposed amendments would limit such freedom to the areas designated by the Secretary of State. They would set such restrictive criteria for designation that few, if any, would qualify. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether I supported the criteria set out in the amendment. As I said, I believe that the amendments are excessively restrictive and not appropriate for such a Bill. However, no doubt they are matters which individual schools and admission authorities would want to take into account.
I should like to address a few further items. I turn first—and I believe that this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—to the perceived effect of selection on special educational needs. There is no evidence to suggest that selection undermines provision for children with special educational needs. There are eight LEAs in the country with 20 per cent. or more secondary pupils in selective schools and they present a fairly normal SEN profile. All have close to the national average percentage of children with statements; most have average or lower levels of appeal to the SEN tribunal; Her Majesty's inspectorate has not expressed concern about the provision of special educational needs in any of those eight authorities; and, indeed, the department does not receive a disproportionate volume of correspondence about SEN issues arising in those areas.
Non-selective schools in areas with selective schools might be expected to have a larger number of pupils with special educational needs. But, again, there is no evidence in those eight LEAs to show that that difference is significant. Where an individual school has an unusually—
Lord Addington: I believe what most of us are worried about are the children who are not spotted and who do not have a statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I cannot provide evidence about those who are not spotted, but if one looks at those with statements, one can see—as the evidence that I have put before the Committee shows—that they are being treated well. Therefore I do not believe that those without statements are likely to suffer as much as is claimed.
If I may, I shall continue. Where an individual school has an unusually high proportion of pupils with special educational needs, parental choice is almost certainly involved. Parents of children with SEN are likely to choose a school which has a good reputation for providing effectively for such children integrated into the mainstream. I believe that giving schools a little more freedom to select—which is all we are talking about—does not reduce safeguards for children with special educational needs in any way. All of these
926
remain in force including the safeguards preventing admission authorities from discriminating against such children, the right of parents of children with a statement to specify their preferred school, and the requirement to publish clear information about admission arrangements for disabled pupils under the DDA.
There was also the suggestion—I think it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—that more selection would mean extra costs for LEAs. I think he particularly referred to transport. There is no reason to assume that more selection would necessarily lead to additional school costs. Parents may choose to send their children to a partially selective school further away from their home; but nothing in the Bill changes the existing rules on transport—rules that can be operated by LEAs—if pupils live beyond the statutory walking distance from their nearest suitable school. That means that such parents may forgo free school transport to send their children to a non-selective school further away. That may well set off additional costs for transporting pupils who may have to attend a school further away but who are still entitled to free school transport.
We on this side of the Chamber want to give schools more flexibility to serve their communities. That is why the Bill offers freedoms to schools throughout the country. I think Members of the Committee opposite are paying mere lip service to school autonomy, diversity and choice, and I do not believe they believe in that. They want to ration that freedom so far as they possibly can, and underneath their fine words that is exactly what these amendments are all about. Therefore if the noble Lord is not prepared to withdraw them, I encourage those on this side of the Committee to vote against them.
Baroness Warnock: Before the Minister sits down, I hope he will address the question of co-operation with local education authorities, because I do not think he said anything about that. This is at the heart of my support, at any rate, for this amendment; namely, that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that changes must be made only if there has been collaboration with local policy makers, if I can put it that way.
Lord Henley: We shall come to these points later on. The simple fact is that we would expect schools that wish to make changes to their admission procedures, or whatever, to do so. In the case of the LEA county schools, it is the LEAs themselves who would do this because as often as not they are the admission authorities. In virtually all cases they are the admission authorities and therefore the point we have discussed does not apply. In the case of other schools, for example, voluntary schools with their own governors, we would expect them to consult the local education authority and others as appropriate. Later, we shall set out guidance on how that consultation should take place. What I am saying is we do not like this prescriptive attitude as suggested by this amendment that the Secretary of State herself has to designate areas where this can take place before it can take place. We believe the schools are the right people to do this and they will know how to do it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I was, I must confess, amazed and saddened to realise that there was

927
at one point a university which felt it might get along perfectly well without the Minister. I can only say that had I been in the position of the admission authorities at that university, I should not have made that decision.
The point about selection that we are concerned with is that it deals with people up to the end of the statutory school age. At some point life will require that there is selection of one sort or another. I should not like to think that when I competed for a chair of English literature at the University of Sheffield at the age of 39 that should have been invalidated because everyone else did not get a professorship at exactly the same time. We are concerned with selection in schools; what happens in tertiary education, in higher education and in the rest of life is not at the moment our concern.
I was impressed with the way the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Ripon put his difficulty of how choice and diversity are to be maintained in the present system. I do not feel that anything that has been said after his speech has done a great deal to deliver him from his dilemma. We believe that the Secretary of State should not act without consultation and without consideration of the criteria to be involved. Nothing can be lost by the Secretary of State doing that. The criteria are clearly laid out. They have been enunciated by me and by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I notice that the Minister in his reply drew attention to the non-statemented children in some of our schools and how they are dealt with. We on this side of the Chamber would be grateful if he could provide—probably not now, but at some later point—figures on the non-statemented children because the figures are extremely difficult to come by as they are not easily recognised.
The issue to us is that the Government seem not to have any faith in a local community to decide whether it wants selection. These amendments simply permit the citizens of every town in which the Government want to see a grammar school set up publicly to say whether they want four out of five of their schools to be secondary modern schools. The Minister has not been convinced by our arguments. We shall, however, leave them in his mind like eggs in a nest in the hope that they may hatch at a later stage of this Bill. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before I call Amendment No. 6 I should point out to the Committee there is an error on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 6 seeks to amend Clause 1 and not Clause 73 as printed on the Marshalled List.
Clause 1 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) Subsection (3) above shall come into force after the making of an order, and no such order may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 7. These amendments deal with the issues of surplus places and the proper planning of resources.
Lord Henley: Is the noble Baroness also speaking to Amendments Nos. 200, 219 and 222? Amendments Nos. 219 and 222 seek to amend Clause 73, which might be where the confusion comes from.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, I am. I apologise to the Committee. These amendments deal with the issues of surplus places, the management of resources and the important issue that every pound that is spent on providing education for children in our communities ought to be spent most effectively.
The amendments would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent inquiry into the effect of the Bill as regards the creation of surplus places, and require that the Government lay the results before Parliament before various plans to increase selection and to increase provision can be undertaken as a result of this Bill.
During the Commons Committee stage, MPs asked when the report, Trading Places, would be available from the Audit Commission. At one point the Minister claimed not to have seen the report; and it was published the morning after the Commons Committee had completed its consideration of the relevant provision in the Bill. These amendments seek to ensure that proper weight is given to that report.
The report identifies a direct conflict between promoting grant-maintained schools and ensuring the economic and efficient supply of school places. Since GM status was introduced, 40 per cent. of the schools that LEAs wish to close have remained open by opting out. Secondly, the cost of promoting choice is undermining the need to control public expenditure, with no clear indication of the Government's priority. There is a breakdown in the system of capital allocation to schools which has prevented LEAs and diocesan authorities maintaining, let alone improving, many of the currently needed school buildings.
The problem has been that the Government have top-sliced the money that is available for school buildings, and made the money unfairly and disproportionately available to the GM sector and the city technology sector at the expense of county and voluntary-aided schools in all parts of the country.
We are calling on the Government to revise their policy in line with the findings of the Audit Commission for schools facing reorganisation. We are calling on them to re-examine the issues of capital; the definition of school capacity; parental choice; balancing parental choice; and tackling surplus places. We need to give more effective powers to local agencies, both to LEAs and to the FAS, to plan provision and to give local agencies more power to manage the market.
I noted that during debate on a previous amendment the Minister referred rather scathingly to, "those who would seek to plan centrally". Previous debates have referred to education for pupils of statutory school age as though somehow the market alone would provide that

929
which the country needs. The market alone will provide that which a small section of the community needs and will fail the majority. The market is not a system that should be used to determine the ability of every young person within the community to have access to the right quality of provision.
In the light of the Audit Commission report, it is vitally important that Parliament fully understands the implications of the Government's contradictory policy before the selection provisions are given effect to under Clauses 73 and 69. A negative order is required before provision can come into effect along these lines. Delaying the report would thus fit well into the process of further scrutiny within Parliament. A call for a full inquiry is in no way intended to demean the significance of the commission's findings or its independent stance. On the contrary, the report is of such importance that it forms an essential starting-point. Ministers might even wish the commission to undertake the inquiry and gear it directly to the policy implications of Part I of the Bill.
It is a pretty strong indictment of the Government's policy—or rather, the lack of coherence between two aspects of government policy in the field of education—that the list of recommendations in the Audit Commission report contains the following. Under the heading,
"(a) To make the current approach work better",
the report recommends that the Government:
"Encourage and support effective working relationships".
Under
"(b) To change the current approach",
the commission lists:
"Reconsider the existing policy framework by reviewing the consistency between existing policies and procedures on: GM status for schools facing reorganisation; capital; the definition of school capacity and the setting of admission limits; the entitlement of parents to choose; and the balance between promoting choice and tackling surplus places … Consider options to give more effective powers to local agencies … to plan provision … Consider options to give local agencies more powers to manage the market in their area … Consider options for the introduction of an improved set of incentives and trigger mechanisms to promote value for money".
That is a list against which no government should turn their face.
I have no doubt that the Government, the Minister and speakers from the Government Benches will say that the Audit Commission has been "captured" by people from the Opposition Benches in this House and presumably by the diocesan authorities in different parts of the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. These concerns were set out after a professional detailed analysis of the results of government policy. They should be taken most seriously.
The Audit Commission identified a conflict of interest between two government policies—a large black hole of the Government's making. The Audit Commission is warning the Government not to keep digging without stopping to consider who is falling into the hole. On these Benches we know that into that black hole of wasted resources are falling the interests of children in
930
our primary and secondary schools, in our county, voluntary controlled and voluntary-aided schools. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In rising to support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, I wish to make a couple of brief points. First, if it is the case—and the Audit Commission, for which I believe everybody in local government has a very deep respect, suggests that it is—that £100 million is being wasted every year on empty school places and the creation and expansion of grant-maintained schools contributes to that, it is a very serious matter indeed, and one which I should have thought it would be in the very best interests of the Government to assist us in resolving. For that reason we agree with the suggestion that it would be beneficial to allow a further investigation into the apparent conflict of two different strands of government policy and the cost that it imposes to be carried out before we pass the relevant parts of this Bill. In addition, Amendments Nos. 219 to 222, as it were, permit this process to have a meaningful conclusion by insisting that the enactment of this part of the Bill shall be by affirmative procedure in both Houses.
The justification for that is that selection is a deeply divisive issue. I am not talking about what happens on your Lordships' Benches. I am talking about the divisiveness of this issue outside these walls. Had the Government said that they intended to pass an Act which increased the level of selection by a certain proportion, the proposal would have met with very wide opposition among the general public. There is no evidence that parents are particularly keen to ensure that there is an increased amount of selection in their areas. Many parents quite understandably fear what would happen to their child under a selective system, so it is a divisive issue.
The Audit Commission's report has also indicated that it is controversial within the terms of the framework of the Government's policy initiatives. Those are the educational arguments for putting forward the suggestion for the affirmative mode when enacting the Bill.
In parliamentary terms one might question the wisdom of introducing the controversial sections of the Bill at the end of a Parliament. I make no comment as to what will be the result of the forthcoming election, whenever it is called, but that there will be an election is beyond dispute. One must ask oneself whether this is the right moment to introduce extremely controversial issues without having gone as far as one can to prove or disprove the important criticisms with which the Audit Commission dealt in its report.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may deal with some points, particularly those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. First, we must all take the Audit Commission's reports extremely seriously. I worked with it for a long time and have the highest respect for the work it does. However, if we take the £100 million of let us not say wasted resources but under-used

931
resources in the education system as a result of an imbalance between the existing school places and the existing children, there will always be some imbalance. I do not find the figure too discouraging. When I was involved, the figure nationally was of a similar order, unless my memory has failed completely. We have not entirely managed to eliminate inflation, even though we have got it down to a low level and one which the country is not used to. That seems to suggest that the figure overall is stable, so in real terms it is decreasing. However, that is an academic economic argument that is perhaps not too relevant here, even though we should have regard to it.
We also need to consider carefully what the Audit Commission says, as quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, about power for agencies to plan and to manage. The agencies involved, particularly the LEAs, have an absolute responsibility in that field. The difficulty we all have, as did the Audit Commission, is that if there is a separation between plans and management and what parents actually desire for their children there is a problem. The Bill's purpose is to try to enable those who are most intimately involved and have the greatest direct responsibility to have a little more influence over what happens through the power of their own decision. For that reason, I hope that in due time, if it comes to it, the Committee will also reject these amendments.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness assured us that the amendments were about the surplus places and management of resources, if I put her words down correctly. It seems to me that Amendments Nos. 6, 219, 221 and 222, which seek to impose requirements for affirmative resolution on the order commencing under Schedule 1, are simply a delaying tactic and no more. The provisions of Schedule 1 and Clause 3 will have been fully debated here and in another place during the passage of the Bill. I believe that no useful purpose would be served by re-running the debate before the provisions come into effect.
As for Amendments Nos. 7 and 220, I believe that they are based on a misunderstanding of what Schedule 1 is about. The schedule is permissive. It offers schools new freedoms but does not compel any school to use them. So it makes little sense to try to predict the schedule's effects before it comes into force. Schedule 1 is about giving schools more flexibility to introduce or extend selection, and there is nothing in the schedule that would lead to the creation of more school places.
Clause 27 prevents any school, except one that is 100 per cent. selective by high ability, not just by ability—and they are invariably full—from keeping empty places that it cannot fill by selection. So it is hard to see what the inquiry proposed by the amendments would inquire into.
However, it would be right for me to say a word or two about the Audit Commission's Trading Places since the matter was raised by the noble Baroness. I agree with her and with the Audit Commission that it is an important subject. I am disappointed by some of the treatment it has received in the press and in other places. The commission acknowledges that standards have
932
improved significantly. That is good news and something that we should welcome. The recent report on published performance tables shows just that—a steady increase across the board. All the reforms we have introduced have been focused towards our core objective of raising standards. It is our view that higher standards are promoted by extending choice and diversity. The Bill does just that. It further extends the choice available to parents.
We welcome the attention that the report gives to removing surplus places. The department has for some time been stressing the importance of that. We believe that considerable progress has been made in the area and that certain levels of surplus have been reduced by about half over the past 10 years. That is something of which the department and the LEAs responsible can be proud. But we share the commission's conclusion that more can be done and we shall encourage LEAs to follow the examples of good practice contained in the report. Officials within the department will continue to follow up with individual local authorities where the returns suggest to us that there is scope for action that has not been taken.
Finally, turning to the noble Baroness's point on grant-maintained schools opting out and, as she alleges, blocking progress in removing certain places, our position on grant-maintained schools facing closure is quite clear. The Audit Commission, sadly, does not quote it in full but it is set out, as the noble Baroness will be aware, in circular 23/94 which states that we will not approve applications for grant-maintained status which are prompted by the threat of closure arising in the context of a well-founded local rationalisation scheme, particularly where the school concerned has a significant amount of surplus capacity. But we would be minded to approve grant-maintained proposals from schools proposed for closure where we are not persuaded of the authority's case and where the school is viable and of good quality.
Since that statement was made, some 71 per cent. of schools seeking grant-maintained status in those circumstances have been approved for closure. I thought it would be useful for the noble Baroness to have the statement in full. I hope that she will therefore accept that the first part of the group of amendments is unnecessary and superfluous and that the second is based to some extent on a misunderstanding of what the schedule is about.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister repeated the problem identified by the Audit Commission and acknowledged in his reply that the purpose of these parts of the proposed legislation would be to extend choice and diversity. The basic tenor of the report from the Audit Commission is that it is precisely the existing level which causes conflict in the removal of surplus places.
The Minister referred to the reduction over a 10-year period. It is my understanding, from reading the report and the figures, that that process has been slowed down by the experience of local authorities and diocesan authorities when they have sought to rationalise surplus places. However, at this stage it is important to consider

933
the Minister's reply in detail and so with the Committee's agreement I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
SELECTION CRITERIA
(".—(1) A maintained school which admits a proportion of its pupils by reference to ability or aptitude, and which also within its admission arrangements accords priority—

(a) on the basis of the proximity of a pupil's home to the school; and

(b) to a sibling of a pupil or former pupil,

shall accord a higher priority to—

(i) proximity; or

(ii) being a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted on the basis of proximity,

than to being a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted by reference to their ability or aptitude.").
The noble Baroness said: This proposed new clause deals with the situation in which a maintained school admits a proportion of its pupils by reference to aptitude or ability and also within its admission arrangements gives priority on the basis of proximity to the school of a pupil's home and to the sibling of a pupil or former pupil. We wish to examine that in the context of pupils being in danger of being denied access to a school because the sibling of a pupil or a former pupil who has been selected on grounds of ability has priority over one who would not be selected on ability and could be denied access on grounds of proximity to the school.
It is important to offer and maintain an essential level of protected access for local children for the non-selective places in schools which include an element of selection within their admission arrangements. It is also critically important that, if partially selective schools are oversubscribed, numbers of local children do not find themselves displaced by children from more distant places who are admitted to the selective places, a significant number of whom may be drawn from outside the locality. That situation should not then be continued because of a policy of admitting the siblings of those children from a greater distance at the expense of children in the locality.
The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I rise briefly to support the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, its purpose is clear. I believe its language also is clear. It is a very important amendment. To me it appears to be an amendment about choice and that may appeal to the Minister. I know—I speak from experience of an LEA adversely affected by the Greenwich judgment—that one of the rights of choice which most parents feel they should have is for
934
their children to go to the school nearest their home. As the noble Baroness explained, the effect of not agreeing to this amendment will, over a fairly short period of time, deny that choice to an increasing number of parents and their children.
I think the case has been made. The amendment is clear. It is not a matter of party political division but one of common sense. The amendment tries to ensure choice for parents who are denied that choice by virtue of the admission criteria. I support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not spoken before on the Bill, largely because many of the issues are local to schools in England and Wales. As I live in Scotland, I find some of those issues quite difficult to follow. However, this one is very easy to understand.
It seems to me very strange to put the need to ensure that there are places for children who live near the school in front of the need to keep families together. Surely we know how much it matters to parents to have their children attend the same school. It is important not just for the children themselves but for the sake of family life—getting them to and back from school, the time at which they arrive home, attending school occasions and so on. Those things are very important to families. It seems to me extraordinary that their children should be in different schools and be told by legislation that they must be in different schools.
Having listened to the discussions on the last two amendments, I feel that noble Lords opposite may he falling into a trap if they believe that the community in which they live and community relations, which matter so much to everybody, have to be contained within the geographical area of the local authority. The school community matters to people. The school is a community. The school to which your children go is an important community to which parents and children belong. Those who feel very strongly about communities—we all do at the present time—may be falling into a trap and this amendment is a sign of it. It is a small point in some ways but it could be a very important amendment for families.
Lord Monkswell: I have some sympathy with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. It strikes a resonance with my own school experience. I went to what might be described as a minor public school in Scotland. It was a direct grant school. I travelled half way across town to attend that school, which had a very strong ethos.
We need to recognise that the proportion of the population which goes to such schools—those which have a kind of public school ethos and a sense that all the way through life the most important thing is the old school tie—is small compared with the vast majority of children in this country. Time after time a problem arises for parents when they cannot get their children into the local school because it has been filled with people from outside the area. To them it defies common sense. We must recognise that.
We would all agree that the ability of siblings to attend the same school is very important. But it is absolute nonsense and unfair that a large proportion of

935
the population cannot get their children into the local publicly provided school because it is full and therefore their children have to travel some distance to attend school. It creates such great antagonism and a sense of unfairness and illogicality that we must find ways to deal with it. This amendment attempts to do so very satisfactorily.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not have that in mind at all. I do not worry about the kind of school to which the noble Lord was lucky enough to go. I am thinking about local schools in inner cities, where there is a choice—the inner city has a number of schools quite close together—and people want their children to go to the same school. The community of the school matters very much indeed to the children in those areas. They are the ones about whom I am thinking.
Baroness Young: I am sure that everyone sees the points that have been made about proximity and siblings and I take on hoard the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. But is not the difficulty about this amendment that this provision is not suitable to put on the face of the Bill? In the first place, we are not discussing wholly selective schools, as the amendment itself makes clear when it says:
"A maintained school which admits a proportion of its pupils".
The amendment does not speak of all pupils but only of a proportion of pupils. Once one starts to lay down such detailed criteria, one must ask where it will all end. It seems to me that on its selection procedures, whatever they might prove to be at the end of the day, a good school will take into account the points about siblings and proximity and will weigh them in the balance against other matters. But to put such a provision on the face of the Bill will simply create further difficulties for an authority and will not make things easier or better for the education system.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: We are not talking about an academic matter at all. I know from my experience in Wandsworth that there is a school which, during this academic year, did not select any pupils on the grounds of proximity. They were all selected either by examination or as being siblings. I know from former councillor colleagues that it created a great deal of ill will among parents who were unable to get their children into that school. So I believe that it is a matter of to whom we choose to give the choice.
I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about schools being a community. But they are a greatly enhanced community if they are based in the community of the people who live in that area. It seems to me that the community of a school and the community of the residents are enhanced if they are, largely speaking, one and the same. I believe that the amendment goes some way towards meeting that point.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was that this type of detail should not be on the face of the Bill. But where else should it be? In the case of
936
Wandsworth, the council washed its hands of such issues and the residents do not feel that the governing body is adequately representing their views.
Lord Henley: For one awful moment I thought that I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, which tempted me to think that I might have to change my views on the amendment. Fortunately, he resumed his usual tack and I realised that what I felt about the amendment was probably sound.
Like my noble friend Lady Young, I accept that some of the ideas behind the amendment may be described as perfectly good. The simple point is that we do not believe that it is right that they should be on the face of the Bill. The Government have no intention of prescribing the admission arrangements schools are allowed to use. Schools, if they are the admission authorities, or local education authorities, where they are the admission authorities, are in the best position to take an informed view in relation to the admission arrangements which suit their school and their locality.
If schools want to give priority to siblings of pupils, regardless of whether or not they were admitted by selection, that is a matter for the schools or for the admission authority where the admission authority is the LEA. Likewise, if the schools wish to change their admission criteria in line with the amendment, they are free to do so. There are perfectly good arguments on either side and in whatever direction one wishes to go.
However, the amendment would not be a suitable addition to the Bill and I cannot offer any support for it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The reason the amendment is before the Committee is that the Government are interfering with the pattern of provision which is currently that decided by the local community through a genuine partnership of all those concerned. They are seeking to make it possible for changes to he made against the wishes of the majority of parents within that community. It is necessary therefore to consider putting these points on the face of the Bill.
All I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is that in my experience as a chair of an education authority during the period when the Government argued that they had increased parental choice within the county of Lancashire, I found that there was hardly any difference in the numbers of parents who obtained their first preference at that stage. This Bill would make a difference.
It angered many parents to find that, after buying a house opposite a school, children from the other side of the town had first call on the places in that school. Were they to discover that a child had taken the place they viewed as the place of their own child simply because an older brother or sister had been selected on grounds of ability, they would have been even more angry.
The Government's understanding as to what most parents see as being "parental choice" is fundamentally flawed. In their view, it is access to the school they choose in their own locality; it is freedom to ensure that other people are not selected from outside the area on the basis of ability; and it is the ability to ensure that if

937
their child has a non-statemented learning difficulty—a moderate learning difficulty—the child can still be educated alongside his or her siblings in the local school.
The Government are interfering with the pattern of provision and with what parents expect. I shall read the words of the Minister with care, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1996]:
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 54, line 10, at end insert—
(" "Church in Wales school", "Church of England school" and "Roman Catholic school", and "appropriate diocesan authority" in each case, have the meaning given by section 311(1) of this Act;").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 20, 52 and 57. As I understand the situation, these amendments relate to schools which are over-subscribed. If a school is under-subscribed, if insufficient parents have selected that school to make up the number, then the situations we describe do not arise. Schools that are under-subscribed are required to take the children of those parents who opt for that school. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that a clause in the Bill makes that point explicitly.
We are therefore discussing over-subscribed schools. Clearly any over-subscribed school must have some way of determining which students will gain admission and which will not. In other words, an over-subscribed school must have an admissions policy. Selection by ability or aptitude is one criterion that may be used. If it is used, other criteria under the admissions policy will have less effect. Indeed, as I understand it, that was precisely the point of the amendments we considered a moment ago.
I want to examine that point in relation to admissions to voluntary schools and to grant-maintained former voluntary schools. The group of amendments in my name to which I am now speaking covers both those categories of school. In many cases they are popular, over-subscribed schools; more families want admission to the school for their children than the school is able to admit. Therefore there has to be a way of deciding who is and who is not to be admitted.
That is where the difficulty arises. Many voluntary schools were originally promoted, and in many cases funded, by a diocese—Church of England or Roman Catholic—to make a specific contribution to an area of education. I made that point in the Second Reading debate. Therefore, if the governors are able to change the contribution without consulting the diocese, they may be able to override the intentions of the diocese in its original promotion and funding.
Most dioceses promote secondary schools in order to provide denominational education for an area of the diocese. That is not their only criterion for admission. Clearly in relation to voluntary schools one of the strong criteria must be the relationship of the family to a neighbouring church or congregation. If a governing body is able to alter that admissions policy and include selection by aptitude or ability as one of the criteria by which pupils will be admitted, it leaves fewer places for those for whom the voluntary school was originally provided.
Since those schools are already over-subscribed, I am aware of the grave difficulty they already experience in making any kind of determination between one family and another. It creates enormous difficulties locally and reference has already been made to the appeals procedure. Many people are already going through the appeals procedures in regard to voluntary schools. In addition to the denominational criteria, there are other criteria that a voluntary school may wish to apply. However, if selection is one of them, it leaves fewer places for those for whom the school was originally promoted or funded.
The original purposes of those schools were determined by the appropriate diocesan authorities. Therefore, it is surely right that those authorities be consulted and, in the case of admissions, their consent required before criteria, which include selection by ability or aptitude, are approved by the governors.
The amendments set out the changes which would be needed both in the case of voluntary schools and in the case of grant-maintained former voluntary schools. The amendments make reference to "appropriate diocesan authority". "Church in Wales school", "Church of England school" and "Roman Catholic school" are defined in Section 311(1) of the Education Act 1996. They are defined by reference to the religious education which is provided at the school. The "appropriate diocesan authority" is defined, in the case of the Church in Wales, as,
"the Diocesan Board of Finance … or such other person as the Secretary of State may by order designate".
In respect of the Church of England, it is defined as,
"the Diocesan Board of Education".
And in respect of the Roman Catholic Church, it is defined as,
"the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in which the school is situated".
I shall not pause to comment on the ecclesiology of that. Attentive Members of the Committee may note that there is a distinction between the Roman Catholic and the Church of England provision. Roman Catholic Bishops, dare I say, have a good deal more power in their dioceses than I have in mine. Nevertheless, that is the definition which is made by law. It is with reference to that definition that the amendments are framed.
The amendments do not say that governors have no part in setting their admissions policies. Clearly they do, and, as was said in the debate on a previous group of amendments, it is right that governors should have that provision. But the amendments are not removing that provision. The amendments simply require that the

939
appropriate diocesan authority shall give written consent, for the reasons I have outlined, before a governing body is able to go down the road indicated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The Bill gives the admission authorities greater flexibility to introduce or extend selection without central approval. That will promote diversity by giving schools greater flexibility to respond to what parents want. Amendments Nos. 12 and 52 would require the governing bodies of Church of England and Roman Catholic voluntary and grant-maintained schools to obtain written consent from the relevant diocesan board or diocesan authority before using the new freedoms to introduce or extend selection up to the relevant thresholds. We believe that this goes against the deregulatory intention of the Bill by replacing the Secretary of State's approval with that of diocesan authorities. It would also mean that governing bodies in the case of aided, special agreement and grant-maintained schools would no longer be solely responsible for determining admission arrangements for their own schools.
The diocesan authorities are represented on the governing bodies of Church schools by foundation governors. At voluntary aided, special agreement and ex-voluntary grant-maintained schools foundation governors make up the majority of the governing body. They are the appropriate medium through which the diocesan authorities can exercise influence over Church schools. The Bill requires admission authorities to consult before introducing or extending selection up to the threshold. We have made it quite clear that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on consultation. We shall no doubt be discussing consultation later on. That will set out the Secretary of State's expectation that diocesan boards would be consulted in the case of Church schools. The amendments represent an unacceptable restriction on the power of Church schools to vary their admission arrangements. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will not feel it necessary to press them.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 20 and 57. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 provides that county and voluntary schools will not need to seek central approval for any changes in the proportion of pupils admitted to their sixth form by selection. Section 265B, in Clause 3, does the same for grant-maintained schools. That is not an issue for many schools as their sixth forms are made up entirely of pupils coming up through the school. It is only an issue for those schools that admit pupils at the age of 16. The number of admissions at that age is usually very small. Entry to sixth forms, whether from within or outside the school, is traditionally on a selective basis and obviously depends to some extent on a pupil's GCSE achievements. The department has always taken the view that changes in the proportion of pupils selected to a sixth form does not significantly change the character of the school. Under current law, even ignoring the Bill, changes would not require central approval. The Bill confirms that position.
940
Amendments Nos. 20 and 57 would therefore require the governing bodies of Church schools to seek diocesan approval in cases that at present do not require central approval. That goes against the deregulatory nature of the Bill. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press those amendments.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether the Bill contains separate provisions on the right of schools to hold places empty. I can assure him that it does. Clause 27, to which I understand we will not be coming today, provides that schools may not in general refuse to take children if they still have empty places available. The only exception to that rule is schools which select all of their pupils by high ability or aptitude or by denomination.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, in particular for his response to my query about schools that are under-subscribed. I am bound to say that I am not entirely satisfied by the argument that governing bodies contain representatives of the diocesan board of education or appropriate authority, because normally they are in a tiny minority. It could well be that they would find great difficulty in arguing their case. Nevertheless, I shall study with great attention what the Minister has said. I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 54, line 25, at end insert ("primary or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 135 and 137. The issue of not using baseline assessment is covered by Amendments Nos. 135 and 137. I shall refer to them briefly at this stage but I may wish to return to them when we reach their places in the Marshalled List.
The purpose of the amendments is to press the Government on their attitude towards selective admissions at primary school age. Thus far in our discussions, here and in another place, there has at the very least been confusion with regard to the Government's real intentions on the issue of selection and primary education. The Prime Minister has spoken of a grammar school in every town and the Secretary of State has written about the logic of the grammar school. Increasingly, selection is being promoted. It is proposed that only secondary school governors will discuss annually whether or not to increase selection. It is therefore rather strange that Clause 1 speaks only of schools and Schedule 1 excludes only nursery schools from being covered by the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
We welcome the exclusion of nursery schools from the selection of children by ability. I can see the Minister smiling at the idea of pupils being selected on grounds of ability or aptitude. In a small but important number of cases there is a problem with regard to the availability of pre-school education for children who are showing quite marked behavioural and emotional difficulties. I refer not only to those who are sometimes regarded,

941
rather pejoratively, by the popular press as being children whose parents have failed in some way but to those children who have a moderate degree of autism. Quite clearly there is a problem as regards nursery schools and whether they serve the whole community.
However, leaving that to one side, this amendment seeks to extend to primary schools the exclusion from Schedule 1 which deals with selection by aptitude or ability. I hope that it is not going to be necessary to rehearse in full the issues which argue very strongly against selection at primary school age. At this stage I refer to them by heading only, but I shall return to them if the Minister's reply indicates that we face the prospect of the Government supporting selection by ability at primary school age. Young children develop at different rates. It is true, of course, that there are late developers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the varying stages at which children develop and, quite obviously, that is more marked when the children are very young. There is also a greater opportunity for children to be selected at this early age on the basis of their background before they have had access to formal education. Selection in the primary sector is much more likely to disadvantage those children for whom English is not their mother tongue and who will have had perhaps little opportunity to express themselves in English before starting school. There is the issue of motivation if children are going to be seen by themselves—or, perhaps more importantly at that stage, by their parents—as having failed to measure up to some arbitrary standard. The majority of parents wish their children to have access to the local primary school. There are the problems of collection of children and so on. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that I shall not need to go through the detailed reasons as to why selection on the ground of ability at the age of five or in primary education would not make educational sense. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: I support this amendment and do so with as much interest as that of the noble Baroness in awaiting the Minister's reply. Most of the debate in this Chamber, in the other place and, indeed, publicly, has focused either directly or by implication on selection for secondary schools. I have no doubt that we shall continue to discuss that vigorously in this Chamber.
I suspect that, in the wider world, very few people have yet come to realise that this Bill actually permits—it may be even encourages—selection by ability or aptitude from the age of five. I believe that it is probably one of the least recognised aspects of this Bill. I find it almost inconceivable that that is the Government's intention. Are they actually intending that children at the age of five or just before, should be selected as to whether they go into an academic stream in their primary school? The noble Baroness has given the headlines for the reasons to object to selection at five and I endorse all of them. They are very important. All
942
our objections to selection at the age of 11 apply dramatically more so at the age of five years where children are nowhere near starting to develop.
There is at least strong doubt whether one can select children by ability at the age of 11 and I would have thought it demonstrably the case that one cannot at five years say how a child is going to develop. Children at the age of 11 can be adversely affected by the home background and at the age of five that must be dramatically more the case. The children are affected by the home background or by the early years of learning which they may or may not have received. If English is not their first language, then at the age of five they are enormously disadvantaged and very unlikely to succeed in choice by ability or aptitude although in no way will that measure their ability or aptitude.
It is inconceivable that we are knowingly about to embark on a course that allows primary schools to select 20 per cent. of their pupils by aptitude or ability. I simply cannot believe that that is the Government's intention and I hope that that will be confirmed to us very shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, made some good points earlier on about local schools and the community. I am sure that she will agree that primary schools in particular are a part of their local community in every sense. Siblings go to the primary school. There is no question of selecting them by ability or any other method. If we are going to introduce such divisive measures into primary schools then that will very quickly destroy their ethos and all that is good about so many of them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that that is not the Government's intention and that they are either going to accept these amendments or bring forward others that will make that crystal clear.
Baroness Young: I too will listen very closely to what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter. As I understand the position on the Bill—and I may not have got it right—one of the proposals is that there will be a baseline assessment of children entering primary schools. I understand that its object is to find out exactly where the children stand when they begin school. For precisely the arguments that the noble Baroness has put forward about whether they are from families where English has never been spoken or there are handicaps of one kind or another, these can be identified. In a primary school the object is to set targets for what should be achieved.
My experience of trying to raise standards in anything is that one has to set a target of what one believes and hopes can be achieved so that everyone will come up to that standard. As I understand it, it is intended to help the school and the teacher by having this measurement taken when a pupil arrives at the primary school. The primary school will be required to assess pupils shortly after admission to the school in order to provide the information which will help teachers to plan the children's education and to establish the baseline from which their future education can be measured.
Lord Tope: With respect, I believe that the noble Baroness is missing the point of our amendment. I have

943
no objection to baseline assessments and, similarly, I believe that the other opposition parties support them. Baseline assessments are good and necessary and they already happen. They are good practice. But they happen after the child has been admitted to the school. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said that she would forbear from mentioning this, but such assessments are not used—and I hope that they never will be—as a means for selecting children before they go into school. Therefore, our problem is not with baseline assessments which we support, but with selecting pupils before entering a primary school.
Baroness Young: We shall have to wait to hear what the Minister says in reply. I am very glad that we are all agreed about baseline assessment. But as I understand the position, the object of this exercise is to assess what the child requires in the primary school and to set an objective target for all pupils.
Lord Henley: I begin with baseline assessments. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Young recognises their importance. I am also grateful that everyone else recognises their importance. For once we are all in agreement, but I do not know whether that means that we are probably all wrong although there are occasions when that rule applies.
I understand that the noble Baroness has concerns that baseline assessment could be used for selection in primary schools. I want to make it absolutely clear that it could not be so used as the timing of the statutory baseline assessment will be specified in regulations, which will specify that the assessment must take place after the child has been enrolled in the school. For that simple reason it could not be used as a form of test for selection to the school.
Another question is whether an admission authority could use baseline assessment material produced by SCAA to select pupils before they enrol in the school. That is not the purpose for which these materials are being currently designed by SCAA. As now, it will be for admission authorities to decide what methods to use for assessing ability and aptitude. Obviously, it would be up to them to make use of those assessments if they so wish.
I come back to the main point about selection in primary schools. I recognise that the noble Baroness will want to return to baseline assessments or the major issues relating to them, later on in the Bill and I accept that absolutely.
As regards selection in primary schools, I assure the Committee that the present regime covering selective admissions is exactly the same for primary schools as for secondary schools. Publication of statutory proposals would be required if a school wanted to introduce or to extend selection to a degree which would amount to making a significant change in the character of the school. One then has all the safeguards such as going to the Secretary of State and so on. My right honourable friend has always made it clear that in her view selecting up to 15 per cent. of a school's intake (primary or
944
secondary) does not constitute a significant change of character. To that extent, the Bill does not introduce anything new.
The Bill sets a new statutory baseline threshold of 20 per cent. for selective admissions, with higher thresholds for specialist and grant-maintained schools. We believe that just as the present regime does not discriminate between primary and secondary schools, the new baseline threshold should apply to both. We do not believe that many—if any—primary schools will wish to select pupils by general ability. I fully accept the points made by the noble Baroness about children developing at different rates. I know that from my own small children. I recognise also the problems faced by those without English as their mother tongue, if I may use that rather old-fashioned expression. That is why we do not believe that many—if any—primary schools would want to select by general ability. However, it is possible that some may want to do so by aptitude in a particular subject. I believe that one of my honourable friends in another place cited the example of music. I suspect that that is one of only a very few examples that might appear.
The other important point to remember is that the Bill does not require primary school governing bodies to consider whether to introduce or extend selection each year, as it does for secondary schools. However, we believe that primary schools should have the same options as most secondary schools—and that is what the Bill gives them.
With those assurances and the assurance that there is no secret plot, as the noble Baroness seemed to imply, to extend selection to the whole of the primary sector, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
The noble Baroness also raised a number of concerns about nursery schools and children with special needs. Those matters are not really for discussion this evening, but if the noble Baroness has particular concerns and would like to come to see me about them, hearing in mind my interest in the department in children with special needs, I am more than happy to accommodate her.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That was an interesting reply. At the beginning of it, I thought that I was going to rise in order to apologise to the Minister for having asked a, "Will you please in future stop beating your wife?" question. The Minister replied—metaphorically, of course—that he had never intended to beat his wife in this case—or to put forward legislation that would allow primary schools to select their pupils. There appeared to be an outbreak of total agreement across the Committee. However, then we discovered that in the past it has been legal for people to do such wife beating (in the shape of selecting by ability and/or aptitude at primary level) but that nobody ever did it, so the wives were safe and the children were not selected when very tiny. Then we were told—
Lord Henley: I do not think that I ever said that nobody ever beat their wife, if the noble Baroness wants to put it that way. It may be that some primary schools

945
use a degree of selection by selecting children with, say, an aptitude for music. So be it, let them do that because they can do so for up to 15 per cent. of their intake. All that the Bill seeks to do is to extend that proportion to 20 per cent.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I would be deeply concerned if primary schools selected by musical ability at the age of five because I suspect that at that age the overwhelming majority of children in this country have not even had the opportunity to see whether they have a gift for playing a musical instrument or for singing. However, I leave that to one side.
Having agreed that none of us knows whether this mechanism has been used—and, where there is agreement, it is on the basis that if it has been used, it has been used on only a minor scale—the Government now say that they wish to set in statute the ability to do something that we all agree is not really a very good idea. I find that quite strange. I shall read with care the Minister's words in Hansard and I may well return to this matter at a later stage. I have every faith in the Minister and his total innocence when it comes to the sort of wife beating we are talking about, but leaving the whip hanging over the door is something that we on these Benches would have to consider carefully. I beg leave—
Baroness David: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, I am sorry to be so ignorant, but could the Minister tell me where in legislation that 15 per cent. is announced?
Lord Henley: The 15 per cent. is not specified in legislation. The legislation refers to a significant change in character. On taking legal advice, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was advised that a significant change of character would be represented by a selection ratio of 15 per cent. or more. That has been the understanding for some time. As I said, we believe that both primary and secondary schools should be treated in the same way. The Bill simply extends the proportion to 20 per cent.
Lord Monkswell: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, I wonder whether I may press the Minister for some fairly urgent information about whether any primary schools in England and Wales practise selection for up to 20 per cent. of their intake. I do not know how quickly the department can get that information, but I think that it would be significant in our deliberations. I do not expect to receive that information tonight, but perhaps we could have it by tomorrow or before the final stage of the Bill.
Lord Henley: There are something of the order of 24,000 schools in England alone, of which I imagine that something of the order of between 20,000 and 21,000 are primary schools. It would not be practical for the department to write to every single one. Such
946
schools are run either by themselves (if they are grant-maintained) or by the local education authority. If the noble Lord wishes to write to them all, he is perfectly free to do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As I have said, we look forward with interest to reading in great detail the Minister's words in Hansard. Perhaps in return the Minister will consider whether it might be helpful to exclude primary schools in exactly the same way as nursery schools are excluded. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 54, line 37, at end insert ("and in the case of a county school the local education authority resolves that the proposals would not reduce the range of choice as to admissions available to parents of pupils (including pupils who are less likely to be admitted by reference to ability or aptitude) in the relevant age group in its area").
The noble Baroness said: We now come to a group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 11, 18, 13 and 14, which are all connected—
Lord Henley: For the convenience of the Committee, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will give way—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: If the Committee prefers to take them separately—
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness would give way, my understanding was that she was to speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 18 and 51. Does she also wish to include the other two? I am happy either way. If she wishes to speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 18 and 51, so be it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: For the ease of the Committee, I shall speak to those amendments that are grouped on the list.
The purpose of Amendment No. 11 and the subsequent provisions which are scattered throughout the Bill is to enable local authorities to have limited powers of intervention in certain circumstances when their own schools (county and voluntary schools) seek, under the provisions of the Bill, to increase their proportion of selected pupils.
As the Bill is now drafted, a school is not required to go through a publication procedure nor are the proposals to be regarded as constituting a significant change in the character of the school. Therefore, paragraph 2(2) creates a loophole in the planning arrangements for school admissions, replacing a system in which parents and local interests can at least voice their opinion through the publication procedure and consultative arrangements with a system which Ministers clearly expect to be less rigorous. This amendment brings the LEA into the picture. It does not necessarily prevent the expansion of selection. The LEA may take the view that an increase in selection, perhaps in the context of the overall number of places available in the area, will

947
increase the range of choice available to parents. But the strong argument was made at Second Reading from all sides of the House that the decisions of individual schools could have a knock-on effect on admission patterns that applied to all the schools in the area. This amendment seeks to recognise that and to argue that in the case of county schools the LEA should continue to hold the ring.
Amendment No. 18 provides that where there are proposals for a county or voluntary school to select up to the threshold, there should be consultation with the LEA or the body that appoints its foundation governors. The amendment seeks to ensure that if there is to be greater competition between schools to select pupils, without public consultation, there should at least be a proper discussion between the various interested parties so that duplication and waste can be avoided. I do not repeat all of the arguments rehearsed earlier about the importance of the Audit Commission report.
I stop at this point; otherwise, I believe that I shall become involved in a complicated argument about two groups of amendments. I believe that I have gone as far as Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The amendments before the Committee deal with the admission authorities for county and voluntary schools. Paragraph 2 of Schedule I enables those admission authorities to introduce various selective admissions within certain thresholds without publication of statutory proposals. Amendment No. 11 seeks to make any such decision for a county school subject to a resolution of the LEA. But as in virtually every single case the LEAs are the admission authorities for those county schools, I have no doubt that the LEA will take the relevant factors into consideration in deciding how to use the new freedom offered by paragraph 2. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I do not believe that it would take matters any further. It would be asking the LEA to resolve a matter on two different occasions.
I believe that Amendment No. 18 is also unnecessary. First, as I have already argued, as the LEAs are nearly always the admission authorities for county and controlled schools, in the great majority of cases the admission arrangements for such schools cannot be changed without the co-operation of the LEAs. Therefore, the LEAs would have to decide something twice, quite unnecessarily. Secondly, the bodies that appoint foundation governors appoint the majority of governors at voluntary aided schools and a substantial proportion of the governors at voluntary controlled schools. That gives the bodies that appoint foundation governors a powerful channel of influence over voluntary school governing bodies. Thirdly, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 requires admission authorities proposing variations in admission arrangements, to which the requirement to publish statutory proposals no longer applies, to consult interested parties and, in so doing, to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that the guidance will
948
make clear that those consulted should include LEAs and bodies that appoint foundation governors; that is to say, diocesan authorities or whatever.
For similar reasons, Amendment No. 51 is also unnecessary. Diocesan and other bodies that appoint foundation governors appoint the majority of governors at former voluntary grant-maintained schools. Clause 5 of the Bill imposes consultation requirements on grant-maintained governing bodies identical to those in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply, which I shall read carefully. It was quite complicated. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 54, line 47, leave out ("either").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent reductions below a school's selection threshold, once it has been exceeded, from being subject to the control of the Secretary of State. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to restrict the occasions on which an expansion of selection requires the approval of the Secretary of State. It does this by creating thresholds below which an increase in selection is not to be treated as a significant change, with the result that the process of public consultation and thereafter approval by the Government is no longer required.
The amendment proposes that only a change to exceed the relevant threshold should require the approval of the Secretary of State. The converse case, where a school which previously selected more than the threshold changed its admission arrangements to reduce its selective intake, would no longer require the approval of the Secretary of State. The first case is reasonable. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the ability of schools to become more selective, but it sets definite limits to the extent to which that can happen. However, there is little justification for the mechanism to prevent schools from becoming less selective, which, after all, has the effect of increasing choice for the majority of parents.
The circumstances in which such a case may arise illustrate why the amendment is desirable. Any degree of selection depends on there being a greater number of potential pupils seeking a place for whom a lesser number can be selected. The proportion of pupils who can be selected will therefore depend upon the school being over-subscribed. If the number of pupils seeking admission under the selective criteria falls below the appropriate percentage, the selective percentage must also fall, unless the number of pupils admitted under the non-selective admissions procedure is reduced to a balancing level.
If applications under the non-selective criteria are buoyant, pupils can be turned away while there are surplus places in the school. Plainly, that would be nonsense and a denial of parental choice. It would also be unlawful under open enrolment rules. In these circumstances the Secretary of State would be constrained to grant the necessary permission; that is, to make unnecessary and wasteful constraints, which the amendment seeks to remove.
It may be said that the circumstances outlined would be unlikely to come about in practice. However, the provisions of this Bill make it all the more likely that this could happen. If a number of formerly comprehensive schools in an area began to select part of their intake, a formerly selective school could easily find that there was an insufficient pool of pupils from which to select. The Government are aware of this danger. They do not propose a completely selective system and they retain reserve powers in Clause 11 to limit selection where they consider that the situation warrants it. In effect, by allowing Ministers to impose a common 20 per cent. limit, Clause 11 would cut down selection in GM schools to the same level as that in county schools. The amendment will help the natural process by which schools can adjust to the circumstances that face them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Surely, this amendment is a matter of fairness to the LEA and the governing bodies. I believe that the noble Baroness summarised the matter by saying that where a number of former comprehensive schools in an area began to select part of their intake, a former selective school could easily find that there was an insufficient pool of pupils from which to select. In the context of letting governing bodies, local authorities and parents have a degree of planning in the level of selection that they want, I am intrigued to learn how the Government can argue against this amendment simply on the basis of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Lord Henley: Well, well, well! I was interested to see whether there would be a response from the official Opposition Front Bench. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that an amendment of this kind would appear to fly in the face of recent remarks by his honourable friend Mr. Blunkett in the Wirral about not doing anything to endanger the selective schools or grammar schools in that and other areas. What it would allow the LEA as admission authority to do would be to reduce selection entirely, without publishing any proposals whatsoever. As we all know, Schedule 1 sets out the rules that govern changes in selective admissions. For changes within the threshold, publication of statutory proposals is not required. For changes above the threshold, the existing change of character regime applies. If the changes mean that the proportion of selective admissions crosses the threshold in either direction, statutory proposals are always required. That is a full and consistent set of rules.
The amendments introduce the inconsistency that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was trying to remove, by requiring publication for changes where an increase in
950
the proportion of pupils selected crossed the threshold but not for changes where a decrease had the same effect. There should be consistent rules for publication of statutory proposals in terms of the character of individual schools. Reductions in selection can be just as important as increases. If the noble Baroness had not spotted that, I hope that she now recognises it and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 55, line 7, leave out ("20") and insert ("15").
The noble Lord said: It may for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 53. The import of the amendments is the same. They seek to do two things: first, to simplify the criterion at which the break point occurs; and, secondly, to ensure that the threshold of the break point—if I may describe it as such—is sensible, logical and understandable by everyone involved. I shall talk a little about the second point: the reduction of the threshold of significant change from 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. to 15 per cent.
We need to recognise that we are here talking about the definition of significant change in a school. One of the important factors about legislation is that it should be, as much as possible, in tune with people's common sense and understanding. If one went to any parent and said, "If the size of your child's class changed from 30 to 35 pupils would you think that to be a significant change?", or, alternatively, "If the class stayed at 35, but five pupils were removed and five pupils who all had blond hair and blue eyes were installed in the class, would you think that to be a significant change?", probably 99 per cent. of parents would say that that was a significant change. That is the common sense way of looking at things that I hope we can enshrine in the Bill.
When we say that there is a significant change and we call for a different procedure to apply once that significant change has been exceeded, we need to ensure that it is in tune with that which ordinary people on the street can understand.
My second point is that in the Bill we are talking about a number of different types of school. We are talking about county schools, which are under the administration of the LEA; maintained schools, which are effectively Church schools, again financed effectively by the LEA; and nationalised schools. That is my definition of grant-maintained schools. They are no longer administered by the LEA; they are effectively administered by the Government; that is, they are nationalised.
We describe the schools as different, and they are described as different in different parts of the Bill, but they have certain things in common. They will all have

951
a board of governors made up of lay people. When lay people deal with complex legal and administrative situations they need advice. It is worth pointing out that a governor of a grant-maintained school could also be a governor of a LEA school. We need to enshrine within our public procedures—that is effectively what we are doing with the Bill—sensible, common sense rules which are common across the sector. I pointed out that governors are lay people. In the same way, a jury is comprised of lay people; magistrates are lay people; and local authority members are lay people. All those people have difficult decisions to make which are constrained by legal requirements and administrative procedures.
All those other groups of lay people have a source of expert advice. The jury will have the advice of a learned judge; members of a local authority will have the advice of their chief executive, who is probably legally qualified, with great professional ability and understanding of the legal and administrative position; and magistrates are advised by justices' clerks, who are professional men and women who have the expertise to provide the advice necessary to ensure that the lay people abide by the regulations that Parliament lays down. School governors are not necessarily in that position.
It is correct that school governors will have the advice of the head teacher, but the head teacher is first and foremost a head teacher and not a professional adviser or administrative or legal expert. We must recognise that. When we are writing laws that apply to governors and schools, we need to take care that we do not make them so complicated that they need the professional advice which they do not have.
For those reasons, it makes sense for us to have a common threshold of 15 per cent. which applies to all the different types of schools, because effectively the governors are all lay governors. That threshold should be 15 per cent. because that will strike a resonance of common sense with the vast majority of the people in this country that a change of 15 per cent. in a school's character is a significant change. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened almost with fascination to the noble Lord, because he came out with a wonderful piece of obfuscation of the issue under discussion. It is a superb way of taking the time of the Committee, but perhaps we could return to what the debate is all about. It is that he prefers one figure and the Government prefer another. He prefers, inevitably, of course, a more restricted figure than the Government who wish to have a rather more relaxed environment in which schools can work. He tries to claim that his figures create a resonance with ordinary people. I listened with great care for some justification of that statement. I am bound to say that there was none. "Mr. 15 per cent." may be an interesting title, but I do not believe that we should waste any more time on it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I believe that we might reasonably justify spending a few minutes more on the issue. We have plenty of time, although I gather that we may find ourselves distinctly squeezed and sitting very late on another day in Committee.
952
Perhaps in the interests of clarification I may ask the Minister two questions. The purpose of our amendments is, first, to suggest that the present common selection threshold would be appropriate for all schools; and, secondly, to enable Ministers to explain the basis on which the legal position has been undisturbed until now. Is it not the case that the Bill represents a significant departure in that the interpretation of "a significant change in the character" has been a matter for circulars issued by the department interpreting primary legislation? On that basis, Circular 693 advised that selection up to a threshold of 10 per cent. would not be considered as representing a significant change in the character of a school. Last year, that was changed to advise that a threshold of 15 per cent. would be acceptable. It is important to be clear that neither of those statements was based on any legal provision. Each one represented guidance as to how Ministers wished to implement pre-existing legislation.
The Department for Education and Employment recently became concerned, and rightly so, that its 15 per cent. judgment rested on no legal basis. One of the advantages of the present legislation is to give officials a firm basis on which to rely. In doing so, they have taken the opportunity to push the threshold up yet again to these unequal levels. First, why change it; and, secondly, why vary it?
Lord Henley: I do not intend to take long over this amendment. It strikes at the heart of the Bill, which is bringing in a range of different thresholds for different types of schools which have different ways of viewing things. That is why we considered that 20, 30 and 50 per cent. were appropriate. To reduce the threshold to 15 per cent. would strike at the central purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, wished to know how we had arrived at the figure of 15 per cent. and what our legal advice was. He will understand if I do not embark on the legal advice that we received, other than to say that we were advised that if we wished to go beyond 15 per cent., which would be a significant change in the character, primary legislation would be required. That is exactly what we are seeking to do in the Bill, and it is why we should like to give local authorities an option—whether that is in voluntary or county schools at the 20 per cent. option, specialist colleges at the 30 per cent. option or grant-maintained schools at the 50 per cent. option. That is exactly what the Bill will achieve and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I understand from the Minister that the purpose of the Bill is fundamentally to change the circumstances under which selection can be introduced. To increase from 15 per cent. to 20, 30 and 50 per cent. and to make it legal suggests that the whole purpose of the Bill is, as has been argued today, to change the whole basis of our education system and to return to a selective system. As my noble friend Lord Morris said, if the Government were to propose a new education Bill advocating selection

953
it would not meet with the general approval of the electorate; in other words, we are going through the back door to change the basis of our education system.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: No, I am afraid that the noble Baroness misunderstands the whole purpose behind the Bill. It is freeing up the decision making of the schools, providing that if they wish to go beyond what is a significant change in character they must go through the appropriate statutory procedures. They would have to do that if they went beyond the 15 per cent. selection at present—that is, publishing proposals, going to the Secretary of State for permission and so forth. The Bill is providing that rather than the threshold of 15 per cent. county schools can go up to 20 per cent. without going through such procedures, but going through a degree of consultation which we shall discuss in due course. The Bill proposes different thresholds for other types of schools.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Why should there be different thresholds for different types of schools? Is it solely so that schools can have a different selection ethos? Is it in order to add a level of complexity to the whole system? I do not believe that what the Minister said is any form of justification, in particular when in previous Bills he has been keen to argue for a flat rate of selection. What has changed? Why do we have to have a differential rate of selection now?
Lord Dormand of Easington: Can the Minister tell us what is magic about the three figures which the Government have produced? Perhaps in doing so the Minister will refer to the educational side. My noble friend mentioned legality, which must be taken into consideration. However, what possible educational advantage can there be of having the stepped percentages? The Government must have thought about that and I believe that this is an occasion on which the Minister can reveal the thinking.
Lord Henley: There is no magic, as the noble Lord puts it, in the figures. We are talking about different types of schools. We believe that a grant-maintained school should be allowed to decide for itself whether to go to 50 per cent. without going through the cumbersome process of applying to the Secretary of State, publishing proposals and so forth. If it wishes to go beyond that level the present safeguards will still exist whereby it must go through the statutory procedure. We considered that 50 per cent. was appropriate for the grant-maintained schools.
One takes a figure that one considers to be appropriate for schools; for example, 30 per cent. for specialist schools. We believe it is right that such schools might want to select to a degree, particularly in respect of aptitude within their specialities. We have heard nothing from Members opposite about specialist colleges. We have heard that their party now supports the creation of specialist colleges but we have not heard whether they will be allowed to select people who might
954
be particularly good at the specialties provided. No doubt we will hear about that in due course. However, as regards county schools or voluntary schools, which are still under the control of the LEAs, we believe that 20 per cent. is the appropriate figure. I can take the matter no further than that.
Lord Monkswell: We have had an interesting exchange; but I wish to press the Minister a little further about the difference between grant-maintained schools and county schools; effectively, LEA versus nationalised schools. How does he see those schools being distinguished to the extent that one group will be allowed to select up to 50 per cent. but the other group will be allowed to select up to only 20 per cent. without the inquiry mechanism? I am not sure that the Minister has explained to the Committee satisfactorily why there should be the distinction between the two groups of schools. I do not know whether he can give a further explanation to the Committee, but I would welcome it.
Lord Henley: I shall make one last attempt. The noble Lord refers to grant-maintained schools as nationalised schools. I suppose that that is part of his conversion to a recognition of the horrors of nationalisation. But I just say that en passant.
The simple point is that grant-maintained schools are not nationalised schools. They are schools to which we have delegated a great deal of authority in order to run themselves. That is quite right. I am glad that so many schools benefit from that grant-maintained status and I am glad that so many noble friends, honourable friends and right honourable friends in another place are making use of those grant-maintained schools.
Having delegated more powers to them, we believe that they should be given more freedom to follow a route which they consider appropriate after consultation and so on, without going through the statutory procedures. That would not be appropriate for voluntary schools and county schools which are still being run by LEAs.
Lord Monkswell: I still find that the Government are making a distinction between the governors of grant-maintained schools and the governors of county schools as being a different class of people. You can entrust a decision to change the character of the school by 50 per cent. to one group of people, but such a decision is entrusted only up to 20 per cent. for the other group of people. However, I can see that we are not making any impression on the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling this amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 55, leave out lines 23 to 30.
The noble Lord said: This part of the Bill allows schools in certain circumstances to admit pupils by selection on grounds of ability or aptitude up to certain thresholds without having to publish proposals in order to gain approval for a significant change of character. However, it makes it clear that where those thresholds are crossed, publication of statutory proposals would be required. However, the schedule also sets out circumstances in which that general approach would not apply and where, the Bill suggests, schools could exceed the previous thresholds with impunity.
Those parts of the Bill must be looked at alongside other provisions which allow schools to expand their overall numbers, also without publication of statutory proposals. Thus, it is envisaged that not only could a school move to being a totally selective sixth form without that being regarded as a change of character, but it could also create a completely new sixth form when none previously existed without that being regarded as a significant change of character.
The logic of the Bill is that it would be beneficial for schools to have increased freedoms to select part of their intake. It assumes also that a degree of autonomous expansion to meet demand will be beneficial in allowing the system to develop in response to the needs of local people. Those propositions are debatable, for the Bill itself recognises that there are thresholds beyond which unfettered expansion or change of character should not be allowed.
In those circumstances, the Bill retains existing procedures to ensure that more extreme proposals are properly published and debated and not allowed to proceed unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consultation with relevant interests, that they are sound.
There is common ground that a complete free-for-all would be unwise and could lead to some pupils being left without school places. Therefore, the debate is about where that line should be drawn. This amendment argues that sixth forms should not be exempt from normal rules.
In the case of sixth forms, education and training provision for young people beyond the age of 16 involves providers beyond the ordinary school system. Opportunities at that age include general and vocational courses at further education colleges and various forms of work with training organised by trainers or training and enterprise councils. Significant changes of provision in an area will affect planning decisions and the market of all those other providers. Therefore, it is important that significant changes which will impact on other publicly provided and funded opportunities should be considered in the light of that impact and not simply allowed to happen willy-nilly.
This amendment is designed to guard against those possible difficulties by ensuring that schools proposing to make those significant changes should be subject to a more rigorous process of consultation and approval than would otherwise be the case. The amendments
956
would not preclude such developments taking place but they would help to guard against the possibility of serious problems emerging unexpectedly. I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: This is a very important amendment because, unlike the selection issue, there is quite obviously here a case where other schools and sixth-form colleges should be taken into account seriously before an expansion of non-compulsory schooling is allowed.
It is well known that the fragmentation of sixth forms is very harmful in the sense that a small sixth form does not offer the choice which a large sixth form of a sixth-form college offers. This amendment would prevent uncontrolled and unplanned expansion of various small sixth forms which would be harmful to the pupils' education.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. It is extremely important to try to make clear this system in what cannot be an unfettered market place. It is undeniably true that the development of sixth forms without consultation and without being part of a planning process could have a significant effect on a range of other providers of post-16 education, whether that be other schools, the local further education college, the TEC or most particularly, sixth-form colleges.
The development of a small sixth form, or even a larger sixth form, could, if unplanned and without consultation or reference to the wider considerations, have a very serious effect in a comparatively short time on the well-being of a number of sixth form colleges and other providers. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is not to try to prevent it happening but to ensure that it happens in a planned way and with proper and thought-through consultation. I support the amendment.
Baroness Young: One of the success stories of recent years in education, which has not been referred to in the course of our debates, is the number of children staying on after the statutory school-leaving age. I think that I am right in saying that it is now something like 70 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will confirm those figures. That is a remarkable achievement and one with which we must all feel a great sense of satisfaction on all sides of the Chamber. It is not so long ago that the proportion was about 30 per cent. Therefore, from the point of view of the pupils concerned, that is a tremendous achievement. It means that they are going on to some form of further education, which is highly desirable.
I may not have understood this part of the Bill correctly, but it seems to me that in giving that added freedom to schools—and we are now talking about post-16 education, so it is those pupils over the compulsory school-leaving age—we are allowing them, if they so wish, either to develop or to expand a sixth form. That could well be seen as an opportunity to encourage more pupils to stay on beyond the age of 16.

957
It is desirable to have a great deal of variety. I am a supporter of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges but some pupils would prefer to stay on at school and they might well be encouraged to do so were the sixth form at their school to expand.
I take the point that there are dangers in relation to a small sixth form, but that will be something which the school will have to consider. The cost of a small sixth form is very considerable and the school may not feel that it is worth while. On the other hand, to deny schools the opportunity to expand their sixth forms in that way, if they wish to do so, cannot possibly help the situation of encouraging more pupils to stay on beyond the school-leaving age.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Life is strange; indeed, it is full of surprises. In supporting the amendment, I should point out that we are not actually arguing within its terms against schools being able to develop sixth forms; we are arguing against them being able to develop sixth forms without proper consideration being given to the effects on other providers of education for 16 to 19 year-olds.
I begin to feel so old. I say that because for many years successive Secretaries of State gave local authorities and local authority chairs of education advice and guidance on how to rationalise the use of resources. Those of us who were involved with local authorities were encouraged to attend highly unpopular meetings throughout the country and point out—indeed, I remember very clearly conversations with the late Lord Joseph when he was Secretary of State—that small unviable sixth forms had two inbuilt snags.
One of those snags was that the group sizes of the students may suit the teacher but were not in the best interests of the pupils because, at that age and stage, pupils learn from one another. There is a need for a reasonably sized group to enable the young people to learn alongside one another. Secondly, in the interests of having the cachet of a sixth form, schools were actually denuding funding from lower down the school and often from the pupils who needed most help—indeed, the tail that we have referred to so often today—and using it because of the prestige value of the sixth form.
So a huge exercise was undergone. The general experience has been that the development of sixth form and tertiary colleges has contributed more than anything else to the increase in the staying-on rate. There is a clear correlation between the two and marked increases in staying on. In areas, for example, where there were a large number of Church schools—whether Anglican or Catholic—with sixth forms attached to each school, they were encouraged to rationalise. As I said, the amendment does not seek to prevent that sixth-form development from going ahead; it very reasonably seeks to ensure that there is proper discussion about it.
Some teachers prefer teaching sixth-form pupils. But if a school cannot make a case for undertaking a viable project in terms of sixth-form pupils and developing a viable range of subjects so that young people are not
958
encouraged to take inappropriate subjects or specialise too narrowly, we are failing our young people. I believe that this is one of the most reasonable amendments to come before the Committee. I am sure that such a reasonable person as the Minister will stand up and say that he cannot but agree.
Lord Henley: I thought for a glorious and brief moment that the noble Baroness, on her own, had actually understood what the amendments were about. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, certainly did not seem to understand what they were about. However, there it is. The amendments are not about setting up sixth forms; they are only about selection within existing sixth forms. When we reach Clause 4 and the power that grant-maintained schools will have to set up sixth forms, perhaps we can discuss such matters. As I said, these amendments are not about that. They are about selection within sixth forms.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and Section 265B of the 1996 Education Act (inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill) deal with cases where publication of statutory proposals is not required for changes in selective admissions to LEA and GM schools respectively. These provisions follow on from paragraph 2 and Section 265A, which provide that, if there is any change in the proportion of selective admissions which makes the school cross the relevant threshold, statutory proposals must always be published. Paragraph 3 and Section 265B introduce two exceptions. Neither of those cases would result in significant changes in the character of a school. So they would not, under present law, require the publication of statutory proposals. I shall spell out for Members of the Committee the first exception which relates to sixth-form admissions. Schools will not need to seek central approval for changes in proportion of selective admissions to sixth forms, even though these might cross the relevant threshold. For many schools this is not an issue, because the sixth form is made up entirely of pupils coming up through the school. It is only an issue for schools that admit pupils at age 16, and the number of admissions at that age is usually very small.
Entry to sixth forms, whether from within or outside the school, has traditionally been on a selective basis. We discussed that matter earlier when I said, quite obviously, that GCSE results were relevant to some extent to entry into the sixth form. The department has always taken the view that changes in selection arrangements for a sixth form do not significantly change the character of the school. Amendments Nos. 19 and 56 seek to remove that exception. The effect will be to require publication of statutory proposals in circumstances where, I submit, a school's character had not changed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. He will no doubt wish to return to the issue when we reach Clause 4.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I have just been leafing through my speech and I do not believe that I talked about setting up new sixth forms; I was talking about a significant change in existing sixth forms and how that would affect the position of other providers of tertiary education in the area. The nub of the question

959
which the Minister completely avoided is: why should the criteria for sixth forms be different from that of other groups within the school system?
I should like now to address the point raised by Lady Monkswell; I am sorry, I meant to say the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I am not sure to whom I should address my apology.
However, I should like to raise a point with the noble Baroness. Surely we all agree that variety in an area is the desirable objective. Surely some degree of review and planning—the two words which the party opposite seem to cower away from—should ensure that variety of provision is kept. I believe that the Minister should address himself to the issues of why there is a difference as regards post-16 and pre-16, and what will ensure that the variety continues. However, as I can see no favourable reaction from the Minister, I feel obliged to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 55, leave out lines 31 to 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 21 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. The amendments deal with the Bill's intention to allow schools to extend their age range or begin admitting pupils at a different age and to increase selectivity at the same time. This part of the Bill allows schools, in certain circumstances, to admit pupils by selection for ability or aptitude up to certain thresholds without having to publish proposals in order to gain approval for a significant change of character. Where those thresholds are crossed—that is, where the proportion of selection either moves above the permitted threshold or, having previously been higher, falls below it—publication of statutory proposals would be required.
However, the clause and the schedule set out circumstances in which that general approach would not apply. One circumstance is where a school begins to recruit pupils routinely at a different age; for example, if an 11 to 16 school which previously relied on recruiting pupils at the age of 11 began to invite admissions from those leaving middle schools at, say, 12 or 13. In those circumstances the Bill suggests that schools could exceed the previous thresholds with impunity.
If a school sought to expand its intake and increase its selectivity at a point other than the beginning of its normal age range, unlooked for and undesirable consequences could arise. While demographic change and parental preference mean that the overall balance of provision and demand is in the process of constant change, it is in the public interest to maintain some degree of consistency and stability from year to year. Significant departures from established patterns of recruitment between different schools can be difficult
960
and destructive. The action of one school could destabilise another, particularly when ages of transfer are different and it is not a question of direct competition between institutions for pupils of the same age.
These amendments are designed to guard against these possible difficulties by ensuring that schools proposing to make these significant changes should be subject to a more rigorous process of consultation and approval than would otherwise be the case. The amendments would not preclude such developments taking place but they would help guard against the possibility of serious problems emerging unexpectedly. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and new Section 265B of the 1996 Act, inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill, deal with cases where publication of a statutory proposal is not required for changes in selective admission to LEA and grant-maintained schools respectively. Those provisions follow on from paragraph 2 and new Section 265A which provide that if there is any change in the proportion of selective admissions which makes a school cross the relevant threshold, statutory proposals must always be published.
Subsection (3) in new Section 265B introduces two exceptions. Neither of these cases would result in significant changes in the character of a school so they would not under present law require publication of statutory proposals. We have already considered the exception in a previous amendment of sixth-form admissions. The second exception applies to the introduction of new relevant age groups for admission. Schools will not need to publish statutory proposals in situations where, although a new relevant age group for admissions is being introduced, the proportion of pupils selected does not increase.
I think the noble Lord cited the example of the LEA-maintained 11-to-16 school which started to admit pupils from middle school at the age of 12 or 13. This would not in itself require statutory proposals because it would not significantly change the school's character by extending its age range; it would still be an 11-to-16 school, but the school might already be selecting more than 20 per cent. of pupils admitted at age 11. Without paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1, the school would then have to publish statutory proposals, even if the proportion of 12 year-olds admitted by selection was no higher than the proportion of admissions at age 11.
These amendments seek to remove that exception. The effect would therefore be to require publication of the statutory proposals in circumstances where the school's character had not fundamentally changed. That would clearly not be right and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister seems to be saying that it is not the Government's intention that this proposal of the Government as it stands would allow schools suddenly to increase by a whole form outside the normal age of admission of 11. If the addition of one child who had moved from a different area were to tip the balance, that would be one

961
thing. However, is the Minister saying that the Government have no intention of allowing schools suddenly to start to recruit destructively from adjacent schools pupils at the age of 13 or 14? It is a genuine concern because such action could easily damage the range and scope of examination courses on offer at another school and could produce two schools that do not have viable year groups.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I shall have to look carefully at the example given to me by the noble Baroness. If I may, I shall write to her at a later stage as to whether that would constitute the significant change of character. As I made clear, where a school was merely admitting some pupils at 12 but did not arrive at a higher proportion than it had before, that obviously would not be the significant change of character. To allow these amendments would have left us in that nonsensical position. Whether the noble Baroness has raised another point is something I would prefer to look at, if I may, and I shall write to the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether we are not running into the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, always reminds us of; namely, the law of unintended consequences, in the sense that here we have the Government saying—I use the example of county schools—that there is a threshold of 20 per cent. at which a significant change takes place. The Government have effectively said it is 20 per cent. of selection of pupils. Are we to understand that the courts would not interpret the figure of 20 per cent. as being a significant change which would result in an increased number of pupils in a school? If that applied in year one, would it not also apply in years two and three?
Perhaps the system that the Government seek to put in place to protect, support and encourage grant-maintained schools to become grammar schools could lead to the destruction of those self-same grant-maintained schools because of the competition they would face from county schools that were prepared to go down this competitive route not because they wanted to damage any other school but from a point of view of self-protection. In that sense is not the risk like the risk that exists in industry and commerce where, because there is no minimum wage, decent firms have to pay wages as low as those of bad firms? In that case all standards are driven down rather than being promoted.
Lord Henley: I do not think today is yet the day for debating the minimum wage. We shall have many opportunities to do that with the noble Lord in due course. However, he knows where I stand. He knows perfectly well that if we brought in the minimum wage we would lose half a million jobs pretty quickly, if not more. If the noble Lord is worried that voluntary schools, county schools, or whatever, fear competition from the grant-maintained sector. I have
962
one piece of advice for them: follow the route of grant-maintained status as so many other schools have done.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If grant-maintained schools are so successful and so popular, why do the Government have to show them favouritism in government terms by saying that others may select fewer pupils on grounds of ability but grant-maintained schools may select more?
Lord Henley: Because we believe that grant-maintained schools should have the right to pursue the freedoms they have earned by becoming grant-maintained. That is why grant-maintained schools are so successful. That is why the noble Baroness cannot deny it—so many of her friends in the party opposite in another place make use of grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I had hoped that we would not start to have a to and fro across the Chamber about whose children went to which school. I have no intention of parading the fact that my children all went to comprehensive schools. I have no intention of asking those on the Government Benches who propose changes to the state school sector whether they send their children or grandchildren to those schools, be they grant maintained, selective or comprehensive. I hope that in this Chamber, notwithstanding the nearness of the election, we can leave each other's families out of it.
Lord Henley: I am more than happy to do so. I merely pointed out that it is hypocrisy for the party opposite to say it wants to deny choice to others but make use of it itself. That is a point worth making again and again. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, if Church, voluntary or LEA schools wish to obtain the benefits of grant-maintained status they are perfectly free so to do. So far I think we have had ballots in about one out of ten of all schools and of those one out of ten, 75 per cent. have chosen grant-maintained status. I should like some LEAs to cease trying to discourage all their parents from seeking the advantages of grant-maintained status. As I said on the earlier point, I shall look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, has said and write to her in due course. I might even copy the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The Minister used the word "hypocrisy". Perhaps he will say how many of his colleagues in this House or the other place send their children to any of the schools that we have been discussing.
Lord Henley: That is not hypocrisy. I make no bones about the fact that I use the private sector, as I am entitled to do and as we encourage others to do. That is

963
why we have the assisted places scheme. I was referring to those who insist on choice for themselves but say that they would deny it to others. That is hypocrisy.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps the Minister does not think that any of the schools under discussion are good enough for his own children. That is a choice that he has made—
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I have a right as a parent to make a choice as I wish, just as Mr. Blair and Ms Harman also have the right to do. But it is not for them to say that they do not wish others to have that right.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I shall again ask a question with which the noble Lord has dealt many times but to which we do not receive a satisfactory answer. In all our debates so far we have heard how good grant-maintained schools are. I am sure that some of them are very good and some are perhaps not so good. However, the basic question is that, out of 26,000 schools, 1,200 have opted for grant-maintained status. The figures speak for themselves. Against a background of certain privileges, certain advantages and certain incentives, the process has now been going on (the Minister will correct me if I am wrong) for four or five years and it is still not convincing people.
There is no doubt that there has been a reduction in the number of ballots. However, where ballots have taken place, is it not a fact that the number of opt-outs decided are very few and far between? Is that not the basic question to be asked about grant-maintained schools?
Lord Henley: I will give the figures to the noble Lord if he wants them. Some 20 per cent. of children in secondary schools go to grant-maintained schools. That is a jolly good figure. There have been ballots in one out of 10 schools. In other words, in nine out of 10 the parents have not even been given the option of a ballot, largely because of the influence of LEA governors on the boards and so on. Of the one in 10 that have held a ballot, 75 per cent.—three out of four—have voted to go grant-maintained. Those figures speak for themselves.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister understandably continues to repeat the fact that 20 per cent. of secondary school pupils are in the grant-maintained sector. It is a fair point. However, is it not fairer to concentrate on the number of schools, not the number of pupils in each school? The ballot takes place in relation to a school, not on the number of pupils in a school. Will the Minister address that question?
Lord Henley: The point is very easy to address. The answer is simply that we have something of the order of 3,000 or 4,000 secondary schools; the remaining 24,000 or so are primary schools. Grant-maintained status has been much more popular in secondary schools, which tend to be larger than primary schools. Secondary schools find it easier to take on the added burdens of being grant-maintained. That is why we have
964
had success in the secondary sector—1,100 schools; 20 per cent. of secondary school pupils in grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Will the Minister confirm that as a result of government policy the governing bodies of schools are no longer controlled by a majority of local education authority appointees; and if the parents and teachers on governing bodies together were of the opinion that there ought to be a parental ballot, such a ballot would take place?
Lord Henley: Come, come, come. The noble Baroness has been on an LEA. She knows LEAs. She has been an LEA governor; I have been an LEA governor. As the noble Baroness knows, they wield quite considerable influence on the governing body.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps that is the reason why a significant proportion of schools which have opted for grant-maintained status have done so—to get out of the control of LEAs that are Conservative. The Minister seems to have a lot of figures at his fingertips. What proportion of those schools that have opted for grant-maintained status were either scheduled for closure under reorganisation proposals or were under Conservative LEAs?
Lord Henley: I cannot give those figures. However, I refer the noble Lord back to my remarks earlier today about guidance in relation to schools seeking grant-maintained status to avoid closure. Obviously that point has to be taken into account. I recommend to the noble Lord the circular from which I quoted.
The number of schools in Conservative authorities is not relevant. I still believe that there are many more which could take that option. They would find it a lot easier if they did not have a hostile LEA, as in places such as Islington, desperately trying to prevent any school leaving that LEA. At the same time, all the parents are leaving that LEA. As we know, some 43 per cent. of secondary school children from Islington are now educated out of the borough.
Lord Monkswell: Surely it is relevant if the objective of grant-maintained status is to get out of LEA control. If the vast majority of schools opting for grant-maintained status effectively opt out of Conservative LEA control, surely that says something about Conservative LEAs.
Lord Henley: Not at all. Again, to be personal, why is it that Ms. Harman wanted to send her children not to a school in Labour-controlled Southwark but to a grant-maintained school in Conservative-controlled Bromley, where grant-maintained schools and the FAS work quite well with the LEA? The LEA still has a function and it can do a good job. My point is that LEA governors in many Labour local authorities are making it increasingly difficult for the schools to get even as far as a ballot.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This has been a wide-ranging debate. The amendment sought to examine

965
the consequences of admitting children of different ages and any unintended consequences that that may have on the thresholds of selection. The Minister gave an interesting reply to that point. I should appreciate a copy of the letter that he is to write to my colleagues on this side of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 23.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 55, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 56.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to initiate a debate that will take in Amendment No. 23 as well.
We move now to the gentler waters, the calmer pastures of increased selection in specialist schools. Under the Bill, specialist schools are allowed to appeal to the Secretary of State over the head of the LEA if they consider that that authority is not progressing satisfactorily towards complying with their request. The first word that causes us concern is "comply". "To comply" means quite simply, "to yield to the wishes of another", from the Latin, complere, "to fulfil". To comply with someone's request is to agree with it whether you want to or not.
Our amendment argues that a better approach would be to test the progress that the authority makes in considering the proposals. The amendment examines the process by which specialist schools may seek to increase their proportion of selective admissions above the threshold.
The first question to which we are interested to receive an answer is why specialist schools should be singled out in this respect. Do we anticipate a sudden flourish of gifted trumpeters in a local primary school? Do we think that there may be an influx of brilliant violinists from Hong Kong? Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 envisages the situation where the governing body of a specialist school which is not itself the admission authority writes to the local education authority to ask it to allow the school to increase the proportion of its selective admissions up to the 30 per cent. threshold. If, after two months,
"the governing body reasonably form the opinion that the authority have not made satisfactory progress towards complying with the request, the governing body may refer the matter to the Secretary of State".
How will that governing body reasonably form that opinion? Will it do so by vote? Will it do so by majority opinion, and is 51 per cent. enough? Can the Minister tell us more about what "satisfactory progress towards complying" will mean? An intemperate governing body—and I believe there might be some—could feel that nothing is satisfactory except total and utter
966
compliance. The Secretary of State is then empowered either to direct the LEA to make the variation, to make a different variation or to turn down the request.
Paragraph 4 is clearly intended to prevent LEAs making dilatory progress in relation to an application of which they may not approve. I am bound to confess without the rack that it is theoretically possible that a local education authority might be of such complexion that it was so minded. We are all prone to sin. But can the Minister give us five recent examples of LEAs who are guilty of that particular sin?
However, it is unreasonable to enable the governing body to trigger national consideration of the issue purely where, in its opinion, the authority is not moving fast enough towards agreeing on what has been requested. The Wednesbury principles of reasonableness as to decisions by public bodies place a number of duties on LEAs and others to go through the proper processes in reaching a determination. Usually, it is accepted that a statutory body has a duty to consider the matter fairly and within reasonable limits of discretion as to which side of the question it opts to support.
Paragraph 4, however, pre-judges the whole issue by placing the LEA in the position of either agreeing with the request or being likely to be told to agree. There is no scope for the matter to be determined properly at local level unless it is in the direction with which the Government happen to agree. It seems to me and to all of us that this is quite a striking illustration of Ministers' views of local decision-making and the centralisation of the whole of the past 18 years. Local agreements are out of fashion with the Government; the power of the Secretary of State is in fashion. The amendment attempts to redress the balance. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to make a few brief comments about Amendment No. 23. As we were warned earlier, if Amendment No. 22 were accepted, it would render Amendment No. 23 unviable. To put it the other way, if Amendment No. 22 is not accepted, then Amendment No. 23 seeks, in the event that a specialist school has applied to the LEA for a change in admission procedures and the LEA has not responded after the two-month period, to require the Secretary of State in those circumstances to consult with the LEA and have regard to its views before giving the various directions which appear under sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b) and (c).
The Bill provides that where the governing body of an LEA-maintained specialist school has requested that the LEA vary admission arrangements to allow for an increase in the number of pupils selected by reference to aptitude or ability and the governing body reasonably forms the opinion that the LEA has not made satisfactory progress, the Secretary of State may require the LEA to implement the proposal or may take a different view. But it is not required in either case to talk to the LEA.
Concern has been expressed that the framing of this part of the Bill is based on the assumption that the absence of a rapid compliance with a school's request is de facto unreasonable. If paragraph 4 of Schedule 1

967
is to be retained, then the two-month period is still impractical and unfair in the way that has already been described. The fact that the Secretary of State is not obliged to consult the LEA is, to my way of thinking, unwise. That is, particularly bearing in mind the views expressed in the previous debate by the Minister, for example, that LEAs have a role in managing schools' admissions processes.
First, an LEA, on receipt of a request for a specialist school to increase the number of pupils to be selected by ability and aptitude, should consult with the governing bodies of those schools which might be affected by the proposals. It might then be necessary to take a report of the meeting to the education committee. It is unlikely that the timing of meetings of governing bodies and the LEA will allow that to happen within a period of two months.
Secondly, the timing within the school year of the submission of a request to the LEA is critical because of the effect of school holidays and the ability of the LEA to consult with all interested parties. I speak as one who has had some experience of the process.
In the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, the Minister said that in considering the appeal from a governing body, the Secretary of State would, of course, consider the circumstances of the governors' request and any comments from the LEA. A requirement to consult the LEA before reaching a decision would, however, delay the Secretary of State's consideration of appeals. So what are we to make of the first statement that the Secretary of State would consider the circumstances of the governors' request and any comments from the LEA? A reasonable inference is that the Secretary of State will consider any comments from the LEA only if they arrive at approximately the same time as the referral from the governing body. In other words, the LEA will not have an opportunity to consider the details of the referral from the governing body or to present a detailed response. A requirement to consult the LEA following a referral from the governing body need, in practice, take no more than a fortnight. That does not seem to me to be an unjustified delay in the context of what might otherwise appear to be one-sided decision-making. I support the amendments which have been proposed.
Baroness Young: Is not the whole debate about the future of specialist schools? As I understand it, they have been immensely successful. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there are 181 existing technology and language colleges educating 180,000 pupils. They have managed between them to raise £18 million in sponsorship. That suggests that they are not only popular with parents and the students but with the outside world as well. I should have thought that that was highly commendable.
As I understand it, this part of the schedule would allow specialist schools to expand. Although I can quite see that it is a good joke to talk about extra trumpeters in some schools, many of the specialist schools are language schools. Again, I should have thought one issue on which all of us in the Committee today could
968
agree is that we are not good as a country at speaking foreign languages. We might try to do something to improve that.
The Secretary of State is herself a modern linguist and is particularly interested in those schools. I believe that they have been effective in improving pupils' ability to speak other languages. That seems to me to be a highly desirable outcome. If those schools wish to expand, they should be encouraged to do so. As I read what appears to be the offending section, it states:
"If, at any time after the end of the period of two months … the governing body reasonably form the opinion that the authority have not made satisfactory progress".
All of us who have been in negotiations know that it is possible to submit something and hear nothing. On the other hand, one can hear that the authority has met, it has considered the matter and wishes to ask the following reasonable questions. There is a whole variety of points in between. But if, as I read the legislation, the authority has made no progress or does not appear to be making progress and is playing the well-known political game of stonewalling, it is reasonable that the school should be able to approach the Secretary of State. He would have the opportunity of allowing the school to expand provided that it conforms to the three subsections which qualify it. That is a perfectly reasonable part of the schedule. It supports those excellent specialist schools. The same applies to the technology schools and, I believe, to those relating to arts and sports. All those varieties of schools ought to be encouraged. That enables the successful ones to expand. I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment.
Lord Henley: My noble friend is absolutely right to sing the praises of the specialist schools programme and their success. There are now something in the order of 180 technology colleges and some 42 language colleges. The figures are somewhat higher than she mentioned. A recent competition resulted in another 41 schools being so designated. That was 41 out of 131 applicants. Many more schools are striving for that status than we can accommodate at the moment.
My noble friend was also right to address their success. I visited an ordinary LEA maintained comprehensive school in Dartford which had gone down the route of the language college. It offered quite a wide range of European languages and, as I recall, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, something from the Indian sub-continent and one or two other languages. I visited another establishment in Devon, of all places, that had decided to specialise in Japanese. I found the link between Japan and Devon quite interesting. That will fairly soon be the only school in the country, I believe—certainly the only maintained school—in which every pupil between 11 and 16 years will be taught some Japanese. That is all within the national curriculum. It is something of which we can be proud and we want to continue to give the technology, language, sports and arts colleges—the two new categories which will be coming in shortly—greater flexibility to develop their strengths and the services that they offer to their communities.

969
I am very pleased that we now have a degree of support for the specialist schools programme from the party opposite, though we have yet to hear from those Benches what they feel about selection. The noble Lord was wrong to play that down. It is important that the specialist schools should be allowed to look to selection by aptitude in their subjects for a number of their pupils. That is only right.
As part of their development, specialist schools may wish to select a proportion of their pupils by ability or aptitude in their specialist subjects. Among other things, that can have the benefit of making the specialist facilities that those schools offer available to pupils who are best able to benefit from them—not all of us are good at modern languages, like my right honourable friend the Secretary of State; I am not sure that I would have benefited immensely from the kind of facilities that can be made available.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked why specialist schools should be allowed that freedom. We want to encourage such developments. That is why paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 enables specialist schools to select up to 30 per cent. of their intake by ability or aptitude for their specialist subjects. Obviously, if they wanted to go beyond that, the appropriate change would trigger off the usual procedures. But we believe that up to 30 per cent. it is a matter for the schools themselves to consider.
It is right that specialist schools of all kinds, whether they be grant maintained specialist schools or county and voluntary controlled schools, should benefit from that flexibility. But while the admission authorities for voluntary aided schools are usually their governing bodies, LEAs are usually the admission authorities for county and controlled schools. That means that an LEA can block the governors' proposals for introducing or extending selection. In such circumstances, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 enables the governors-by the governors I simply mean the governors who will make decisions (the noble Lord asked how they made decisions and it is a matter for the governors themselves)—to refer the matter to the Secretary of State and enables the Secretary of State to direct the LEA to implement the governors' proposals if she approves them.
In exercising that right of appeal, the governing body would have to put its case to the Secretary of State and explain why it judged that the process was unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State would then consider those arguments on their merits. The whole process would be subject always to the normal legal requirements of reasonableness. Therefore, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, need fear nothing.
So the purpose of paragraph 4 is to give all LEA specialist schools equal flexibility. Removing that paragraph, as the first of the noble Lord's amendments seeks to do, would discriminate against those specialist county and voluntary controlled schools. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not wish to push the amendment.
970
With regard to the second amendment, which I understand cannot be proceeded with should Amendment No. 22 be agreed to, I believe that it is unnecessary. Paragraph 4, by enabling the governing body to put its case to the Secretary of State, deals with the circumstances in which an LEA has blocked proposals. In those circumstances, it would be remarkable if the LEA did not also put its case to the Secretary of State. If it did so, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of what the LEA said in reaching her decision. So requiring the Secretary of State formally to consult the LEA would simply delay her decision. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary. It would be a very strange local education authority which did not put its case to the Secretary of State.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We have had an interesting debate. The Minister carefully avoided giving direct answers to most of the questions which I asked him. I hope that tomorrow he will read what I said and when he comes to the end of a sentence, if he sees a little question mark, that is a question which I asked him.
The Minister has been rather roundabout in looking at the crucial matter of how an LEA replies to the accusation that it is dilatory. Perhaps he can come back to us at a later stage or write to me on that issue, which seems to me to be fairly close to the heart of the matter.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before twenty minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Knives Bill
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill had all-party support at all stages in the other place. It is important as a clear demonstration that our society does not tolerate the carrying or marketing of knives for offensive or defensive purposes.
Clause 1 deals with the unlawful marketing of so-called combat knives and other knives which may stimulate or encourage violent behaviour using a knife as a weapon. The terms "suitable for combat" and "violent behaviour" are defined in the Bill.
Clause 2 deals with advertising those types of knives.

971
Clause 3 provides for various exemptions for the Armed Forces and for knives which may be defined as antiques or curios.
Clause 4 provides statutory defences of mens rea and due diligence.
Clauses 5 and 6 provide for supplementary powers of entry, seizure and retention and for forfeiture of knives and publications upon conviction.
The second part of the Bill and its provisions particularly in Clause 8 provides additional powers for police to stop and search persons within a specific locality where serious violence is anticipated. Authority may be given by an inspector for 24 hours in the first instance and extended by a superintendent for a further 24 hours. This section of the Bill could clearly be extremely useful where violence is anticipated—at a football match, for example, or where there is regularly trouble in a town centre on Saturday night.
This is not an ambitious Bill but I believe that it has symbolic importance and could be of some practical use in curbing the knives culture. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to address this House. I am the first member of my family to speak in your Lordships' House for over 23 years. The last person was my grandfather; he was the Chief Scout and Governor of Tasmania and very active in your Lordships' Chamber. My father did not take his writ and I waited until I felt I could give the House its due deference by being here on a regular basis. I am grateful for the support I have received from both the staff and your Lordships since coming here.
The Knives Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, gives me the opportunity, after only two weeks, to make my maiden speech. But I am concerned about the Bill. I fear that it may be the result of the slight knee-jerk reaction we see happening at the moment in response to media speculation. I feel that we may be introducing a Bill to control the 1 per cent. of the population which cause trouble with knives at the expense of the other 99 per cent.
By "1 per cent." I mean this. The other day my wife was a juror in a murder trial. The defendant claimed that it was self-defence. As the case went on it turned out that the defendant after the initial skirmish had gone into his house, taken the knife—some 20 inches in length—from the top of a wardrobe and gone back and murdered his victim. I am sure we are all agreed that that is what the Bill is aimed at, and no one would quarrel with that. However, several people may be badly affected by the Bill if it goes through, as I read it, because it goes much further than that.
The common kitchen knife is found in every household in the country. It ranges from one inch to around 12 inches. In the wrong hands it can be a lethal weapon, as poor Mr. Bobbit found when his wife cut off a vital part of his anatomy while he slept. Sportsmen, such as stalkers and gamekeepers, must
972
have their knives for their trade. If a deer is not gralloched immediately after it is shot, it becomes totally unfit for human consumption—and venison is an important part of today's meat trade. Butchers must have knives on open display to cut up our butcher's meat requirements.
For me the most important and potentially the most difficult aspect of the Knives Bill is the impact on the skean-dhu. The skean-dhu is a true part of the Scottish national costume. It is a short instrument with a pointed end and a serrated edge. It fits into the scabbard and goes down inside one's stocking. It is essential to the costume. Under Scots law—the latest being the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993—it is not an offence to carry a knife as part of one's national costume, for use at work or for religious reasons. The Bill before us proposes to change not only Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but also the Scottish equivalent, the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. It therefore affects all of Great Britain and seems to override all previous Acts.
The Bill proposes only three defences for carrying or selling a knife: first, that one is selling it to or is a member of the armed services; secondly, that the knife concerned must be an antique or a curio; and the third is a category yet to be prescribed. As the knives that I am talking about do not fit into the first two categories, I hope that they will become prescribed.
I appreciate that any sensible policeman will take the view that a sportsman or a butcher has a right to have a knife. But how does the shopkeeper stop a shopper from buying a new kitchen knife? How does he differentiate between whether it will be used for legitimate or illegitimate means? It will be extremely difficult for him. Will a kilt hire company give out only half of the Scots costume to a Scotsman who wants to go to his wedding by not giving him his skean-dhu? Am I to be accused as I walk along any street in Britain of carrying an offensive weapon because I have my skean-dhu in my stocking? Will we in this country end up needing a licence to possess a knife in the same way as we need a licence to possess a gun?
I venture to say that it is not possible to legislate for the "could be" or the "might be". The Bill seeks to stop the idiot—the criminal—from owning a knife. I am all for that, and I am sure that we all are. But we must be careful not to legislate against the legitimate use of the knife by the 99 per cent. of law-abiding citizens who want a knife for our business, our home or our national dress. Nor must we put the shopkeeper into a difficult situation whereby he finds it almost impossible to decide whether he should sell a knife because, if he sells it to the wrong person, he could be prosecuted.
I ask that my noble friend gives an assurance that somehow the knives to which I refer will become prescribed articles. How the Minister will do that, I am not certain. Knives are a difficult subject. In the right hands they are perfectly safe, but in the wrong hands they are lethal. I am concerned that if we are not careful with this Bill we will create a monster that is impossible to police.
7.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Bill has some parallel with the Firearms (Amendment) Bill and I was anticipating it with trepidation. But noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to become heavily involved in the debates, though I thought it appropriate to say a few words at Second Reading.
This morning I rang the Government Whip's Office and said that I should like to speak on the Bill. I received a wonderful reception—I now understand why. I saw the speakers' list and found that I had the honour of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, on what we have now found to be an excellent maiden speech. I have already enjoyed many interesting conversations with the noble Lord in a comfortable place not a million miles from where we are now sitting. He mentioned his wife's experience in court, which may be similar to my experience on jury service. I intend to speak about that in a few moments.
The Bill is different from the firearms Bill, as it is not completely objectionable and addresses real anxieties of the public. I suggest that far more members of the public in our country will have been threatened with knives than with guns. What concerns me is the difficulty of obtaining convictions under the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, mentioned football matches. Before I came to your Lordships' House I was summoned for jury service, which was an extremely interesting experience. One of the cases we heard concerned a young man. He was charged with having an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful reason or excuse. He had one of those trimming knives where one breaks off the blade to expose a new blade. He had it concealed in his underpants while trying to get into Spurs football ground for a London versus Derby match. The man was acquitted. His excuse was that he was using the knife earlier in the day to fit a car radio in South London. Since that time we have passed legislation to restrict the so-called right to silence. Personally, I did not believe that he had the skill to fit the radio in the first place; but I was quite sure that he knew exactly how to remove a radio from a car.
The point is that there are already suitable offences in law but it is difficult to obtain convictions for them. I also have a little anxiety about exemptions under Clause 3; the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, touched on that point. The clause provides an exemption for armed forces of any country. That is interesting to me because I am a serving member of the Territorial Army. An advertisement could be held to be targeted at me or at any other soldiers in UK service, and I am a little concerned that that would provide an easy defence for someone being charged under the Bill. I wondered therefore whether it was strictly necessary. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will touch on that point when she winds up. Otherwise, I am happy with the Bill.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Calverley: My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate on the Knives Bill. It has provided me with an ideal platform to make
974
my maiden speech, especially in the light of my previous chosen career, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for introducing this Bill.
I have been advised that brevity and non-controversiality should the hallmarks of one's first speech, and I assure your Lordships that, as regards the former, I shall conform implicitly. The latter, of course, is subject to each person's opinion and interpretations.
For the past 33 years it has been my duty and honour to serve the people of West Yorkshire, and, for a while, the people of Belfast, as a police officer. I have been engaged for the majority of that time as an operational detective, and I have lost count of the number of incidents I have dealt with which involved the use of knives.
To witness at first hand the horrific injuries to victims, and the heartache to their families, caused by vindictive and malicious individuals wielding knives, is most traumatic. Unfortunately, it is, however, an everyday occurrence in society in modern times. The cost to the public purse, in the treatment of victims in the hospitals, and the investigation of the circumstances and subsequent legal process, by the police and the courts, must be staggering. Knives, like guns, are totally inanimate and innocuous articles until they are in the hands of human beings.
I recall an incident when a young man, who had not yet attained the age when he could enter and purchase drink in licensed premises, persisted in participating in the activities of the games room of such an establishment. He was repeatedly asked to leave and was eventually evicted by staff and clientele. He returned a short time later, having armed himself with a particularly gruesome looking diver's knife. It had a blade eight inches in length with deep jagged serrations. In a fit of pique, he plunged it into the neck of one of the men present, and it was nothing short of a miracle that the blade missed all vital organs. The victim made a full recovery in time. The youth later served a short term of imprisonment for that and other offences.
Another incident which comes to mind was when an off-duty colleague, out shopping with his wife, recognised a person whom he knew to be wanted on warrant for a relatively minor offence. He asked his wife to get assistance and he approached the man with a view to arresting him. A struggle ensued and my colleague, who perhaps, fortunately for him, was a little overweight, was stabbed in the stomach. He managed to hold onto his attacker until the troops arrived and the man was taken into custody. A further charge of attempted murder was now added to this man's problems, which, I might add, was later reduced to GBH wounding with intent to resist arrest.
The list is endless, and I shall not burden your Lordships with any further accounts, other than to say that no one with a social conscience could fail to have been moved by the murder of the headmaster, Mr. Philip Lawrence, who was merely going about his daily routine.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that, unlike guns, knives have been around far longer, and probably initially owe their invention to man's need to feed

975
himself. Primitive man soon realised that knives were useful as a means of protection, and for building his shelter.
It is not so long ago that one could regularly see boy scouts wearing sheath knives and proudly sporting woodcraft badges and the like, which they had earned under the supervision of a scout leader, using those very knives. It is a sad indictment of modern society that a young man can no longer enjoy this freedom as a result, I am convinced, of the proliferation of knives of all kinds, especially the type of "combat knife" made fashionable by cult figures such as Rambo and Crocodile Dundee.
"Combat" by definition means a battle or contest, and mortal combat is a battle fought to the death. Surely, then, the only persons who could reasonably be in lawful possession of such weapons would be soldiers undergoing training or actually engaged in the defence of the realm. It is this type of knife which has been instrumental in the introduction of the present legislation, and it has been said that the main stumbling block is that of definition.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, all offensive weapons fall into three categories. These are: articles used as such; articles adapted for use as such; and articles made for that specific purpose. Knives of every kind are liable to fall into one of these categories when they are not being used for their intended purpose.
Most knives of a domestic, sporting or industrial nature are readily identifiable, and are essential tools, and as such, pose no threat when being used for their lawful purpose. Problems do arise, however, when a knife and its intended use, or purpose, is not easily identified, and I see no reason why a legal onus should not be placed upon manufacturers or importers to justify that there is a genuine use for it.
My Lords, there are no conceivable circumstances in a peace-loving society for the public sale, distribution or ownership of knives manufactured and marketed solely as deadly weapons. I also submit that there is a need for tighter supervision of the sale of knives which to all intents and purposes resemble the so-called combat knives but come under the heading of sporting knives. I totally support this Bill and look forward to its speedy passage.
In conclusion, I should like to place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham for the help he has given me during the past week, and also to noble Lords on all sides of the House with whom I have come in contact and who have shown me great kindness.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, on introducing this Second Reading. I must especially congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, on a superb maiden speech. It is very refreshing to have, so to speak, a former foot soldier of the police in our midst. We are accustomed to having a fair number of retired senior police officers sitting among us. The noble Lord was until recently a member of the West Yorkshire police. He represents the
976
constables—the lower ranks—of the police force, without whom nothing is possible. I should, with haste, declare my interest in that I am a political adviser to the Police Federation and as such I cannot advocate anything connected with the police force or members of that federation. However, I hope I shall be in order if I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who was until recently, if I am not mistaken, a member of that federation.
I should also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, on an excellent maiden speech. The only time I have ever carried a knife was when I was a very small boy scout and the noble Lord's predecessor was the chief scout. Sadly, times have changed since then, and the carrying of knives by boy scouts is no longer permitted.
We need to work carefully on what is to be allowed as regards the carrying of knives, the use of knives, the possession of knives and the marketing of knives. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said that the Bill seeks to prevent the marketing and carrying of knives. That is excellent as far as it goes. I wish though that it were possible—perhaps she will indicate to me whether it is possible—to extend the provision. I cannot see why knives that are designed for combat should be sold or made at all. I certainly believe that anything that carries a mark suggesting "Rambo", "killer" or "fight" should be banned outright.
It could be possible to set up some type of approval system which would enable the authorities to examine each type of knife that is manufactured to make sure that it is the kind of knife that would be permissible in normal circumstances. I would be interested to hear what my noble friend and the noble Baroness have to say about that. It is surely not beyond the wit of man to distinguish between a knife that is designed for carving a joint and one that is designed for combat. Even in the case raised by my noble friend Lord Rowallan, a knife that is part of one's dress can surely be made to be blunt or be of a type which would not make it suitable for killing a person. Cannot that be the way out for those who sell skean-dhu or knives for other types of decoration?
I am glad to see that Clause 8 of the Bill gives authority to a police officer of the rank of inspector or under to authorise the search of premises where knives may be used. I believe that that is an important provision which should be given your Lordships' support. I am very pleased to say that the Bill has all-party support and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Baroness have to say about my proposal that there should be some system of type approval. Otherwise I give my full support to this Motion for Second Reading.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, on introducing the Bill and also extend my appreciation of two excellent maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan and from my noble friend Lord Calverley. What was particularly impressive to me about the contribution

977
from my noble friend was his practical experience of the impact of knives on people. He spoke with some emotion at being a witness at first hand of the terrible injuries that knives can inflict. He described what a traumatic thing it is for a person who is in the front line in the police force to have to deal with knife incidents.
I myself see far too many times the photographs of the horrific injuries that knives occasion, not just the external injuries, but also the injuries taken at post mortem. Reference has been made to the Philip Lawrence case. I declare an interest in having defended in that particular case not the person convicted of murder but a co-accused and in having seen exactly what happened in that terrible tragedy. In addition to what your Lordships would expect as regards the death of the headmaster, it was terrible to see a group of youngsters of 14 and 15 years of age arming themselves with horrific weapons and carrying them around the streets of this capital.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, we have come a long way from the attitudes of the past. There has been resistance over many years to restrictions on knives because, as my noble friend Lord Calverley said, they have been around for a very long time. I believe that we all started in our own youthful years with the little scout knife, but as my children were growing up the scout knife became the diving knife, which was something rather more sinister. Then that knife became the combat knife. Somewhere around 15 to 20 years ago, we entered into a culture whereby violence became glorified in a way that those who had actually faced it during the wartime years would have abhorred. As I recall it, in post-war years the use of a knife was considered not something that the people of this country would normally indulge in.
That glorification of violence that we see on our television and film screens and read about has been matched by lurid advertising, which feeds fantasies. It creates a deadly culture and makes youngsters believe that it is clever to go around carrying larger and larger knives. They do that not in the name of sport.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said that many people would be badly affected by the provisions of this Bill and referred to the fact that the common kitchen knife is used in many murder cases. He is absolutely right. It frequently happens that an ordinary domestic knife is Exhibit One in a murder case. But in most such cases these are sudden domestic passions which spring up. One member of the family unhappily and fatally reaches for the nearest weapon and inflicts the most dreadful wounds. That is a very different thing from the carrying of knives by youngsters as some form of machismo to show what kind of big people they believe they are. It is right that restrictions should be put on the marketing of knives of this sort, which is done in the name of profit. I welcome the Bill.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for her initiative in
978
taking forward the important proposals in the Bill which, I am happy to say, the Government fully support. Perhaps I may join with all other noble Lords in thanking the two maiden speakers in this debate. As everybody has said, we have had two excellent speeches, one from my noble friend Lord Rowallan who has been patient and who has taken his seat in this House at a time when he believes he can make a real contribution. We look forward to hearing many more speeches from him and from the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who speaks from first-hand experience of the impact of this evil of carrying and using knives in the community. Again, we look forward to hearing very much more from the noble Lord who will bring that ground roots experience to this House and to our debates.
These proposals are properly seen as the latest in a series of measures which are aimed at the evil of illicit knife-carrying. In the first place, the Government introduced in Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the offence of carrying a knife in public, with the onus on anyone charged with this offence to prove to the court that he had good reason for having the knife with him.
We should nonetheless do everything we can to stop the sale of articles which have no legitimate use and can be used as weapons. That is why Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced a power under which the Home Secretary can prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of such articles, and 14 have been banned in this way. These include push daggers, butterfly knives and swordsticks; and are in addition to flick knives and gravity knives which were already covered by the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was already consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers about ways in which the law could be further strengthened when the fatal stabbing of head teacher Philip Lawrence occurred, on 8th December 1995. That tragic event left us in no doubt that we should bring forward these proposals at the earliest opportunity, and the result was the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 which received Royal Assent on 4th July.
This among other matters increased the maximum penalty for the offence of carrying a knife in public from a £1,000 fine to two years in prison or an unlimited fine; made it an offence to carry a knife or offensive weapon on school premises without good reason; and it created the new offence of selling a knife to a person under the age of 16. We have continued to consider what further measures can be taken in this area. We share the widespread concern which exists about the availability of so called "combat" knives.
As I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the power under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to ban the sale of specified articles. The difficulty in applying this to so-called "combat" knives is that they are no different in their essential features from knives which have legitimate uses. We believe that the proposal in the Bill to make it an offence to market a knife in a way which

979
indicates that it is suitable for combat, or is likely to stimulate violent behaviour with it, is an approach which is workable and which will be particularly effective in the area of advertising. I would not claim that irresponsible advertising of knives is a widespread problem, but where it does occur it is cause for great concern and it is right that there are sanctions available in the criminal law to deal with it.
The Bill will also extend the Section 60 powers to Scotland. It was originally thought that the police in Scotland had sufficient powers of stop and search under common law. Following consultation with the Scottish police associations, the Government believe there would be advantages in the Scottish police having a statutory power akin to that available in England and Wales. The provisions in the Bill will provide that power to the police in Scotland. This is a move to which the Scottish police associations have given their support.
The police associations for England and Wales have all expressed their support for the Bill's provisions. In particular, the chairman of the Police Federation has welcomed setting the rank of the authorising officer at inspector level and allowing the initial 24-hour period to be extended for a further 24 hours. The Police Federation believes this will enable the powers under Section 60 to be effective and allow the police to react more quickly to local problems. The superintendents' association supports the proposals, including that requiring a superintendent's authorisation to extend the initial period, and that requiring authorisations given at inspector level to be reported as soon as is practicable to a superintendent. The Association of Chief Police Officers has similarly expressed unreserved support for the proposals. We take this as an endorsement of the measures in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Rowallan asked whether the Bill would stop the carrying or purchase of a skean-dhu, or knives used by deer hunters. The carrying of knives is unaffected by the Bill. The amendment to Section 47 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 does not bear upon this. The law on knife carrying in Scotland is found in Sections 47 and 49 of the 1995 Act. The equivalent provisions apply in England and Wales. Under Section 47, it is an offence to carry a knife in public with intent to cause injury. Under Section 49, it is an offence to carry a knife other than a small, folding pocket knife in public without good reason or lawful authority.
Specifically, it is a defence for someone charged with an offence under Section 49 to show that he had the knife with him for use at work, for religious reasons or as part of any national costume. The last defence—"as part of any national costume"—is there to protect the position of the Scotsman with his skean-dhu or the Gurkha with his kukri. If, however, someone carries such a thing with intent to cause injury or not as part of a national costume or for any other good reason, that person will be liable to prosecution. A deer hunter carrying a knife for legitimate use in the course of hunting or, indeed, anyone else carrying a knife for a legitimate purpose, benefits from the "good reason"
980
defence. Ultimately, it is, of course, for the courts to decide in any individual case whether the defence is met. The onus is on the defendant to prove it.
As far as purchase is concerned, as long as a skean-dhu or hunting knife is not marketed in a way which may constitute an offence under the proposals of the Bill—I can see no reason why they should be marketed in such a way—there will be no difficulty in selling such articles. If, for example, a skean-dhu is marketed as being good for fighting with, that will clearly be an offence, but if it is marketed simply as a traditional skean-dhu or for the purpose of being worn with Scottish national dress, there will be no offence.
I turn now to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, regarding possible difficulties in securing a conviction for the carrying of a knife in public. That has to be a matter for the courts. It is worth recording that the offence was introduced in Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 because of the difficulties in prosecuting knife carriers under the offence of carrying an offensive weapon under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The onus is on the defendant to prove that he had good reason for having the knife with him. I believe that that shows that we have done something to give the courts the powers that they need in this area. I cannot comment on the particular case mentioned by the noble Earl—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I was not criticising the Government; I was criticising juries in general for their reluctance to convict someone who desperately needed to be convicted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be the first time that that point has been raised. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, mentioned it in his excellent maiden speech. We are giving the courts the powers and we look to the courts to reflect the anxieties of people in the community and to use their powers. That is an important point and a good message that should be carried out from this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, suggested that manufacturers should be made to prove that their knives were being sold for legitimate purposes. I have partly covered that point except to say that it would put an unreasonable onus on manufacturers unless it were linked to a labelling requirement, in which case the measures could easily be evaded by simply labelling any offensive-looking knife to suggest that it was intended for a legitimate purpose. That would clearly offer a loophole to the unscrupulous. That is always a difficulty.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell who referred to a proposal for a system of type approval for knives. It is right that we should consider all possible approaches to tackle the problem of so-called "combat" knives. However, my noble friend's proposal would mean having a system to determine a set of standards which must be met by all knives that are sold. Those standards would deliberately exclude designs which are considered to be for combat knives. To exclude combat knives, one would need effectively to define them in the first place.

981
That brings us right back to the problem that the Government have been considering for a long time. I refer to the fact that we are not able to define combat knives so as to distinguish them from knives which have legitimate uses. As an aside, I have looked at the knives that I have at home. I have a pretty lethal-looking freezer knife which, by any description, sounds pretty awful. Indeed, if it were used it could do a great deal of damage. If we were able to define knives effectively, the Home Secretary would be able to use his power under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of such knives. It is against that background that we have arrived at the proposal in the Bill to do something about the way in which knives are marketed.
Even if a type approval system offered a way forward in principle—as I have said, I do not believe that it does—so many different types of knives are available that establishing type approval arrangements would be a substantial enterprise which would represent a significant burden on business and on the police who would have to enforce it. There would be vast difficulties in making such a proposal work effectively.
The Bill which the noble Baroness introduced has all-party support in another place. I believe that it will enjoy all-party support in this House also. Sadly, the Bill is necessary and, with all-party support not only in this House but outside, we are pleased to lend the Bill our support for its Second Reading and for a speedy passage through the House.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering most of the queries raised. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and I congratulate those who have made excellent maiden speeches.
The question of offensive weapons has always been bedevilled by the problem of definition. This Bill moves some way towards dealing with the problems of marketing and advertising, but it does not deal with the problem of people who carry lethal kitchen knives with which they can do terrible damage. However, the Bill does provide the police with some small extra powers to search people when they think that violence may be about to be carried out.
I do not believe that the Minister replied to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about army knives from other countries. Other countries are specified so that there should not be a constraint on weapons manufacturers who traditionally supply the armies of other countries and who presumably would not wish their trade to be constrained. That is the intention of that provision.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The Bill has important symbolic and demonstrative powers, in that it shows what our society will not tolerate. 1 hope that we shall move progressively towards a society that does not tolerate the sale, advertising and marketing of knives
982
which are specifically intended to injure human beings. With that, I ask the House to give the Bill its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997
8 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under Sections 93 to 95 of the Environment Act 1995 which give the Government powers to make producer responsibility regulations. We have two reasons for proposing to introduce these regulations now: first, to give effect in relation to packaging to the Government's initiative on producer responsibility for waste which endeavours to place on the producers of waste more of the real environmental costs of waste production and disposal; and, secondly, to provide a system for achieving the recovery and recycling targets in the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging waste.
The directive which came into force at the end of 1994 provides a single market framework for the free circulation of packaging and also requires member states to put systems in place to achieve recovery rates of 50 to 65 per cent. of packaging waste, with a minimum of 15 per cent. recycling of each material. The Government propose to meet the directive targets through the regulations that we are discussing today.
British industry, in discussions with the Government, made clear that it wanted to see all parts of the packaging chain share in any obligation to recover and recycle packaging waste. It also wanted to see underpinning legislation to deter free riders, and it wanted provision for collective, business-led schemes to be set up to help businesses achieve their obligations.
Following two wide-ranging consultation periods in 1995 and 1996, the draft regulations were finalised. The underlying approach includes the following elements. There is a staged approach to the new system which brings in the largest businesses first, the smaller ones in 2000 and leaves the smallest out altogether. The system starts in 1997 with registration and data provision, and the first recovery and recycling targets come in at the end of 1998. Provision is made for industry-led collective schemes. The regulations will be reviewed annually.
The draft regulations before us impose three main obligations on certain businesses who handle packaging. These obligations are: first, a registration obligation. Businesses must register with one of the environment agencies and provide packaging data, at the latest by 31st August 1997. Secondly, there is a recovery and recycling obligation. Businesses must take reasonable steps to recover and recycle specific tonnages of packaging waste that are calculated taking account of

983
the amount of packaging flowing through their business, the function that they perform in relation to the packaging (for example, whether they convert or fill packaging) and the UK's recovery and recycling targets. Thirdly, there is a certifying obligation. Businesses must certify annually that they have recovered and recycled the required tonnages of packaging waste.
The Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland will monitor compliance with the regulations and will have powers of entry and inspection, if necessary, as they do in relation to their other activities. In extreme cases there is provision for criminal offences and prosecutions, but I assure your Lordships that we expect no more than a negligible number of such cases.
In conclusion, producer responsibility is an innovative approach to achieving our environmental goals in a sustainable way and in partnership with industry. The system that has been developed in the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations is comprehensive; involves all the relevant business sectors but has a light regulatory touch; gives wide discretion to industry on how to discharge its obligations, including the establishment of industry-led collective schemes; reduces the environmental impact of packaging waste without placing unreasonable burdens on business; and will enable the UK to achieve its recovery and recycling obligations under the EC directive. I beg to move.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance which represents the manufacturers of those products. That alliance is an important member of the Food and Drink Federation, which has advised me in my contribution to this debate.
I thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon for her easy to understand and brief introduction to the regulations. As the FDF sees it, under these regulations packers/fillers and retailers will together carry the majority of the responsibility for the recovery of packaging waste—a minimum of 83 per cent. FDF, together with the Alcoholic Drinks Industry Group and the British Retail Consortium, representing jointly almost the entire retailing and food and drink manufacturing sectors, strongly believe that the regulations will meet the essential requirement for an environmentally sound, effective and equitable method of sharing producer responsibility for packaging waste across the whole packaging chain.
The regulations are based on an industry agreement reached on 15th December 1995 between all four principal parts of the packaging chain on the share of responsibility to be taken by each sector. This close industry involvement has continued throughout the development of the regulations. In particular, the Advisory Committee for Packaging appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which comprises senior representatives of the four sectors of the packaging chain, has advised upon the detailed provisions of the regulations. Some packaging
984
manufacturers which carry only a relatively minor burden of 11 per cent. activity obligation for the recovery of packaging waste now claim that the regulations are unfair. The Food and Drink Federation, together with the ADIG and the BRC, do not support this view. In passing, I believe that the Secretary of State and his department have dealt with this very complicated problem and brought it to a conclusion in a splendid way.
The Advisory Committee for Packaging will continue to review, and advise the Government on, the effectiveness of the system before the final recovery and recycling targets take effect in the year 2001. However, it is vital that the regulations come into effect this year, since they will create an obligation to provide data on packaging flows and will encourage industry-wide compliance schemes, such as Valpak, to be set up and to operate successfully. The ACP will then be able to ensure that the burden of legal obligation remains fair across the different sectors of the packaging chain and recommend changes to the regulations, where necessary. Accordingly, I strongly support the early introduction of these regulations.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we on these Benches give a guarded welcome to these measures that we hope will reduce some of the 8 million tonnes of packaging waste generated in this country each year. We hope that these regulations will ensure that we meet our European obligations to recover between 50 and 65 per cent. of our packaging waste by the year 2001. We are however concerned about the level of bureaucracy involved in managing the system. There is the awful example of the German green spot system that went so badly wrong.
It is important that the whole packaging chain is involved and that the system does not work mainly to the advantage of large retail stores which may claim transit waste in their totals. The Government's attempt to achieve a shared approach, although laudable, has not worked well in the context of deregulation and competitive market forces. The exemptions for small businesses with a turnover of less than £5 million a year are welcome, but they will not protect medium sized firms. It is probable that the different sectors of the market will be in competition with one another. It is therefore feared that waste management firms will be able to cream off profits and will have no obligation to reduce packaging waste. However, these regulations are already months behind schedule. Their intentions are laudable and honourable but, as interim targets must be achieved in 1998, it is vital that the scheme goes ahead so that the practical difficulties can be identified at the annual review and the regulations adjusted to iron out the anomalies and unfairness that are widely anticipated in various sectors of the market.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I welcome noble Lords' support for the regulations. They represent a sustainable approach to package waste management

985
which has been achieved through discussions and consultations with the industry itself. I recommend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.20 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 56, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 57.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to leave out paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. It represents an open encouragement to county schools to bolt for the door marked "grammar school" whenever proposals are published which they do not like. Some of us are familiar with that situation in relation to grant-maintained schools. Where the LEA publishes proposals for change in the character of the school the governing body is then empowered to publish an alternative plan to move to 100 per cent. selection. If the LEA plan has not been determined, and the timing usually lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, that action leads to the Secretary of State considering the two together. Where the LEA plan would otherwise have fallen to be determined by itself, the Secretary of State will acquire control of it. In other words, paragraph 5 creates a clear possibility of collusion between the governors of a dissatisfied school and the Secretary of State against the LEA.
It is of course the case that the governors may have sound reasons for disapproving of an LEA plan. That may well be the case, but what is unseemly in relation to the conduct of the education system is that the Secretary of State should be drawn so openly into a partisan position, or towards the risk of being seen to be in such a position. As with paragraph 4 dealing with specialist schools, the governing body is given the power to trigger the process by publishing its own proposals where it feels that the LEA,
"have not made satisfactory progress towards complying",
within a period of two months to its request to move to 100 per cent. selection. That same loaded question is put to the LEA with a consequence that a determined governing body can draw the Secretary of State into a possibly controversial situation on the flimsiest of judgments as to the way in which the LEA is dealing with the matter.
This is one of the crudest provisions in the Bill. It invites conflict between schools and the LEAs and makes clear that the Secretary of State has prejudged the outcome. Once again, what may be interpreted as the narrow self-interest of individual schools is being placed above that of the community, or, indeed, future generations. There is no reason why what schools may
986
be saying in this instance should be wrong. Equally, there is no reason why they should be right. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 inclusive.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in particular on a couple of smaller points. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the Committee some comfort on the position of the LEA plan which has not been determined, the determination being in the hands of the Secretary of State so that the Secretary of State considers the two together. Where the LEA plan would otherwise have fallen to be determined in itself and on its own merits, the Secretary of State has now acquired control of it and has to consider it together with the other plan.
I wish to know what "together" implies. Does it mean that the Secretary of State must compare one set of proposals with the other? Can she decide something entirely different? Is she either permitted or obliged to consult with the LEA and the governors? Can she call in an independent arbitrator within the powers of the clause? Is she obliged to publish her findings? Is there any appeal mechanism by either side against the decision?
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may make clear to the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Morris, that the Secretary of State has not prejudged any of her decisions on such matters which come before her, nor would she do so. If she had so prejudged those decisions, if she had not exercised her decision in the proper manner, the matter could be open for appeal.
We believe that grammar schools, to which the amendment relates, are an essential part of a diverse education system. At present just under 5 per cent. of maintained secondary pupils are in such schools. Furthermore, their geographical distribution is very patchy. In some areas, about 20 per cent. of pupils benefit from such selection. In other areas there are none. We want to encourage schools of all types—county, voluntary, grant-maintained or whatever—to become grammar schools should they so wish.
However, because 100 per cent. selection would represent a significant change in the character of most schools—we recognise that, which is why the Bill is drafted as it is—statutory proposals would be required for making such a change. The governing bodies of voluntary and grant-maintained schools may publish their own statutory proposals. The proposals for significantly changing the character of county schools may, under existing legislation, be published only by the local education authority. That means that county schools, which are the majority of state secondary schools, are at a disadvantage in seeking to become grammar schools, in particular where they are faced with an LEA which is hostile to the whole concept of selection.

987
That is why paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 enables the governing body of a county school to publish its own set of proposals in certain circumstances. Such circumstances are where governors want to turn the school into a grammar school, have asked the LEA to publish the necessary proposals and after at least two months have reasonably formed the opinion that the LEA has not made satisfactory progress towards complying with that request. Therefore, the purpose of paragraph 5 is to establish a level playing field between voluntary schools, grant-maintained schools and county schools in relation to grammar school proposals. Amendment No. 24 seeks to destroy that by removing the paragraph. The effect of the amendment would be to discriminate against county schools by enabling LEAs to block any plans they might have to become grammar schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked about consultation. Obviously, the Secretary of State would consider any representations made by the local education authority. It is clear that any local education authority would make such submissions should it so wish. Therefore, there is no need for the Secretary of State herself—and long may it be herself—to consult. I would rather not say "consult with" because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would not be happy with that use of English. Having said that, I have come across both Dickens and Trollope using "consult with" and "meet with". No doubt they can be criticised by others than myself.
Obviously, if the LEAs wish to make submissions it is for them to do so and the Secretary of State would have to consider them. However, I do not believe that it is necessary that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should consult them herself.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his brief lesson in English literature. I shall go back and consult my copies of Trollope further on this important issue.
As regards the amendment, I am not entirely satisfied that the Minister has addressed the issue that I raised and I wish to look at it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 56, line 28, leave out ("general").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26 and 33. The purpose of these amendments is to test apparent changes in the definitions of ability and aptitude which have been in place since the 1944 Act. The expression ability and aptitude was used in the Education Act 1994 in relation to the duty of local education authorities and parents to cause a child to receive efficient, full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude. This Education Bill proposes that children may be admitted to primary or secondary schools by reference to ability or aptitude.
988
Clause 2(2) refers also to pupils with aptitude as though that status applies to only a few. For the first time, the Bill introduces into legislation the words high ability in relation to the admission of pupils to a school which is wholly selective. Those distinctions are all new. Ability and aptitude were formerly seen as applying to all pupils, hence the meaning of those terms is being changed subtly from that understood since the passage of the 1944 Education Act.
The meaning of the expression ability and aptitude has been changed in the Bill from that which was in the 1944 Act. The Government would like us to believe that the tests which are used to determine whether children should be admitted to schools are reliable. However, experience suggests that they are intended to identify future general performance or performance in a specific area of the curriculum and they are wholly inadequate in the case of large numbers of children. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have only a few questions which I wish to ask the Minister but I find that they go to the very heart of this whole area. Will the Minister explain the difference in this Bill between ability and aptitude?
Secondly, how can a natural aptitude for, let us say, French be recognised as distinct from an interest in or a knowledge of French? It is perfectly possible that a child is brought up in a bilingual or semi-bilingual home and acquires quite a knowledge of French. That would not necessarily be an aptitude for it. What is the distinction between natural aptitude and knowledge?
Thirdly, how is high ability to be distinguished from ability, in the 1994 Act's sense of the word? Can the Minister describe to us the diagnostic qualities of the present test for high ability?
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may first deal with the amendment and then address the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on the difference between ability and aptitude.
We believe that grammar schools are an essential part of a diverse education system. That is why we wish to promote them. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 would extend the circumstances in which county schools could publish their own proposals to all cases where county schools had asked the LEA to publish proposals to admit all pupils by reference to ability. That would include cases where a school wished to select all pupils on the grounds of ability on a particular subject or subjects and where a school wished to select all pupils with reference to any level of ability.
Given that the noble Lord's previous amendment sought to remove paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 completely, it seems odd that these amendments seem to be trying to increase the scope for county schools to publish proposals to extend selection. I can only assume that the noble Lord might wish to make it easier for schools to select by any level of ability and not just high ability.
I assure the noble Lord that paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 and Clause 3 provide for that. There is nothing to prevent the admission authority for the school

989
selecting pupils of average or below average ability up to its threshold, and it could do that without statutory proposals. It could select a certain percentage of pupils of high ability, a certain percentage of medium ability and a certain percentage of low ability if it wished to do so.
The noble Lord may also wish to make it easier for schools to select all pupils by reference to different levels of ability, with the aim of achieving a banded intake. I should point out that it is open to schools to use the relevant thresholds set by the Bill to secure a particular ability band in their intake. It is open also to county schools to negotiate banded admissions with their LEA, very often because, for county schools, the LEA is the admission authority. But I believe that it is right for the special arrangement allowing county schools to publish their own proposals to be confined to schools wishing to become grammar schools.
Unlike schools with banded admissions, grammar schools provide a unique service for pupils and parents. As I said, at present, access to that service is very patchy and restricted, hence our priority to increase the number of grammar schools, and the provisions in the Bill facilitate that, should the parents and the community which they happen to be in wish that to take place. The same arguments do not apply to comprehensive schools with banded admissions. I have no objection in principle to such admission arrangements but I see no case for extending that exception to the normal statutory proposals arrangements for such cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked about the difference between aptitude and ability, given they are not defined in the Bill. The noble Lord is a much greater linguist than I am, and sadly we do not have the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who is an even greater expert on these matters, to advise us. I do not remember the 1944 Act because it was passed some nine years before I was born. But the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who is marginally older than I am, will remember it. It uses the terms ability and aptitude without defining them. For example, Section 8 of the 1944 Act refers to different ages, abilities and aptitude of children.
No subsequent education legislation has defined those terms. I do not believe that they need to be defined because they have clear, well-understood meanings in the common use of language. In broad terms, "ability" is used to relate to skills and capacities which are already apparent, whereas "aptitude" relates more to future potential. It may also encompass qualities such as interest, commitment and suitability for a particular type of education. That takes us back to the specialist colleges and whether someone was suited to go to a language college, whether or not he had the ability. I referred to my example as being one who probably did not have a particular aptitude for foreign languages but others might, without necessarily having the ability in those subjects.
As to which particular tests might be used, grammar schools have long used tests of general ability. There is nothing novel there. There is no reason why the Government should become involved in prescribing the
990
precise tests to be used. A great deal of work is going on at the moment to develop a way to assess ability and aptitude for a particular subject. Again, that is well-established in some fields. For example, I ask the noble Lord to look at music and dance.
Some schools use different methods for assessing aptitude for technology. We have hardly discussed the city technology colleges except in the rather useful intervention by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, who has a close connection with a city technology college in Derby. That development work continues. We shall leave it to the professional judgment of schools as to which methods they use. Again, that is a matter for schools and the admission authority. I remind Members of the Committee opposite that the admission authority is very often the LEA. That should be decided in its local context.
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 33. It would remove the word "high" before "ability" in Clause 2. That clause relates to the requirement on all schools which are not already fully selective grammar schools to consider, once a year, whether to introduce or increase selection. The effect of the amendment would be that a small number of schools which use selective tests to place pupils into ability bands would also be exempt from the annual review. There is no reason why schools which band pupils in order to preserve their comprehensive nature should be exempt from considering whether or not to take in a higher proportion of able pupils, and whether or not that would be welcomed by the local parents. There is scope for such schools to introduce or increase the selection of pupils by high ability and, therefore, they should fall within the requirements of Clause 2. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. At first, I thought that he was being a little mischievous. I am quite sure that the noble Lord knows that the purpose of my amendment was not to increase selection; indeed, I believe that my view on selection has been made clear more than once in this Chamber. It was in fact a probing amendment to try to ascertain from the Minister some clearer understanding as to the definition of the terms "ability", "high ability" and "aptitude". I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation which I shall read with care and interest in Hansard tomorrow in an effort to consider the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 56, line 32, leave out ("towards complying with") and insert ("in considering").
The noble Lord said: This is a particularly detailed amendment but one which is important as regards complying with the wishes that the Minister expressed earlier; namely, that there should be a level playing field and that, as he said in relation to the Secretary of State, she or even he should not prejudge the situation.
As I read the phrase in paragraph (2), that is exactly what local education authorities are being asked to do. The words used are.
"the governing body reasonably form the opinion that the authority have not made satisfactory progress towards"—
and I emphasise the following words,
"complying with the request".
In order not to prejudge the issue and to provide a level playing field, I propose that we delete the words "towards complying with" the request and insert those much more neutral and simple words, "in considering" the request. That seems to me to be more exactly what the Minister wished to do when he spoke earlier. I am, therefore, confident of moving my first successful amendment in this Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I hope on this occasion that the Minister's stony heart will relent just a little. It is not a big thing for us to be asking. The amendment would at least remove the overt and blatant bias in the procedure. An LEA is not the obedient slave of any of its schools. That is one of the reasons that my party has taken great care to emphasise the word "partnership" between LEAs and schools in all educational matters.
Another advantage would be that the LEA for its part would have to acknowledge its duty to consider. It would be very difficult for it to get out of that duty. It would have to think deliberately and carefully, to inspect, to scrutinise and give attention to those proposals. It would also have to judge them considerately and fairly. Funnily enough, the Minister complained that I was not giving him enough information about languages and literature this evening.
However, I spent some time with the word "consider". The Oxford English Dictionary—and I do not mean the short one. I mean the full one—says that, according to Festus, a grammarian, it comes from sidus, sideris—a star—and speculates that perhaps to consider is in some way to stargaze. There is a very mysterious origin to the word. It may have been a term in augury or in astrology but, if so, it is odd that it is unknown to the Latin writers. At all events, it is a useful and neutral word implying an open mind, making a judgment on the available evidence. Its contemporary value is perhaps best seen in the judge's instructions to the jury at the end of a case to retire, "and consider your verdict".
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: We are having an absolutely delightful discussion. I am very sorry that I did not bring with me my full copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. Naturally, coming from Oxford, I have a very large one. Of course, I would have looked up both "consider" and "comply" so that I could fully follow the noble Lord in his argument which I found to be extremely interesting.
However, I shall now return to the slightly more serious point about the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain this, but is not the point the fact that this section of the schedule refers to the governing body of county schools publishing proposals for admissions apt to be selective?
992
But clearly, if a school decides to undertake the publication of such proposals to the local authority—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be able to correct me on this—it is rather like one of those Latin questions which expects the answer, "yes"; indeed, I believe it is correct to say that that begins with nonne.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Yes.
Baroness Young: I thought so. In any case, that is what would be expected. If they do not get it, "considering" the matter is not of course the same answer at all. Naturally, if they are putting forward the request, they want the answer "yes" and will not be satisfied with anything else. The paragraph reads:
"the governing body reasonably form the opinion that the authority have not made satisfactory progress towards complying with the request".
That is something which they would not accept because they expect them to comply with the request, and to "consider" the request is much weaker and, from their point of view, completely unsatisfactory. Therefore, I cannot see any reason for changing the wording and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say so.
Lord Henley: It is many years since I did what I suppose would now be called my Latin GCSE but what was then called an O-level. I thought that I had escaped forever from the great nonne and num questions. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of the distinction between the two. I shall bear that in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he thought that this was the most reasonable of all amendments and that, for once, he hoped that he might be successful. Perhaps later on in the Bill we might be able to see reason on certain matters. I presume, although I have not looked it up in today's newspapers, that it is not the noble Lord's birthday today. Indeed, I am not minded to be quite so generous. But, having said that, even if it were his birthday today, I am not sure that I would be quite so generous.
I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that he was going to talk about specialist schools. I thought, for once, that we might tease out from the noble Lord what the Opposition's policy is on such schools, other than the fact that we have been told that we think that the Official Opposition—and I must always bear in mind the fact that I must refer to the two Opposition parties—are quite keen on specialist schools but have not yet been able to enunciate just what their policy is on admissions for those specialist schools, and what freedoms they should be given.
The noble Lord said that he would talk about specialist schools, but all we heard about was the OED (The Oxford English Dictionary) the full version thereof in many volumes. I believe that you can actually get it in two volumes now, but in very small print which necessitates the use of a magnifying glass to read it. I have neither and I make use of the smaller, shorter version which comes in one or two volumes.

993
Quite rightly, my noble friend Lady Young asked about the amendment. Indeed, it is the amendment that we should be discussing. Amendment No. 27 links to the provision for encouraging grammar schools, especially by giving county schools the right of appeal in cases where they wish to become grammar schools but are blocked by the local education authority. If the governing body wants its school to become a grammar school, it must start by asking its local education authority to publish statutory proposals to that effect. If the LEA agrees, or if it negotiates alternative arrangements with the governing body, there is no problem. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 is intended to deal with a situation where the LEA wants to block the governors' plans. It is right that the governors ought to be allowed to put forward those plans. That is why paragraph 5(2) gives the governing body a right to publish its own proposals if, two months or more after receiving the governors' requests, the LEA has not made satisfactory progress towards complying with the request. "Complying" means a degree of action and does not mean—as I think the noble Lord's amendment implies—"in considering". I think there is considerable difference between the words "complying" and "considering" as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would be the first to agree. What it means is the LEA consulting on, or publishing, proposals and not just simply within the confines of the education committee—a committee that many of us have sat on in different LEAs up and down the country—not debating whether what the governors want is a good idea.
Amendment No. 27 would mean that the LEA could use words to prevent governors publishing their own proposals. For example, as I said, if the education committee discussed the governors' request during its two-month period it would be difficult for the governors to argue that the LEA had not made satisfactory progress in considering their request if the LEA had perhaps considered it but at excessive length and wanted to consider it even further. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will recognise that—despite the fact it is not his birthday, and despite the fact that even if it was his birthday I would not be prepared to agree to this—I am not prepared to agree to this tonight.
Lord Tope: I should start by reassuring the Minister that it is indeed not my birthday today. But as I now know that he is so sympathetically disposed towards me when it is my birthday, I shall ensure that he has long notice of my date of birth and then we can arrange appropriate business for that occasion. I shall leave the Minister to look it up.
I am grateful to the Minister for considering my amendment. I am deeply sad and disappointed that he did not feel able to comply with it. I remain unconvinced. It is of course part of the difference between us that whereas I wish there to be some reasonable consideration of requests for selective schools, the Government's stated policy quite clearly is to push ahead as hard as possible. That is at the root of our disagreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 57, line 5, at end insert—
("(6) The Secretary of State shall before determining proposals for a change of character published under sub-paragraph (2) consult the local education authority and have regard to its advice.
(7) The Secretary of State shall publish criteria for the determination of proposals under this paragraph and shall have regard to them in reaching any such determination.
(8) The criteria to which sub-paragraph (7) above refers shall include—

(a) the desirability of maintaining choice in admissions to parents of all children in the relevant age-group in the area;

(b) the undesirability of adversely affecting admissions to other schools in the same area or those of neighbouring education authorities; and

(c) the promotion of opportunities for pupils in the area who have special educational needs.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is extremely clear and easily understood. Its purpose is to ensure that decisions by the Secretary of State to allow a county school to become a grammar school against the wishes of its maintaining authority are taken according to published criteria and only after consultation. It undermines the proper duty of an LEA as the admissions authority to allow an individual school to become fully selective on its own initiative and against the considered wishes of its authority. That will happen if the Bill is left unamended.
The amendment seeks to ameliorate this difficulty by requiring the Secretary of State to follow published criteria in determining such cases and to consult the LEA before reaching a decision. The specific criteria proposed cover the need to maintain choice for all parents—this is quite clearly a government stated objective—and the need to assess the impact on neighbouring schools and areas and to avoid damaging their interests. I refer to the points made so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, with regard to the 18 per cent. of children with special needs. I refer also to the promotion of opportunities of pupils with special needs in general, including those with statements. I think that it is extremely clear. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I have now done my research and discovered that the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was on St. Andrew's Day 1943. He is therefore just under 10 years older than I. Sadly, the way parliamentary business runs, there are not many days when legislative business is happening at about that time of the year, bearing in mind the Queen's Speech and all that. However, I am sure that the appropriate authorities will always bear in mind that business of a sort that interests the noble Lord will come up around about then, and we might be able to do what we can.
I think this is the final amendment relating to the proposed right of appeal in Schedule 1 for county schools which wish to become grammar schools. The amendment would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult the LEA and to have regard to its advice before determining the governors'

995
proposals. It would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to certain published criteria in coming to her decision.
The first of those requirements for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult the LEA is, I believe, unnecessary. Arrangements for the publication, approval and implementation of proposals will be almost identical to those already applying for voluntary schools. That will mean that the LEA will have a statutory right of objection to any proposals published by the governors of a county school. As of now, the Secretary of State will take all objections into account in determining her proposals. So she should and she has no choice but to do so. To ask her to consult the LEA beforehand seems unnecessary, particularly in the light of the remarks that I made earlier when I said that any LEA worth its salt would make its views known. It would be a particularly odd LEA that did not make its views known. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to inform me of the kind of LEAs that do not make their views known. However, I am sure it is something that they would take trouble about.
The second requirement for my right honourable friend is to consult the LEA before determining its proposals. Obviously that would only delay her consideration. Again, as I said, it would have ample opportunity to make its concerns quite clear to her during the two month period for objections. As regards the second requirement that the Secretary of State should have regard to criteria set out in primary legislation, again I see no reason at all why this is necessary. Criteria for determining proposals from voluntary and grant-maintained schools for 100 per cent. selection are not set out in any statute but they are matters which obviously my right honourable friend has to bear in mind. It is the intention of the provision to create a level playing field for county schools as opposed to voluntary and grant-maintained schools in this respect. I think that is right.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and any of her successors, whether they be "hers" or "hims", will consider all proposals on their merits. In considering proposals from county schools for 100 per cent. selection, she will as a matter of course take into account all the relevant factors including the contribution the proposals will make to increasing choice, diversity and the quality of education in that area. I think this amendment would simply add an unnecessary step to my right honourable friend's consideration of proposals and would create an inconsistency with the equivalent arrangements for voluntary and grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches regard that response as unsatisfactory. There are still further amendments that deal with this area of consultation. In seeking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, I give notice that it is an issue to which we shall wish to return at later stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 57, line 18. leave out ("(if any)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 64. The purpose of these amendments is to remove the possibility that admission authorities or GM governing bodies can carry out absolutely no consultation on proposals to increase selection. Under the existing system proposals for significant changes in the character of a school have to be published and these proposals are made available to interested parties. The systems differ slightly as between county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools, but in many cases will fall to be determined by the Secretary of State as of right. Any others will be so determined where there are objections which cannot be dealt with.
The basic point is that the publication procedure is designed to give parents, neighbouring local education authorities and other bodies, such as the relevant further education funding council, the opportunity to learn of the proposals and lodge objections. There is appropriate ministerial oversight and intervention. The purpose of the system is to seek to ensure that the pattern of provision is coherent across the needs of differing parts of the country.
The Bill gets rid of all that in cases of selection up to the new proposed thresholds. Instead, the admissions authority or the governing body concerned is given the lightest of duties in respect of public consultation; namely, to carry out such consultation, "if any", as appears to it to be appropriate. The wording betrays an attitude which appears to view consultation as less, rather than more, likely to be appropriate. The consequence is that parents, for example, of children in the schools concerned or in feeder schools may well not learn of proposals to increase selection and thus will have no opportunity to comment.
It might be thought surprising that a well-tried system should be cast aside. The history of education reorganisations in many parts of the country shows how sensitive proposals are which attempt to alter the character of schools. The Government are well aware of the importance of this issue to parents. The amendment seeks to remove the words in the Bill which would allow no consultation to take place. By removing the words "if any", not only is the loophole plugged, but the sense of the wording is altered towards a presumption in favour of consultation rather than against it. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Young: I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on this matter. As I read this part of the schedule, Section 6 begins with consultation on proposals which do not need to be published. That is its starting-point on all these matters. The amendment seeks consultation despite the fact that these are proposals that do not need to be published. In effect it seems somewhat to contradict the purpose of the provision.

997
If, however, a school is contemplating this course—which it would do should it seek to increase the numbers of pupils to be admitted to it by reference to ability or aptitude—it would presumably have considered whether or not this was something that was likely to be successful and for which there was a demand. It would have found out from parents and others who were interested that it was something they wished to do. So a measure of consultation would have taken place before a school embarked upon this course at all. I therefore do not see what purpose would be served in asking for a consultation on proposals which do not need to be published. The amendment seems to me to be quite contradictory. I shall be very interested to hear my noble friend's reply.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I support Amendments Nos. 29 and 64. The purpose of these very modest amendments is to try to remove the possibility of admission authorities or grant-maintained governing bodies carrying out no consultation on proposals to increase selection.
Under the present system proposals for significant changes in the character of a school have to be published so that parents, neighbouring local education authorities and any other relevant bodies have an opportunity to know about the proposals and an opportunity to object. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said, there is also appropriate ministerial oversight and intervention.
In the past that was always considered necessary in order to try to achieve some sort of coherence across the whole country. The Bill sweeps all that away in the case of selection up to the new proposed thresholds. All a governing body need do is carry out such consultation, if any, as appears to it to be appropriate. All that these amendments suggest is that the words "if any" should be removed.
I find the inclusion of the words "if any" so casual as to be breathtaking. The wording implies that it is more than likely that there need be no consultation at all. There is certainly no obligation whatsoever in the Bill on governing bodies to carry out any. These amendments therefore seek to remove the words that would allow no consultation to take place. By removing these words the sense of the wording is, I hope, altered towards a presumption in favour of consultation rather than against it. I cannot understand in principle why people would stand against that.
I hope that the Minister will accept these very reasonable amendments. If he does not, I shall be very interested to hear why he thinks that the parents of children in the school in question, or in feeder schools, should not have an unqualified right to be consulted.
Lord Henley: There are in effect two questions before us on this amendment. I shall address both. One is a simple point about whether the words "if any" should stay in the Bill; that is, whether there should be consultation on any case. Secondly, we move on to the wider question as to what should constitute that
998
consultation should consultation take place. It is important for me, for the sake of putting it on the record, to say what consultation should consist of.
Starting with the first, the amendments seek to remove the words "if any" from descriptions of the coverage of consultation when statutory proposals are not required but would probably have relatively little practical effect on the scope of the legislation but merely serve to obscure the application of the provision in question. The remaining words would still allow those proposing changes not to consult if that was considered appropriate.
It is no accident that the Bill is drafted in this way. The words "if any" make that clear. Although we fully accept that consultation is important—and I shall go on to spell out that consultation where proposed changes would have a perceptible effect on the functioning of the school—we are also aware that there are bound to be some changes so small that formal consultation would be a waste of time, effort and money for all concerned.
It may therefore be helpful if I say a little about the approach that we are taking on consultation for those changes that do not require the publication of proposals. That includes those proposals which are currently not significant as well as those which would be covered by the new provisions.
I start by assuring the Committee that we take very seriously the need for full consultation with those who have a legitimate interest in proposed change. I think that we have a pretty good record on this on statutory proposals. Having moved to the Department for Education and Employment from the Ministry of Defence, I cannot remember a department that consults on more matters than this one. Certainly, I do not remember my previous departments—and in particular the Ministry of Defence—consulting to quite the same extent, but that might say something about different approaches.
Existing legislation already requires those bringing forward proposals to consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate. That guidance is given in Circular 23/94, which I am sure is familiar to all Members of the Committee. That circular sets out in detail those who should be consulted for various types of proposals. If those concerned do not act reasonably in deciding whom to consult, they are rightly open to challenge in the courts. It is that type of model that we seek to follow in the present Bill, particularly Clause 5 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which requires those proposing to make changes to consider whom to consult in the light of guidance from the Secretary of State. That brings within the ambit of legislation not only changes that no longer require the publication of proposals but also non-statutory changes in admission arrangements. As I have mentioned, that includes changes that are not at present subject to a statutory duty to consult. So in some respects the Bill will strengthen the current requirements.
However, in order to cater for very minor changes in admissions arrangements, we felt that it was right for the legislation to allow for the possibility that there could

999
he circumstances where, having considered the issue of consultation, the governors properly decided that that was not necessary. This will not, however, weaken the requirements to consult those who have legitimate interests, including other schools in the area that may be affected.
Perhaps I may illustrate what we have in mind by reference to proposals from grant-maintained schools to introduce selection. In such cases, we would expect the guidance to say that those whom the Secretary of State considers should be consulted will include any local education authority that is likely to be affected, the funding agency for schools, other schools in the area, whether county, voluntary or GM—including, obviously, the feeder primary schools—and parents and teachers in the area who may be affected. If a school has a particular religious foundation, it should be the appropriate diocesan authorities and, in the case of non-diocesan schools, any connected or other charitable body.
The guidance would be likely to say that the schools which already had an element of selection would still need to consider carefully whether to consult on further proposed increases in their selective proportions. But, depending on local circumstances, they may well consider that consulting on an increase of up to 5 per cent. in the same subject may not be necessary, provided the change would not take them above the threshold of 50 per cent. If it were proposed to increase the percentage by selecting an additional subject, then consultation would be required.
We also intend that the guidance should give advice on the procedures to be followed in carrying out the consultation. This would be likely to indicate that what was proposed should be clearly set out in writing, that interested parties should be given a reasonable period, not less than a month, in which to comment and that there should be a clear statement on where comments should be sent and the final date of receipt.
The most appropriate style of consultation may vary. We would normally expect it to include a notice to the press, letters to key bodies and meetings with those parents most directly affected. We would expect copies of projections to be available in a public place such as the local library and, where meetings are held, we would expect a written record to be made of all the points raised. We would of course—and I stress this—wish to consult on the precise terms of the guidance that we will offer before it is issued.
I hope that I have said enough not only to give the Committee a clearer idea of what we have in mind, but also to reassure the Committee that we have taken very seriously the need to ensure that adequate consultation takes place wherever and whenever required. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel that their amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, could he answer two questions? First, would he expect the level of consultation to be no less than that which pertains now when a local authority Secondly, would he care to consider
1000
consulting before Report stage of the Bill the record for local authorities? It is my experience and that of colleagues, I am sure, that to allow a month for consultation when parental feelings run high and several institutions are involved would be inadequate. I should not like to be the person who tried to carry it out within that timescale.
If the Minister is saying that he does not intend any reduction in the proper consultation but merely a change as to who makes the final decision, that would be interesting information to have.
Lord Henley: I mentioned Circular 23/94 and made it clear that I thought that what we propose would tighten up the position. I also said in considerable detail that we intended to consult on the guidance that the department would put out. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are certain guidelines on how long we should consult on certain matters. It would not be right for me to try to consult the local authority associations between now and Report stage because I do not think it would be long enough. However, I am sure that they will make their views known to us between now and that stage.
What I do make clear is that the guidance that the Secretary of State will put out will be subject to consultation before the final guidance goes out. That guidance will have at least the minimum of 10 or 12 weeks—I forget what it is—for consultation on those matters as appropriate.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record, I did not ask for the views of the local authorities on the guidance. I merely asked that the Minister sought some factual information about the timescale involved, whichever sector of the schools it is. Consultation affecting a large group of schools, including feeder schools, to my knowledge cannot be carried out to the satisfaction of all parents concerned in four weeks from beginning to end.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I perfectly understand the noble Baroness's point. It has been put to my department on a number of occasions when consultation has necessarily, for one reason or another, had to be curtailed. Knowing the school year, it can be quite difficult to do it in those timescales.
My point was that my right honourable friend will consult on the guidance that she ought to put out. There may be certain people who have strong views about the month I mentioned as a possibility. On certain occasions, if it is a month in term time, a month might be appropriate. I accept that that month would not necessarily be appropriate if it were a month starting on 1st August and extending from then. But obviously those are points on which there must be consultation before my right honourable friend issues that guidance. But she would like to put out her views on guidance following the passage of this Bill and then consult—I am not talking about a consultation of merely a

1001
month; it goes wider and is not merely one school's consultation on the whole guidance—for the appropriate length of time.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his long and interesting replies. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for her contribution. We must go away and look at this matter. As the noble Baroness said in her response to a previous amendment, this amendment refers to a range of anxieties which are very widespread, not only on these two Benches but among many other people.
Before I sit down, let me respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Our amendment precisely queries the type of consultation provided for in the Bill on matters which do not, technically speaking, have to be published. That provision is in the Bill and my amendment attempted to address it.
As I said, I am grateful to the Minister for the length and detail with which he replied. I thought that he went some way at any rate toward recognising the strength of some of our comments. For that reason, I rather wish that he would accept these very small amendments or think again about them, if only because the phrasing does not, I believe, reflect any part of his answer to us. I shall leave that thought in his mind. Meanwhile I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("unless") and insert ("where").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 35. We turn now to Clause 2 of the Bill which requires governing bodies of secondary schools to consider annually whether to introduce selection, if they do not already have it, or, if they do have selection, whether to increase the proportion which is selected.
This amendment follows the same requirement brought in and imposed on schools to consider whether to seek grant-maintained status each year. It is notable that since that provision was brought in and schools have been required each year to consider whether to seek grant-maintained status, the number of schools deciding to do so has plummeted. Although considering it every year, there are now almost no schools which decide to seek grant-maintained status.
Given that record of what I would consider success, although the Minister might not do so, I was somewhat tempted to leave the clause as it stands. It might indeed be the most effective way to stop an increase in selection were we to follow the precedent of the grant-maintained schools. However, I can resist that temptation. My views about selection are such that I do not even want to take the risk. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to require the provision only to apply to schools currently
1002
admitting on a wholly selective basis and to require their governing bodies annually to consider the case for reducing the level of selection.
The arguments for this amendment are the arguments against allowing a higher proportion of places to be selected. As was said at Second Reading by myself and other speakers, there is little public support for a general reintroduction of selective education in this country. The level of examination results has been rising steadily under a system in which the great majority of school-age pupils are educated in comprehensive schools. Governing bodies of schools are now required annually to consider the case for proposing grant-maintained status and Clause 2 follows that precedent.
However, what is clear is that the effect of Clause 2 on county schools will be particularly divisive since the governing body is not the admission authority. It is difficult to see what motive Ministers might have in mind for making that annual requirement other than to seek to put pressure on LEAs to enable schools to select up to the new threshold. The result is clearly intended to be a creeping process whereby the proportion of selected places in the system rises, with the Bill setting out a number of paths along which selection can be expanded. The presumed effect of the annual consideration by governors is to seek to legitimise that process as well as seeking to ensure that the issue is raised regularly within county and voluntary sectors.
It would be preferable if, rather than pursuing that process, the Government were to recognise that the burden of proof rests with those who wish to move to greater selection rather than the other way round. On that basis it will be logical to ask the governing bodies of selective schools to consider reducing their proportion. The clause would then be more targeted, applying only to those governing bodies whose schools included a proportion of selected places, and more focused by placing the argument where it is most relevant.
Governing bodies already have many and onerous duties and there is increasing difficulty in many areas in persuading busy people with relevant experience to take on that role. All school governors know that their agenda and responsibilities have grown enormously in recent years. The onus is surely on the Government to explain why all governing bodies should have to add what for most of them is an irrelevance to their already substantial pile of business. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I intervene briefly, largely because my name is attached to the amendment. From these Benches we wholeheartedly support the amendment moved with great clarity and force by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
I do not wish to repeat something I said earlier in the debate today in relation to my views and those of my noble friend on grant-maintained schools. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, stole one of my lines when he said that we had far better leave this the way it is and let it wither on the vine; that is exactly what is happening with grant-maintained schools, even in the face of the many denials we heard today from the Minister. They are simply not succeeding.

1003
The provisions are just another way, in the context of the Bill, of providing greater selection. Our views have been made clear on that and I hope the Committee will consider those views. If the Government are so keen—as they obviously are—on an annual consideration, it is logical and fair that the governing body, where the school is wholly selective, should be given the opportunity of saying that it wishes to reduce it to some extent.
The Minister may not agree, but I believe that there is a movement in the country these days against selection; there is no doubt at all about that. It may be that the governors of a school of this type would wish to reduce the proportion of selected pupils. We support the amendment.
Baroness Young: I really do not think the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, can quite get away with his remark about grant-maintained schools failing. The fact is that these are very popular schools. We have already heard from the Minister that there are more than 1,000 of them. Many more schools would go grant maintained if there was not a sustained campaign at a local level against them.
When I made this point at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that she was amazed that I should make that statement. I would not make that statement if I did not know it to be true. I could, but I shall not in this setting, give the details of, at any rate, one school that is known to me that was prevented from going grant maintained by a sustained campaign. I have had a great deal of evidence brought to me from other authorities where that has gone on.
The truth of the matter is that it is very easy indeed to frighten parents. They think that they are going into the unknown, they are not sure whether the school will be financially viable, they are not sure whether it will collapse, they are not sure who will be teaching, and so on. It is their children who are involved and so they play safe. It is therefore very unfair and untrue to say that grant-maintained schools have not been a success. If there are not more of them, the reason is not hard to find. I would not want anyone to think that grant-maintained schools had not been successful. Bearing in mind the old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, why would such distinguished people wish to send their children there if they were not very good schools indeed? I hope that we shall not hear any more in the Committee discussions about grant-maintained schools being a failure. They are not. They are a success story.
Another point has been raised about selective schools reducing the number of selected pupils. After all, selective schools could choose to do that if they so wished, but on the whole selective schools are satisfied with what they are doing. I cannot see the purpose of the amendment except to try to make it as difficult for other schools to do what they would like as grant-maintained schools find it is to do what frequently they would like to do today. I very much hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may respond to what the noble Baroness said about me. I did
1004
not say and have never said—I repeat it again—that grant-maintained schools fail. That is not the point. As I said earlier this evening, I am sure that some grant-maintained schools are highly successful, some are moderately successful and some probably fail, as with most schools. What I did say—I repeat it again and I have said it many times—is that what the Government have said about introducing grant-maintained schools has failed. The noble Baroness said that 1,000 schools are now grant maintained. What she did not say is that 25,000 schools are not grant maintained. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, and as we have said many times from these Benches, the applications from governing bodies to become grant maintained have fallen to a trickle—either a trickle or they have stopped altogether. Where ballots have been held, in many cases schools have voted against becoming grant maintained. That is a most peculiar definition of success.
Baroness Young: If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise completely. I certainly do not want to misrepresent what he has said in any way. He said that the number of grant-maintained schools is not increasing. That is a fact. I would agree with him on that. It is not increasing, first, because a good many parents have been intimidated into voting against such a move. Secondly, when one party says that were it to win the election it would do away with grant-maintained schools, or at least fundamentally alter them so that they would cease to be the independent schools that they presently are, not surprisingly, a good many people decide that they do not wish to risk something when they do not know what the outcome will be. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, because of his party's commitment to various bureaucratic arrangements, of which this would be one, it has been very successful in the past in stopping a great many things which would have helped a lot of people.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: This argument is rather extraordinary. It is plain that if every voluntary or county school were obliged to agree to consider selection every year it would become an absolute formality. Most people would not even consider it, but they would be able to say that the matter had been on the agenda and had been discussed for perhaps two minutes. Is it then really a proposition that all schools should at least consider genuinely being, even in part, selective? It seems to me that the number of children who are there to be selected would soon dry up. How could it be that all schools should be selective schools? What is going to happen to the other children who are not going to be selected? If all schools became selective, the number of places for unselected children would contract. But they have to be educated somewhere. I cannot see the realism behind this clause. I do not particularly support the suggestion that schools should be allowed or forced to decide whether to be less selective, but this is an empty clause. It is not a

1005
particularly helpful contribution, but I believe that there is something very weird about the argument behind this clause.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may add to the argument which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has just made. I made the point earlier that it seems to me that selectivity can apply only to schools which are over-subscribed. Therefore, how can it be that schools which are under-subscribed should consider this policy? There is no way in which it can be made to operate. I believe that I am only making the same point as the noble Baroness made.
Lord Henley: I start by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that I do not believe that "Thomas" is a horrible name. We even have a cat named "Thomas" if that is of any consolation to the noble Baroness. I accept that Members of the Committee opposite—and I refer to both Benches—simply do not like selection or grant-maintained schools. They are frightened of what parents might want and believe that they or their friends on the local education authorities know best.
Perhaps I may correct one or two of the assumptions of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. He spoke about a number of failing grant-maintained schools. I accept that there are obviously such schools failing. There are also failing non-grant-maintained schools and there are successful grant-maintained schools and LEA schools. That is part of the diversity. If the noble Lord looks at the figures and the annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector he will find that, of those inspected, about 1 per cent. of grant-maintained schools were found to be failing. Of those which have not taken the option of going grant maintained the figure was about 3 per cent. That speaks for itself and shows how well the grant-maintained schools are doing and how well they can do.
I repeat the call I made earlier that many more schools should consider the option of going grant maintained. I am not going down the line that the noble Lord tempted me to follow as to why there are not more grant-maintained schools. We discussed that at great length before dinner, if I remember rightly. It is quite clear that many more schools would like to become grant maintained if they were offered the option of the ballot, but very few have had that option. I imagine that that is largely because of the influence of the LEA governors, who will not allow the parents of those schools to have a ballot on becoming grant-maintained.
I come to the point that my noble friend Lady Young made very effectively—that should the party opposite, sadly, get into government it will quite simply neuter the grant-maintained schools, and there is no question about that at all. They say, "Yes, they will survive under a different name. They would be called 'foundation schools'" but there would be a number of LEA governors on them and their funding would be provided by the LEAs. If that is not scrapping the grant-maintained process I do not know what is.
1006
I come now to the amendments themselves. They would turn this particular clause on its head. They would require wholly or—dare I say it to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, despite what he said—partially-selective schools to consider reducing or ending the proportion of selective school places they offer and other schools not to consider introducing or extending selection. We believe that selection is an important matter which deserves proper consideration. It is a matter that has not been properly considered in the education world over the past few years. We want schools which are not wholly selective to consider introducing or extending selection as part of their strategy for improving standards and responding to parental wishes. It may be that they come to a different view and do not want to consider selection, but that is a matter for them. We think it right that they should consider it once a year, just as once a year they should consider whether to go grant-maintained.
Again, I direct my next remark at the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, who implied that there was no parental desire to go selective. He suggested that the majority of parents were against it. According to at least one survey, parents want to see more, not less, selection in many areas. A recent survey by the Association of Teachers & Lecturers showed that a majority of parents were in favour of selection. If the noble Lord looks at any of the selective schools up and down the country, he will find that their places are over-subscribed four or five times over. That seems to express a desire on the part of the parents in those areas to have the selective option. Sadly, in many parts of the country, there is no selective option that parents can pursue.
There is nothing to prevent a school considering whether or not to seek to reduce or to end its selective arrangements. However, we have no intention of requiring those schools so to do. This clause does not place any requirement on schools to introduce or extend selection. It requires the governing bodies of the schools to consider the matter. For that reason, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Tope: It has been a most interesting debate—albeit a debate mostly about grant-maintained schools, which is not what the amendments were about. However, this debate has elicited for the first time—in my hearing at least—an admission from the Government Benches that their grant-maintained policy has failed—
Lord Henley: No!
Lord Tope: We are told that it has failed. Apparently, it has failed because nasty LEAs throughout the land have bullied every governing body—or nearly every governing body—into considering and rejecting having a ballot—
Lord Henley: At no point did I say that the process had failed. I said that far too few schools had been given the option of having a ballot on whether to go grant-maintained. One out of 10 schools has had a ballot; of those, some 75 per cent. have agreed to go grant-maintained. The other nine out of 10 parents of

1007
secondary school children in this country have not been given the option of their school holding a ballot on whether to go grant-maintained.
Lord Tope: Every school has had not the option, but the requirement, to consider whether to go grant-maintained. If the Minister regards 10 per cent. as an overwhelming success, I hope that he will feel the same on the polling day which is shortly to come.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord cannot get away with that. What I said was that they had not had the option of having a ballot and that the other 90 per cent. would like to have a ballot. Why does not the noble Lord encourage Liberal LEA councillors who are school governors to encourage their schools to have ballots to see whether they want to go grant-maintained? But no, they will not give them that option.
Lord Tope: I want to return to the amendments in a moment, but quite a number of schools have had a ballot and an increasing number, even on ballot, are rejecting that option. The suggestion that nearly every governing body and nearly every teacher-governor, parent-governor and co-opted governor is cowed into submission by a small minority of LEA governors and into deciding not to have a ballot is just ludicrous. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of school governing bodies are deciding not to have a ballot on grant-maintained status because they see no need to do so and no purpose in wasting the time and money involved. It is nevertheless a fact that the Government are accepting that their policy on grant-maintained schools has failed. Irrespective of whether they wish to blame bullying LEAs for that, the fact remains that their policy has failed.
I should like to return to the amendment, which does not deal with grant-maintained schools but with county and voluntary schools. I think that we have made a useful point. This debate has elicited an admission which I was not expecting but which it is useful to have. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 2, line 24, after ("increase") insert ("or decrease").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36. If governing bodies are to be required to consider increasing selection, it seems to me to be only fair and equitable that at the same time they also consider, where appropriate, decreasing selection. The purpose of the amendment is to turn a one-way street into a two-way street. I am sure that in the interests of fairness the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Henley: As no other noble Lord wishes to intervene I shall speak with even greater brevity than the noble Lord, Lord Tope. There is nothing to prevent a school from considering whether to reduce or end its selective arrangements; but we do not require it so to do. This clause does not place any requirement on
1008
schools to introduce or extend selection, only for governors to consider the matter. As I made clear earlier, the Government believe that insufficient consideration has been given to increasing or extending selection over the past few years, and it is therefore right that schools should so do.
Lord Tope: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I realise that it is not my birthday and that I am not going to get another surprise. When we discussed grant-maintained schools and alleged bullying by LEAs I might have said that it would be open to any school, if parents really wanted to go grant-maintained as the Minister asserted but only 20 per cent. requested it, to hold a ballot. One wonders why that ballot has still not been held. However, the present amendment has tested the water, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) In undertaking its consideration in accordance with this section, a governing body shall have regard to criteria which the Secretary of State shall specify after consultation with persons representative of local education authorities, which shall include—

(a) the impact on other schools in the area of a variation in admission arrangements;

(b) the desirability of securing admissions arrangements appropriate to the needs of all children in the relevant age range in the area;

(c) any likely additional cost arising from a variation in admission arrangements; and

(d) any relevant criteria arising from information published by the Audit Commission.

(2B) In undertaking its consideration a governing body shall also have regard to any additional matters relating to the area which the local education authority may consider relevant and which it has notified to the governing body.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38. The purpose of Amendment No. 37 is to ensure that when schools consider whether to introduce or increase selection by ability or aptitude as part of their annual review they should have regard to the implications of such a decision on other schools, local admission arrangements and other local matters, including, for example, transport arrangements. Transport arrangements are more important in some parts of the country than in others, not least in rural areas. The arrangements of rural schools, particularly in times of bad weather, can be wrecked in preparing children for examinations if rural transport is not up to standard and in order. Therefore, the question of transport arrangements is not a light one.
All schools are part of a wider community. We place a great deal of importance on the community aspect of schools. A decision by one school to introduce or increase the proportion of pupils selected by reference to ability or aptitude will have an impact of varying magnitude on other schools within its area and the local educational community. In certain cases the effect will radiate far beyond the area of the local education authority because people will be attracted to certain

1009
schools from well beyond the LEA boundary. No school should be able to take such a decision without regard to the full implications of its actions. We believe that properly set out criteria that are complied with will help in achieving a good result after this. We see all of this against the background of competition. The schools concerned will be placing themselves in competition with other schools in the area. Competition, as I have said before, is a form of civilised warfare, just as boxing is a form of homicide. It has to have rules or people would be killed. People did of course get killed. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, shakes her head and frowns slightly. I refer her, since we were talking about literature earlier, to Book 6 of Virgil's Aeneid where, in a boxing match, I think someone does come off very badly indeed.
My point is that competing schools must obey rules to limit damage to other schools in their area and community. It is not enough to be confined to one's own self interest. One has a duty to other people:
"No man is an Island".
The amendment is concerned primarily with the quality of the referee.
The criteria to which schools ought to have regard before considering their decisions should include, I think, four things: first, the impact on other schools. Changing the admission arrangements to select pupils by reference to ability or aptitude is more than likely to alter the range of ability of pupils in other schools. The selected require the unselected. The second is the implications for all children within the relevant age range within the area. A school which chooses to increase the proportion of the pupils it selects by reference to ability or aptitude effectively extends the geographical area from which those pupils are recruited. That means that some children who might previously have attended that school will now have to go elsewhere. The third is that failing to meet parental preferences for local schools, because selected pupils from further afield are given places, will have potentially damaging effects on the relationship between schools and their local communities. That has been seen to happen in many cases so far.
The fourth is that if there are no locally agreed and co-ordinated admissions policies, parents are likely to be faced with a bewildering array of complex admissions procedures involving tests and interviews at a large number of schools. Some will thrive on that. There are some people—usually in the middle class—who adore the kind of complexity and puzzle-solving requirements which are necessary to get the child into the school that they prefer. There are others—perhaps lower wage earners—in the same community who have neither the time nor necessarily the intelligence themselves, or the ability to find the answers from others, to put them in a competitive position. The complexity of admissions procedures is discriminatory.
So the amendment would mean that the governing body had to consult those who would be affected by the decision to introduce or increase the number of pupils admitted by reference to ability or aptitude, and to set its
1010
decision within a local framework. Otherwise, measures which are intended to increase diversity might well lead to a real mismatch between what schools offer and what parents want. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We from these Benches support these amendments. I shall not rehearse all the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, covered so admirably. I would point out just two things: one of the themes of the amendments we are putting forward today is that we believe that individual schools are part of a wider community of schools. That is why the criteria to which we suggest they should have regard try to take on board the effect of the action of individual schools upon the wider school community and the community at large.
My second point concerns the potential for increasing LEA costs because children have to travel further to school. A primary school child is not obliged to travel far before the LEA has to pick up the costs. If a secondary school child has to travel more than three miles the LEA will contribute towards the costs.
LEAs in counties—I am a member of an LEA in a county—already spend enormous amounts of money on school transport. It is one of the biggest single elements of the school budget. The idea that individual schools can, through the mechanism described by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, oblige the LEA to provide school transport when it already has places available for children in each locality is a most unfortunate result of some of the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Skidelsky: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question which interests me. She referred to the community of schools and the need for individual schools to have regard to what other schools in the community are doing. What does she mean by "community of schools"? Does she define it by area, by type, by catchment area or by LEA?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In my experience living in a small town in a shire county, the community of schools operates in several ways. All the primary schools in my division and the adjacent division are part of a group of schools which co-operate with each other in settling the difficulties of placing pupils exactly, deciding whether they need to make representations to local authorities for funding for some special approach and so forth. Whatever their problems, they tend to talk among themselves and to use the group as a way of improving the performance of the schools and sharing good practice. That is one group which operates in my small geographical area involving five or six primary schools. At secondary level, similar co-operative endeavours occur, despite the Government's recent efforts to put everyone at each other's throats by introducing a competitive economy in education. Co-operative efforts still occur between local schools sharing good practice and so forth.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that I fully share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on boxing. I was interested in his reference to Book 6 of the Aeneid and

1011
the fact that boxing took place with fatal consequences. Perhaps I may remind him that that was before the Queensberry rules had been formulated. The noble Lord ought to be grateful for the hereditary principle in formulating the Queensberry rules. We should be grateful to the former Marquess of Queensberry—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I was on many occasions.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord. His amendments would require the governing bodies of county and voluntary secondary schools to have regard to criteria which the Secretary of State would be required to specify after consultation with local education authority representatives when undertaking their annual review of selection. The criteria will have to include the impact on other schools, the desirability of the admission arrangements in terms of the needs of all children in the area, the additional costs which might arise and any relevant criteria arising from information published by the Audit Commission. In addition, the governors would have to have regard to matters considered relevant by the local education authority.
I believe that that is pretty prescriptive. It is asking a lot and is setting down a great deal on the statute book which is unnecessary. I believe also that it introduces unnecessary extra bureaucracy. We believe that governing bodies are best placed to identify and be responsive to local needs and relevant factors. They do not need those factors spelt out in detail on the statute book.
I believe also that it undermines an important principle by which we set much store, although Members of the Committee obviously do not; namely, the principle of giving more responsibility to the schools themselves. Governing bodies are best placed to assess just how their schools should develop. It would be perverse to prescribe that long list of factors which governors should take into account when considering whether selection is right for their school and the parents whom they serve.
Moreover, as I implied earlier, it undermines the theory that governing bodies know best. The form which the annual consideration of selection should take must be a matter for the governing bodies themselves. Governors are in the best position to take an informed view of the wishes of local parents. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we can move on swiftly to other amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press him on one matter which concerns me. It seems to me that as things stand, a governing body is able to take decisions which have financial consequences for others, in particular local authorities. I find that to be a disturbing principle. That matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I am not sure that the Minister addressed that question.
Lord Henley: As I said, governors will obviously consult and talk to local people. If others have a view
1012
that serious financial consequences may arise, that is something which can be taken into account. But I do not believe that it would be right to undermine the right of governing bodies to consider those matters. I believe that those matters can be adequately considered and on some occasions—and I take the example of school transport—costs might rise on the one hand but diminish on the other.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Before reaching a conclusion as to whether or not I should withdraw the amendment, is not the Minister concerned about the questions raised by the Audit Commission and its recommendations in Trading Places, which has been referred to before this evening? It recommends that, to make the current approach work better, central government should restate their support for local efforts to manage the supply and allocation of places; should encourage and support effective relationships between the LEAs and other bodies; should, to change the current approach, reconsider the existing policy framework by reviewing the consistency between existing policies and procedures; should consider options to give more effective powers to local agencies to plan provision, and so on. Can the Minister really ignore the whole of that?
Lord Henley: We have not ignored it. We dealt with Trading Places earlier today. I made it plain that we have seen quite a large fall in the number of surplus places in schools. We accept some of the points which the Audit Commission put to us. Obviously, we should like to see a further fall in the number of surplus places but, as the noble Lord knows full well, one can never totally eradicate the number of surplus places because it is right that there should always be a number of surplus places to cope with the degree of choice and selection which is required. As I made clear earlier, the Audit Commission's report raised very interesting questions and we shall consider those as appropriate.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord for quite a long, detailed and sadly unsatisfactory reply. I shall need to look at it carefully. I shall read it tomorrow morning to see whether it reads as I have heard it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
OBJECTIONS ON NOTIFICATION TO PROPOSALS WHICH DO NOT NEED TO BE PUBLISHED
(" .—(1) Before determining whether to implement proposals to which by virtue of section 1 and Schedule 1 the publication procedure does not apply, the admission authority for a county or voluntary school shall give notice of them to every parent of every registered pupil at the school, such other parents, governing bodies of the schools affected by them or other persons as appear to the admission authority to be concerned.

1013
(2) The provisions of this section shall apply in addition to requirements as to consultation in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1.
(3) Where the admission authority receive within two months of the date of notification objections exceeding in number a minimum which the Secretary of State shall specify in regulations it shall cause to take place a local public inquiry to he chaired by an independent person of suitable standing, and such an inquiry shall, after hearing such evidence and representations as it considers appropriate, prepare and publish a report making recommendations as to the proposals to which the admission authority shall have regard before determining whether to implement them.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66. The purpose of the amendments is to put in place of the weak consultation requirements in the Bill a new and different procedure requiring admission authorities and governing bodies to notify parents and other interested persons and, where there is a significant number of objections, to cause a local public inquiry to take place on them.
The consultation requirements on admission authorities and governing bodies are quite astonishingly light under the terms of Schedule 1 and Clause 5. An admission authority or a grant-maintained school governing body seeking, for example, to increase selection up to its threshold need only undertake, as we have heard several times,
"such consultation (if any) as appears to them to be appropriate".
As was argued in relation to Amendment No. 29, for example, those consultation requirements have the serious effect of cutting parents out from a proper voice in changes which will be of great importance to them.
The proposed new clause seeks to set out a better process whereby interested parties—and I mean all interested parties—starting with all parents of pupils at the school concerned, receive notification as to the changes which the admission authority may wish to make. That requirement is explicitly an addition to the weak requirement for consultation contained in Schedule 1.
As with the present procedure for the publication of notices, it is suggested that there should then be a two-month period within which objections can be lodged and, where these exceed a minimum prescribed by the Secretary of State—we do not wish to lay that down; indeed, we are quite content that the Secretary of State shall make a sensible and reasonable decision—then, and then only, should there be a local inquiry chaired by an independent person which can make recommendations. This is a different procedure from the status quo in that the Secretary of State does not determine the proposals to which these amendments apply. On the other hand, the proposal for local public inquiries is aimed in particular at giving parents and the local community the maximum opportunity to make their voice heard and for representations to be received from them. It seems only fair that the community's voice should be heard in a matter of this sort.
Without a provision of this kind in the Bill, the parents and the community at large will be seriously disadvantaged both in understanding the future character and shape of the school system and in acting for themselves and for their children in this extremely sensitive area to secure changes where proposals are
1014
unpopular. I am sure that even the Minister will agree that it is theoretically possible at least that some of those proposals might be unpopular.
No one who has been involved in such discussions can be in any doubt that the parents of the pupils in the schools concerned, and in the feeder primary schools and others in the area, feel very strongly indeed on such matters. Such feeder primary schools are extremely important to them because these people are looking for the schools to which their children will move on. Many of those people feel very strongly indeed about many of the proposals.
Therefore, the proposal for local planning inquiries is deliberately designed to enable views and expertise—indeed, often great expertise—to be deployed at the local level where they may most effectively be able to influence decisions of schools and of admission authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I warmly support this amendment which I think will put in place an infinitely better procedure for considering these matters than that proposed in the Bill. It is undeniably the case that on most occasions when a school proposes significant changes to its arrangements that affects not only that school and the pupils at that school but also neighbouring schools, the feeder schools and the pupils at those feeder schools who have some aspirations to go to the school in question.
This amendment would enable a process to be established whereby such proposals and the effect of such proposals can be properly, clearly and independently considered by the local community. It provides an opportunity for parents, for the school concerned, for other schools which may be adversely or even beneficially affected by the proposals and particularly for parents of pupils at the feeder schools all to have an opportunity to express their views and to enable those views to be properly considered and taken into account before decisions are taken.
If the Government really believe that their proposals are so enthusiastically supported by the vast majority of parents, they have nothing whatsoever to fear from a procedure such as this which gives the parents concerned the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of the Government's words. I beg to differ. I do not think that the Government assess the public mood correctly. But, equally, I am quite willing to have my views put to the test through the process proposed in this amendment.
For all those reasons I think that if this amendment were accepted it would go a considerable way towards allaying some of the concerns shared by Members of the Committee, certainly on this side of the Chamber, and most importantly of all concern expressed by parents and by all those concerned with and interested in education in this country. This is a useful amendment. It is an important proposal and it is one which will go a considerable way towards addressing the shortcomings of the Bill. I hope the Committee will feel able to accept it if it has the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Warnock: I too wish to support this amendment largely on the ground that the assumption

1015
that parents want schools to be more selective has not been proved. I also think it is odd that a Bill which is purportedly aimed at giving parents more choice should at this stage cut out the parental voice altogether and allow the decision to be made by the governing body alone. Although the governing body may know best, as the Minister said in another context, it is likely that it may know best in a rather limited sense; namely, that it knows what it thinks is in the interest of its particular school. On this kind of occasion parents may well not agree, and particularly the parents of children in the feeder schools who may have set their hearts on their children going to the school in question, because it is only the successful, over-subscribed schools that will aim to go selective. It is only they who can decide to select their pupils. Therefore ex hypothesi the school in question will be a successful school which parents wish their children to attend.
I therefore think it would be extremely good, as a kind of exercise in democracy, if the parents could be given a chance to raise an objection. If the objection comes only from parents who have children who are not in the category of those who are likely to be selected, they have every right to have their voice heard too. I refer especially—I say this boringly and repetitively—to those parents who have children with special educational needs, not necessarily with statements. Those parents should be allowed to see how this proposal strikes them, their children and their children's teachers. I warmly support this amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: It seems to me extraordinary the extent to which the Opposition parties want to go in order to impede rather minor increases in selectivity, because they are minor. The effects of these amendments—particularly Amendment No. 39, but also Amendment No. 41—would be to prevent any movement on this matter at all. Why is it that they are so frightened of a small increase in selection? The argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is that only successful schools will be in a position to increase selection and, ex hypothesi, that would mean that other schools would be deprived of pupils; thus it would have a bad impact on other schools.
I do not accept that at all. Schools may be more successful at one point in time than another. The noble Baroness seems to ignore the fact that successful schools encourage other schools to become successful too. Instead of the cut-throat competition referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, there will be another kind of co-operation, through emulation. That will be one of the results of giving schools freedom to select a little more.
The whole attitude of the Opposition parties is based on what might be called a "local authority mindset". Earlier I raised the question of the "community of schools". It is simply defined by the legal status of schools in a certain area: local authority schools, county schools and voluntary schools. The idea that a community of schools might include a larger area, that it might include many schools that are not subject to the local authority, that it might include a large part of the country, seems to be entirely lacking. This is a deeply
1016
restrictive set of proposals designed solely for the purpose of stopping any change whatever in the existing system.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I might add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. I thought that one of the principles that had underlain many of the reforms in education was that of giving schools effective governing bodies which are responsible for the general running of the school. The governing bodies—which always include parent governors, so governors would automatically consider the views of parent governors when coming to a decision on this matter—would be acting quite properly.
Clause 2 places a duty on the governing bodies of LEA-maintained secondary schools to consider each year introducing or extending a selective admission. If the amendment were accepted, one can see only too clearly what would happen at local level. We do not know quite what is meant by,
"objections exceeding in number a minimum",
but there would be a great incentive for those who in principle object to selection to make quite sure that they got a minimum, however that might be defined. There would then be the establishment of a local public inquiry. Going through the inquiry and hearing the evidence and representations would take months. The result would be completely to negate the whole point of the clause, which is to require governing bodies to consider the selective procedure. After all, the clause does not say that schools have to admit selected pupils. It simply says that they must consider doing so. Having given responsibility to governing bodies, one should allow them to get on with doing what their job properly is.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I do not wish to waste time but I must distance myself from those who are in principle against selection. I am not, but I strongly believe in the community of schools. Anyone who worked in the old direct grant schools, for example, understood the concept. There was enormous co-operation and understanding between the maintained schools, direct grant schools, primary schools that were maintained and primary schools that were independent. I believe it is true that schools take an interest in all kinds of ways, to put it at its lowest, in what other schools have to offer and they wish to co-operate with each other. I include among the community of schools the selective schools.
All I was saying is that not all schools would be wise to think about selection: if they are already short of pupils, they are in no position to select. The governing body of such a school is bound to recognise that fact. If the governors think the school can start selecting pupils, they will be in grave difficulties.
I believe that parents ought to have a say. I am not terribly sold on the details of the amendment and entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it would be easy to whip up an enthusiastic crowd of people who are anti-selection, so as to be sure of getting the minimum every time.

1017
Nevertheless, some arrangement for hearing the voice of parents and not that of the governing bodies alone ought to be introduced at some stage in reaching the decision whether or not to go selective.
Lord Henley: Following that intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I am more confused than I was at the beginning of the discussion on the amendment. I suppose that that is not unusual. Earlier, the noble Baroness said that parents do not want more selection. I refer her to the survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which was published in January last year. The survey made clear that, overall, of the order of 54 per cent. agreed with the following question: whether they agreed or disagreed that the Government should return to a fully selective education system with grammar schools, secondary modern schools and 11-plus examinations. There were 37 per cent. who disagreed.
The noble Baroness told us that parents do not want more selection. As a result, I received the impression that she herself was opposed to selection. It is one of the advantages of the Committee stage that one can have repeated interventions and we have now heard that she is not against selection per se. I believe that selection is an important factor to bring into our education system and it is something that we should all seek. A little more selection is no bad thing. I mentioned that some 5 per cent. of the pupils at secondary stage benefited from the grammar or fully selective schools and we would like to see more. We are not saying that all schools should go selective—far from it, we are saying that all schools should consider such matters as appropriate.
I know that Members of the Committee opposite do not want selection. They feel that they know best. They normally say that they do not want selection but we have heard from Mr. Blunkett that if we read his lips there will be no selection of any kind whatever. However, that was moderated and revised recently as a result of the by-election taking place on Thursday in the Wirral. We believe that selection plays an important role and that it should be recognised that children have different talents, interests and needs. It is difficult for a single type of school, particularly at secondary level, to serve the full range effectively and stretch the most able, help the least able and develop particular talents.
We also believe that parents want the appropriate good education that suits the individual talents, interests and needs of the particular child. That is why the Government's aim is to promote a much better match between what parents want on the one hand and what the schools provide on the other. As we know, because we discussed it at earlier stages, that means greater diversity for schools specialising in teaching particular subjects. We have still not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris—perhaps he will address it when he sums up—what his party's views are on selection in specialist schools or on the type of pupils in schools. I shall press him on the matter.
1018
Selection also means that schools should look at what the parents themselves want and not at what the teachers or the local education authorities think they should want. As I said, we know that there are many parents who want to send their children to selective schools. I cited as an example the evidence from the survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. I also mentioned the very high ratio of applicants to places, typically around four to one, although I understand that in one or two schools the ratio can be up to five to one.
We believe that selective schools can stretch able pupils and enable them to realise their full potential. We believe that the ambition to send children to selective schools is widespread among all groups and is by no means confined to individual social or ethnic groups within the country. We also believe that research carried out and, I believe, published in July last year, by the London School of Economics—an organ well represented on the Benches opposite—shows that pupils with assisted places at selective independent schools achieve better A-level results than pupils of similar ability at maintained schools. It is reasonable to assume that most of the maintained school sample attended non-selective schools.
Citing again the evidence from Northern Ireland, we do not believe that some schools being selective and some being non-selective has a bad effect on those who are going to non-selective schools. I suspect that that is possibly one of the reasons why in Northern Ireland we see that the results achieved in GCSE are significantly ahead of those achieved in this country. Similarly, it is why we see in those areas where there is a high proportion of selection in this country a higher level of success and a lower level of failure in GCSE than in other areas.
These amendments are rather peculiar. They run completely counter to the deregulatory intention of the Bill itself. They would impose radical new duties on the local education authorities, duties which I am sure those who represent the local education authorities would feel that those authorities ought to be spared. They also impose new and radical duties on the governing bodies of those voluntary aided and grant maintained schools which wish to respond to local demand in a positive way. Dare I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that to some extent they undermine the role of the LEAs themselves?
LEAs and governing bodies will already be required by the Bill to consult those whom they consider appropriate. On an earlier amendment I spoke at some length about how we considered that consultation ought to take place. As I said, guidance will be issued on that matter by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will consult as appropriate, as my department always does, at great length and with great thoroughness on the detail of that guidance. That is substantially the same procedure as applies at present to proposals requiring the statutory process.
The purpose of the relaxations in the Bill is to allow schools and authorities to respond to the wishes

1019
of parents. The consultation process may reveal the fact that the proposed changes are not popular with the parents and others. That is the point behind the consultation process and why, as the noble Lord, will know, we have changed so many things. I cite, for example, the announcement that we made only last week on teachers' pensions. There will need to be very careful consideration as to the best way forward in the light of those circumstances. It is undeniable that a school which implements unpopular policies will discover very rapidly that parents vote with their feet. That is the appropriate sanction on those particular schools and I am sure those schools will take that into account.
We believe that schools are part of the community they serve. We trust the governing bodies—those in the schools, those running the schools and those most closely involved with the schools—to know what is in the best interests of their pupils and their schools, how the schools should serve the community and how to act responsibly. We do not believe that we need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The idea was put forward of public inquiries. I was briefly a pupil at the planning Bar and saw a number of public inquiries. Members of the Committee know how long they can take, how expensive they can be and how much effort they need. It is not appropriate that public inquiries should be used for these matters. There are occasions when public inquiries can play an important part in the decision-making process, but I do not believe that they are appropriate for changes such as these. I suggest therefore that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment. If he does not, I advise the Committee to reject it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I find the Government's long and careful response totally unsatisfactory. At one point I thought we were getting somewhere when the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was speaking to both Amendments Nos. 39 and 66 under one heading. He was right; the two amendments are a package and the Minister responded to them in that way.
The amendments set out a common principle across the county, voluntary and grant-maintained sectors in relation to areas where the publication proposals do not apply. They are two amendments rather than one simply because of the structure of the Bill. Amendment No. 39 deals with the county and voluntary sectors; Amendment No. 66 deals with the grant-maintained sector and is consequential upon it.
Just as the consultation duties in the Bill are identical, so are the proposed new duties on the admissions authority or governing body to notify parents and others the same. The consequences under the amendments are also the same in either sector, where, but for the Bill, proposals would fall under the tried and tested publication procedure. It is for those reasons that I feel these amendments are too important to leave undecided and I must ask the Committee to express an opinion.
10.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Addington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Alderdice, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNally, L.

Blease, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Borrie, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Methuen, L.

Chandos, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Paul, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shephered, L.

Gregson, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Haskel, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Tordoff, L.

Healey, L.

Varley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hollick, L.

Warnock, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Whitty, L.

Howell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Winston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Balfour, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Belstead, L.

Annaly, L.

Berners, B.

Astor, V.

Birdwood, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blatch, B.

1021

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Byford, B.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chadlington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

O'Cathain'B.

Cross, V.

Palmer, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Feldman, L.

Rowallan, L.

Geddes, L.

Saatchi, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hogg, B.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wharton, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lindsay, E.

Wise, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL RELATING TO NURSERY EDUCATION
(". After section 41 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
"Change in character of primary school relating to nursery education.
41A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), references in section 41 to a significant change in the character of a school do not include, in the case of a primary school, any change resulting only from persons beginning or ceasing to he provided with full-time or part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils who have not obtained compulsory school age.
(2) Where the governing body of a primary school propose to make a change which, by virtue of subsection (1), is not a significant change in the character of the school they shall—
(a) before implementing their proposals carry out such consultation (if any) as appears to them to be appropriate and in doing so shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State, and
1022
(b) where the school is a Church in Wales school, a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic school, before implementing their proposals obtain the consent in writing of the appropriate diocesan authority.
(3) In this section "appropriate diocesan authority" has the meaning given by section 311(1).".").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 218. I must take a moment of the Committee's time to explain what lies behind these amendments. When I spoke to Clause 4 at Second Reading, I made the point that voluntary schools might possibly wish to obtain a similar power to that which was being given to grant-maintained schools under this clause. This clause enables grant-maintained schools other than those requiring special measures, to add or remove nursery, sixth form or boarding provision without having to publish statutory proposals or seek central approval.
When I spoke at Second Reading on this matter the Minister was not dismissive of this suggestion, but he made the point that the Roman Catholic Church might not be so supportive of my suggestion as the Church of England. I have consulted with the Roman Catholic Church and the proposal that comes before the Committee in this amendment has the strong support both of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. It is an amendment that does not touch either sixth form or boarding provision, but only nursery education. It is in the form of an additional section to Section 41 of the Education Act 1966, which sets out the conditions under which voluntary schools may make proposals for the establishment of new proposals for the school, including making,
"a significant change in the character of a school".
The amendment which we are considering excludes from that significant change in character any reference which refers only to those under compulsory school age. It requires a governing body which proposes to make such a change to carry out consultation. It does not have to go through the statutory procedure, nor does it have to apply to the Secretary of State, but the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority must be obtained.
There are two technical points here. The new Section 41A, which this amendment seeks to insert into the Education Act 1996, contains in subsection (3) an interpretative provision for the expression "appropriate diocesan authority". I have quoted earlier in Committee exactly what that provision is. Section 41 does not contain an interpretative provision for a Church in Wales, a Church of England or a Roman Catholic school. So this amendment is adding clauses to the Education Act, whose provisions concerning defined expressions will apply.
Section 580 of the Act contains an index and in that the Church in Wales, Church of England and Roman Catholic schools are defined for the purposes of the Act. However, for some reason "appropriate diocesan authority" is defined only for the purposes of Part III of the Act, whereas this new clause is added to Part II. Hence it is necessary to include in this amendment a reference to "appropriate diocesan authority". Amendment No. 218 is simply a consequential amendment.
When I spoke at Second Reading I made the point that I did not wish to drive any wedge between county schools and voluntary schools. We value our partnership with LEAs, at both national and local diocesan level. However, with regard to the establishment of nursery provision, the voluntary schools are disadvantaged. They will be heavily disadvantaged in relation to grant-maintained schools, but they are already disadvantaged in relation to county schools. If LEAs wish to add a nursery class to a county school, they are required to follow the statutory publication procedure, but they will have been able to commit the necessary finance before they do so. Therefore, as soon as the publication procedure is completed, those schools will be able to implement the proposals. Moreover, in most cases where there are no objections, the proposals for a county school do not have to be approved by the Secretary of State.
In contrast for voluntary schools, governing bodies which wish to add a nursery class must publish proposals which have to be approved by the Secretary of State. In that sense, there is an additional hurdle to go through and the particular difficulty is that the publishing of proposals and the gaining of approval by the Secretary of State take a long time. The schools have to obtain funding - and that is far from easy given the department's priorities for capital grants. Often where funding is available the voluntary schools cannot take advantage of it because they are burdened by that cumbersome statutory procedure. It sometimes happens that towards the end of the year there is spare money in the minor works allocation. It takes so long that by the time the procedure is completed, the year end has passed and the money is no longer available.
In this particular regard, the voluntary schools feel disadvantaged. They frequently lose pupils to a county school which is able to have a nursery class where a voluntary school finds itself unable to do so. I hope that the Minister will continue to listen sympathetically to this case. I shall be most interested to hear his response.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulties facing both voluntary and county schools with regard to sensible and good planning of nursery provision. However, we feel that this amendment would still not rectify the position where there is an imbalance. Over the years, many LEAs have attempted to try to plan across the voluntary-aided and county sector together. All too frequently, particularly as the GM system was developed, the voluntary-aided capital budget has been raided to provide the funds for GM schools.
However, this amendment would further the division in a different way. We hope that the right reverend Prelate will not at this stage seek to press the amendment to a vote, but will seek to ensure that we try to agree a new system that will allow an equality of opportunity across both sectors for good planning.
Lord Henley: I am interested to find myself in at least partial agreement with the noble Baroness: this is not a matter to press to a vote.
1024
At Second Reading the right reverend Prelate gave what I might perhaps describe as a tantalising hint that he saw some attractions in extending to all church schools—whether Church of England schools or Catholic schools—all the freedoms which the Bill proposes for GM schools. He correctly suggested that the GM deregulation clauses reflect the Government's belief that such schools are sufficiently independent and well governed to be able to make more decisions about their character without needing central approval, and he raised the possibility that the same approach might apply to church schools.
We would have seen some force in such an argument and we believe that schools should have as much power as possible to make their own judgments about their own development without the need to jump through lots of hoops. That reflects our general commitment to deregulation and our faith in the ability of schools to make those decisions for themselves.
But church schools have traditionally enjoyed more autonomy than county schools in making their own decisions. Had the right reverend Prelate's amendment provided just for church schools to enjoy the full benefits of deregulation and self-government he might well have been knocking at an open door. Sadly, his amendment does not do that. His amendment picks out just one small element of the grant-maintained deregulation package—that relating to nursery classes—and applies it to church schools. We cannot accept that amendment on the grounds of principle and its financial implications. As a matter of principle, we do not believe in cherry-picking of this kind from the range of freedoms that grant-maintained schools have. If the churches believe in deregulation, trusting church schools and giving them more freedom to make their own decisions should apply across the board in the same way as for grant-maintained schools. I believe that it makes no sense in terms of the principle of this Bill to slice off just one element while refusing to allow such schools to enjoy the benefits of self-government in other areas. Even in the limited area covered by the new clause what is deregulated with one hand is then re-regulated with the other, since church schools would still be obliged to obtain the consent of their diocese.
The amendment would also have rather important financial implications for LEAs. This may be what the noble Baroness Lady Farrington is driving at. Voluntary schools, like county schools, are funded through LEA schemes for the local management of schools. Those schemes set out the formulae and factors that must be used to calculate each school's budget. The addition of nursery classes to church primary schools would place a new burden on LEAs who would automatically have to fund those places in accordance with their schemes even though under the new clause the LEA would have no say in whether or not the new nursery provision should be introduced. That could be very expensive for LEAs. We believe that it would be wrong to place such a burden on the LEAs through such a new clause. I hope therefore that the right reverend Prelate will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to both the noble Baroness Lady Farrington and the Minister. I take comfort from the fact that the noble Baroness recognised the strength of the case that I make and that it may be possible to talk together about whether there are other ways in which the point may be met. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT ON GOOD PRACTICE
(" .—(1) Before bringing into effect the provisions of this Part relating to increases in selection in county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the results of a survey of good practice undertaken by local education authorities, together with any statement arising from it which the Secretary of State may wish to make as to the role of local education authorities.
(2) The statement referred to in subsection (1) above may refer to the following areas—

(a) proposals for the production by local education authorities of education development plans for their areas;

(b) the role of local education authorities in raising educational standards in institutions in their areas;

(c) the role of authorities in balancing resources and meeting educational needs which would otherwise fail to be met;

(d) the significance of specialist skills and support services available through local education authorities in the provision of education in their areas;

(e) the provision of discretionary services by authorities.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 41 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 2. Its purpose is to examine the role of the local education authority in the light of the selection changes that Part I introduces. Part I has potentially far-reaching changes for local education authorities on specific selection issues, although the LEA remains the admission authority for the schools. Governing bodies of county schools are to be required annually to consider the benefits of selection and its increase within their schools. The Bill incorporates a divisive proposal, along with others, on selection and the effect on the community could place many county schools under great pressure as GM and specialist schools expand selection at a rapid rate.
At this juncture it may be thought right to consider and reassess the role of local education authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said at Second Reading, there is a lack of understanding of the role of the democratically elected authority in education as regards expressing the views of the community in a vitally important service. The noble Baroness Lady Warnock spoke of
"the slaughter of the powers of the LEAs will turn out to be one of the worst things that this Government have done".—[Official Report, 10/2/97; co1.46.]
She specifically attacked the new powers given to the FAS to start up new grant-maintained schools in an area and the threat from increased selection in existing grant-maintained schools in the range of LEA provisions. Rumour has it that the Government are
1026
considering among other proposals for their manifesto for the forthcoming election the total removal of the education function from local government.
LEAs have adapted well to the massive structural and bureaucratic changes of the past decade. As was pointed out on Second Reading, an elected authority has both the status and the knowledge to balance resources across an area and to provide for specialist needs and expertise in support of the primary activities of schools and other institutions.
It was with sadness that I heard in answer to the previous amendment the Minister refer to one of the features of grant maintained schools being that they were better governed than other schools. Ministers and the Secretary of State do not hesitate to refer to that level of governance of schools as being somehow superior to the commitment, quality and dedication of governors of non-grant-maintained schools.
Contrary to the Government's assertion, and in my experience contrary to the knowledge, determination and skill of parents who wish to raise issues, many of those schools see a value in being part of the LEA and the local community. It is my experience across the shire counties—the noble Lord, Lord Tope, may speak for metropolitan authorities—that there exists more often than not, and more frequently than between those same schools and central government, at local level a balance, an agreement and a concern for all.
LEAs have an important role also in discretionary areas of education provision—adult education and community education—and a wide range of other issues; above all, the quality of special needs provision for non-statemented pupils. I shall read Hansard with great interest, but I have not noticed the Minister respond to what could develop from the Government's proposals, which is LEAs with minimal responsibility for a small number of schools forced to take on an ever-increasing percentage of children who have non-statemented special needs but who represent a particular and very demanding challenge for teachers and governors of the schools in which they are educated.
In summary, the point of the amendment is to draw attention to an important juncture in terms of the significance of the Bill's provisions to the coherence of the system in which LEAs play a central part and to warn that the weakening of their role could represent an enormous lost opportunity to improve the service for all pupils.
Since the Government have lost political control at local level of so many of the authorities which they controlled for so many years, it has become fashionable in some government circles to denigrate and attack local government. The British people have a long history of electing a degree of balance. With a change of government at national level, the Conservative Party could live to regret its attempt to demolish true local democracy and accountability for the education service in the areas which historically it controlled and which its many ill-considered and rushed through legislative changes have damaged, which has led to parents looking to authorities with Labour, Liberal or no overall control

1027
for protection. Not being able to control education at local level now should not cause the Conservatives to railroad us towards damaging that important part of local democracy. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We on these Benches support the amendment. I cannot add to the extremely comprehensive speech of the noble Baroness. I agreed with every single word, and I shall therefore sit down and let the Minister respond.
Lord Skidelsky: I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to prevent the provisions of this part of the Bill from coming into effect. However, it is hard to understand the mechanism. The Bill provides that,
"the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report".
Who will compile the report? Will it appear by magic from somewhere? It is a vague phrase and there is no elucidation.
The amendment provides for good practice. Is there an assumption that there is a single good practice which will be contained in the report? There are many types of good practice. The way it is used here suggests that there will be a national inspection of good practice, as though that were an uncomplicated concept.
As regards the areas to which the statement is to refer, the provisions combine extreme vagueness with the assumption that local education authorities are the only guarantors of local education provision. Every single subsection mentions local education authorities as though they must have the sole responsibility for education provision in their areas. The Bill and the whole thrust of the Government's reform has been to challenge that.
Local education authorities already have a great deal of power over individual schools, unless the school has opted out. They are there the whole time. On the whole, governors are not well equipped and well briefed and governing bodies need to be strengthened. These are modest provisions to strengthen the powers of governors against local education authority control, as the noble Baroness said.
It seems to me symptomatic of the attitude of the Opposition that any increase in flexibility and in the freedom of schools to decide their fate, and any increase in the definition of local education provision, produces united opposition in defence of local education authority monopolies. I hope that the amendment will not be taken to a vote. Leaving aside any ideology, the clause is badly drafted because of its vagueness and unclarity of intention.
Lord Monkswell: I hesitate to rise because of the lateness of the hour, but I feel that I must. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Minister will respond positively to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The noble Lord asked how the Secretary of State will produce the report. That suggests a poor perception of his Government if the Secretary of State cannot produce a report on education in the different localities in the country when it is the Government's plan to charge the Chief Inspector of Schools to examine a number of LEAs and to report back on how they are performing.
1028
Logically, this amendment is building on what the Government are already proposing. Far from the Government not being able to produce the report, they are planning to do just that. I felt that I had to say that because I am sure that the Government would not have argued against the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in favour of this amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Henley: I may need certain things at certain times. One thing I do not need is advice from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, as to how to reply to my noble friend. I shall do that in my own way in my own time, as is appropriate. However, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that we have every intention of bringing in the inspection of LEAs by Ofsted, as is right. I believe that that has been accepted by his own party, although I never quite know, because his party's policies change so quickly that even the noble Lord probably finds it difficult to keep up with some of those policy changes.
The noble Baroness expressed the matter in terms, "rumour has it that", and then went on to fantasise about what might or might not be in my party's manifesto. The Committee will understand if, at this time of night on day of the week, I do not expound what might or might not be in my party's manifesto. I merely throw the question back at her and ask when the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Morris will respond to the question which I have put to them on a number of occasions as to what is their policy in relation to selection for specialist schools, now that they have finally come round to welcoming that concept.
Let us look at the new clause. At first sight, it looks like a red herring or yet another device to delay the implementation of important parts of the Bill which Members of the Committee opposite particularly dislike. We know that they dislike selection, or, at least, we think we know that they dislike selection because that is what they say some of the time, though some of the time they say otherwise. I suspect that there is more to it than that and, as the amendment concerns the role of LEAs, I shall deal with that issue because that is what the noble Baroness focused on.
The Government's views on the role of LEAs was set out in our White Paper of June of last year about the self-governing of schools which my noble friend has beside her at this moment. I shall clutch a copy as my exhibit number 1. Our starting point was that LEAs should perform only those functions which schools cannot perform for themselves. The White Paper identified seven main functions for the LEAs. They are: (a) organising education which takes place outside school, including units for excluded pupils and the Youth Service; (b) planning and regulation, and that includes securing the supply of school places alone or in conjunction with the Funding Agency for Schools and dealing with appeals and complaints against LEA schools; (c) allocating and monitoring LEA-school budgets; (d) providing pupil-specific services such as home-school transport or special educational needs support; (e) supplying support services for schools such as professional advisory services and in-service training

1029
for school staff; (f) quality assurance, which, for the great majority of schools, should be confined to supporting self-improvement; (g) co-ordinating networks such as School Business Links.
It is clear that some LEAs do those things much better than others, and I shall not refer for the umpteenth time to Islington. But I do not think we need a survey to tell us that. We need a mechanism for improving the performance of LEAs which do not support schools and pupils effectively. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Clauses 54 to 57 of the Bill, which provide for the inspection of LEAs deal with that. It is that, rather than a survey of good practice, which I believe will drive up standards. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the noble Baroness implied that I said earlier that grant-maintained schools were better governed. I am not sure that those were my precise words but I shall look extremely carefully at what I said. In the main, I imagine that most of them are better governed, but the point that I was trying to make was that grant-maintained schools have greater freedom; that is, greater freedom to control their own affairs. For that, they should be grateful. That is why we are pleased that so many schools have gone grant-maintained and why we hope that many more will follow that process in the future.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. We have reached the stage in our deliberations tonight when people say, "I didn't say that or, if I did, it wasn't what I meant to say". Perhaps, therefore, the Committee will forgive me if I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that I can only think that I intended to say "control" with reference to the Government's attitude towards local education authorities and schools. It has certainly never been my
1030
belief, my policy or my interpretation of the facts that LEAs control schools. Long before the Government's proposals began with regard to changing in statute the role of governing bodies, the authority in Lancashire County Council, for example, had parent governors. Indeed, we believe in co-operation and partnership.
It is perhaps too late for the Committee to wish me to go through a detailed debating session with the Minister. I certainly feel tonight that our policy on these Benches does not change as often as the Government's legislative proposals are turned down by this Chamber. However, having said that, now is not the time to start to deal with that aspect.
In the list contained in the Government's document I was struck by the item that deals with their perceived role in local government and with LEAs having a responsibility for planning and dealing with school places and adequate provision thereof. The proposals in the Bill will affect the capacity of LEAs to carry out that planning in the same way as happens at present; or, indeed, as was happening at the stage when the Government produced the report.
It is extremely important to recognise that we are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, implied, seeking to prevent the operation of this part of the Bill simply by requiring a report to be made to study the impact that the Bill's proposals would have on the role of the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind the DfEE's willingness to consult, I am quite certain that it would be able to produce a report very speedily for the Secretary of State and Parliament to consider, before further changes are enacted. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.