Lords Sitting of 3 March 1997

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

Latin America: London Conference
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to follow up their conference in London, "Link into Latin America".
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, an action plan is being finalised by my department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in consultation with other bodies, including the Confederation of British Industry, Canning House and the Latin American Trade Advisory Group. The Government also wish to continue with the close involvement of Latin American ambassadors in London.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that is most helpful. I congratulate my noble and learned friend and his colleagues in the Foreign Office on having organised that conference which, although I missed it because I was away due to the change of date, I understand was a huge success. Can my noble and learned friend tell me how many companies that were brand new to the Latin American market attended the conference, in view of the fact that that was the intended target audience and that the conference sought to strike at new companies not previously involved in Latin America?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We regard the conference as having been a significant success, with no fewer than three Latin American presidents and some 21 Ministers from Latin American countries attending. About 550 people attended the conference, including representatives from nearly 180 British companies. At our best estimate, something like one-third of those were newcomers to the Latin American market. I assure my noble friend that my department intends to make sure that their interest is firmly followed up and that they have every opportunity to take advantage of the markets that are now opening up to them.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord gave a positive response to the noble Viscount's Question and referred to an "action plan". Can he give us some indication of the broad thrust of that plan?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, its broad thrust is, as I indicated, that in co-ordination with the CBI, LATAG and Canning House, we intend to take forward the involvement of those new companies, the
1494
"missing majors". Coupled with that, it is important to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises also understand the opportunities. We certainly want to see further seminars not only in this country but also in Latin America itself.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in terms of the follow-up to which my noble and learned friend referred, I am delighted to hear of the specific targeting of small and medium-sized businesses. Can my noble and learned friend confirm that in encouraging trade missions involving small companies which may be becoming involved in Latin America for the first time, the DTI will continue to support them with the very helpful subvention that it has made in the past?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. As I have said, the key targets for that particular conference were the missing major British companies which have been in Latin America in the past and left or which have never been there. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as part of the follow-up to the conference, we wish to continue to focus on the small and medium-sized enterprises. We recognise that there is an effort to be made in terms of following up the campaign not only by my department but by working with Business Links and other trade associations to ensure that we continue to take forward the successful achievements of that conference.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too join the noble Viscount in congratulating the Minister on that conference. I was not there either, but my reason is different: I was not invited—
Noble Lords: Ah!
Lord Peston: Yes, I thought that noble Lords might like to hear that. However, may I ask, first, whether any proceedings of the conference will be published and, secondly, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whether the action plan to which the Minister referred is in the form of a document which will be available to noble Lords?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, first, I very much regret that the noble Lord was not invited to the conference. However, many Members of Parliament, including Members of the Opposition Benches, were present. I am delighted that they took part not only in the conference but also in a number of other events which followed the major event on the Monday. Yes, there will be a summary report, drawing together the main themes of the opening day of the conference. The action plan that we are to draw up with Canning House, LATAG and the CBI will certainly be available to those noble Lords who wish to see it.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, my noble and learned friend referred to the need for a follow-up with additional conferences in Latin America as well

1495
as here. He will be aware that Canning House has a conference planned in Sao Paulo on 14th May. Does he agree that the effects of ministerial visits, in which there has been a most welcome increase, are greatest when targeted, with accompanying businessmen, towards specific sectors such as health, education or the environment? Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that our Latin American posts are adequately resourced to deal with what we may anticipate to be increased demand?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend is right and that the time has now come to ensure not only that trade missions are focused but that specific interests are represented on them. In many respects, the time for large unfocused efforts has probably gone. Given my noble friend's long involvement with Canning House and Latin American affairs, I hope that he will be encouraged to hear that in the coming year it is anticipated that there will be something like 46 trade missions to Latin American countries, which is an increase on the present year. The trade missions will, generally speaking, take the form which my noble friend would consider desirable—that is, they will have a clear focus.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are there any new developments to report, or were any reported at the conference, about the legal regime for mineral development in the sea-bed between the Falkland Islands and Argentina? What opportunities are there for business to become involved in that sector?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there was no specific focus. However, the noble Lord will be aware that a number of licences have been granted in Falkland Island waters. So far as I am aware, no exploration has yet been undertaken, but the last indication I have is that it is expected that there will be exploration earlier than was originally anticipated.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in view of the greatly increased number of visits which will take place during the course of the year, and the increased activity resulting from the conference, can my noble and learned friend reassure me that there are sufficient posts, and that there will be no erosion of the number of people working in embassies in Latin America, especially having regard to the views recently published by the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the other place?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt that the FCO will always argue its corner and say that additional posts should be provided. In the DTI, we are confident that sufficient resources will be given to expanding the market in Latin America, underlining its key importance. As I have said, the clearest and simplest indicator of that is the fact that more trade missions are planned for Latin America next year than has been the case in the past.

Treaty of Rome: Taxation Provisions
2.43 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the powers of Parliament concerning taxation are limited by virtue of commitments made under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, legislation on VAT and excise is established under Article 99 of the treaty. Customs duties are set under Articles 28 and 113 of the treaty. Direct taxation is primarily a matter for the member states at national level and therefore the treaty's state aid rules and non-discrimination provisions are the only limitations on member states in this field. Unanimity is required for all VAT, excise and direct tax legislation and Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise all proposals. The Government will continue to defend that position.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that on 14th January in a Written Answer he told me that any amendment of the Sixth VAT Directive would require the unanimous agreement of all member states of the EEC, and that that directive forbids this Parliament from extending the zero-rate of VAT? First, does he agree that that indicates that Parliament has conceded sovereignty over taxation on a large scale to the EU; secondly, does he agree with me that in the unfortunate event of a Labour administration being formed there is a grave danger that that sovereignty would be further eroded by large-scale concessions to the EU over taxation, most notably VAT; and, finally, that that sovereignty could be re-established only by the denunciation of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is true that under the VAT directive we have forgone the right to introduce or restore zero rates, as my noble friend rightly deduces from the Question I answered in January. However, it is also true that changes in any other direction require the unanimous agreement of all member states. That leads me on to the second part of my noble friend's question, which is correct: all these tax matters, as I said in my original Answer, are subject to the unanimity rule, and any party, as the party opposite, which wants to find itself never—I think I quote—"isolated in Europe", would obviously give up that veto and that unanimity rule. In that case I am afraid that some of the situations that my noble friend fears would come about.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could give us a briefer answer. For example, is the position at the moment any different from what it was in the days when his noble friend was a member of the Cabinet supporting membership of the EU?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position on VAT was clearly established in a judgment of the European Court given after the Commission took

1497
infraction proceedings against the UK in 1981. It was then made perfectly clear that the only thing that would be compatible with the Sixth VAT Directive was if zero rating was introduced for clearly defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer. As all the things we currently have zero rated are for the benefit of the final consumer, we are confident, as indeed was my noble friend when he was in office, that our zero-rate position is safe from any attack by the Commission.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, did my noble friend have time to watch Commissioner Monti on television on Sunday when he made it absolutely clear that it is the Commission's purpose to make tax rates, as far as possible, identical across Europe; that there could be no question, for instance, of noble Lords opposite, should they by mischance come into power, reducing the VAT rate on fuel? In other words, the noble Lord's position and that of the Government is clear: it is in total opposition to the Commission's position as expressed by Commissioner Monti.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I did not see Commissioner Monti on television on Sunday. Regardless of what Commissioner Monti says on television or thinks in the privacy of his office, the situation is very clear. The tax position can be changed only on the basis of unanimity. As long as this Government are in power that position of unanimity will be maintained.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since the case referred to by the noble Lord a further case (416/85) was brought on 13th December 1985 by the Commission against the UK in which the Commission reiterated the necessity for the harmonisation of VAT rates throughout Europe? Is the noble Lord aware that, although that case failed, it is by no means certain that under the Treaty of Maastricht, which has new preambles and recitals, the European court itself would give the same judgment if a similar case were brought today?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am perfectly confident that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, are unfounded. The judgment given in 1988 was clearly directed at situations that benefited commerce and industry, not the final consumer. Indeed, the Commission did not challenge zero-rating on food in shops, young children's clothing and shoes and so on; nor did it challenge VAT on fuel and power in the domestic market. It is up to us to decide what to do. We intend to retain the position of unanimity because we believe that that is in the interest of Britain and every other state. We believe that certain taxation rules do not require to be made uniform across the Community.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the opposition to harmonisation that he has expressed is contrary to the position adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I am well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now a semi-detached member of the
1498
Conservative Party, but does the Minister believe that he should agree with him? Will the noble Lord confirm that in his Budget speech last year the Chancellor argued in favour of the harmonisation of excise duties and said that he intended to adjust British duties to the continental level?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we had a debate on this matter on Thursday last. I then explained in some detail the Government's position. I recommend that he re-reads it, if he has already forgotten what I said. The position is as I said then and as the Chancellor has said. There are problems about not having harmonised excise duties, for example cross-border smuggling and so on. But I have also made it perfectly clear that while we want to see some convergence of rates on products like tobacco we are determined that they have to move up to our levels as there are perfectly valid financial and health reasons for those excise duties being at the level they are in this country.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I believe that there is time for both sides. However, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been trying to have a shot for some time. I suggest that he goes first, followed by my noble friend.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister remind his noble friend Lord Tebbit that the Treaty of Rome was not the first treaty to restrict Parliament's power in matters of taxation? It was restricted by the equal treatment taxation provisions of the Act of Union with Scotland. Does the Minister agree that the sovereignty of Parliament has not tottered as a result?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Earl. I must check this matter. If I heard what he said correctly, the tartan tax that the party opposite propose for the Scots may well be illegal.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, further to the point raised in the supplementary of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, is it not a fact that as regards Europe there is a slight safeguard against the tax-raising proclivities of a future Labour government, in that they will be prevented from putting up any VAT rate by more than 2.5 per cent.?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly observes, in the Sixth VAT Directive there are certain limitations on the rates. The standard rate must not be less than 15 per cent. and only one or two reduced rates can be applied and neither must be less than 5 per cent. There are limitations which I believe are reasonable if we want a level playing field in the single market. However, on major taxes, especially income tax, we firmly believe that the setting of the rate is a matter for the governments of member states.

Railways: North Wales Coast Line
2.55 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to maintain and enhance the North Wales coast rail line.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, Railtrack is committed by its railway safety case to maintain a safe infrastructure and to meet railway group standards, which include detailed standards for maintenance. In addition to this commitment, Railtrack is taking forward a strategy for improvements for the line which will increase line speed to 90 mph. Virgin, which has recently won the InterCity West Coast franchise, plans to take forward a feasibility study into the electrification of the Crewe to Chester route.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. But is he aware of a quotation from Railtrack that it will not undertake any improvement works unless commissioned to do so by an organisation that is prepared to pay for the work required? Can he explain to the House the difference between BR, which was often unable to invest or take risks, and Railtrack, which is unwilling to invest and take risks? Has it been worth all of the hassle for the nil change in what can be done?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense. We have seen massive increased investment plans by Railtrack and substantially increased amounts have already been spent on the rail network. Railtrack has ambitious plans not just for the west coast main line, where we know that £1.35 billion will be spent on upgrading work, but also for this line. The project to increase the speed of this line will require investment to the tune of approximately £900,000.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I appreciate the interest that the noble Viscount takes in this line. Can he tell us what action is being taken by the Government to encourage rail freight to Holyhead? Can he tell us what investment will be needed by Railtrack to achieve this? Furthermore, can he give the House an assurance that there will continue to be through trains from Euston to Holyhead so that every time one goes there one does not have to change at Crewe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the services are a matter for the franchising director to determine with the franchisee. Of the franchises that we have seen—indeed, all of the franchises are now let—at least the existing BR timetable has been run, in many cases with additional services. I do not believe that the noble Lord needs to be unduly concerned about the results of the franchising of services. There have been improvements in the level and quality of services.
1500
Dealing with the noble Lord's wider point, the Government are keen to encourage freight on to the railway, and in that regard Holyhead is of considerable importance. The Government have made available their freight facilities grant scheme for infrastructure projects where people can put up sensible schemes that show environmental benefits.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it right that the north-west coast line is part of Regional Railways, which is the main operator on the line, and that the latter has recently announced that about 40 per cent. of the workforce are to be made redundant? In the light of that and of the appalling example set by South West Trains, which the Minister has not fully condemned, what confidence can we have that the present poor service will be enhanced or even maintained by Regional Railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord finished his question by recognising that the existing service could be improved. We also believe that the service can be improved. For that reason we have taken forward the privatisation programme. I believe that the franchise that is responsible for running this section of the railway has been operating for only one day. It is a little early to say what improvements it has brought about. Of course, staffing is a matter to be determined by a private company; it determines what staff it requires to run a service. It will have obligations under its passenger service agreement for the services that it needs to run. But we should also note that, for example, GWH will replace the entire Mark 1 rolling stock used by north west. By 31st March 2000 it will introduce a fleet of 70 new diesel multiple unit vehicles capable of a speed of 90 to 100 miles per hour. That is another example of the improvements that privatisation will bring.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as we know from the South West Trains episode, staff arrangements impact on the convenience of hundreds of thousands of passengers. If we are to experience a 40 per cent. reduction in the workforce, which has been announced, is that not likely to have a similar effect? Surely the Minister cannot distance himself from staffing arrangements by saying that they are matters entirely for other people and not for him, when hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will be affected by such narrow-minded, short-term policy?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I assume from that example that the noble Lord will be telling British Airways how many staff it should employ. However, we have heard no such commitment. This is a private company, running a privatised railway service. It has clear obligations as regards the service that it must deliver. We safeguard services and safety through strict

1501
regulations. Within those regulations, we must expect the companies to run the operations as efficiently as possible.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend take 20 seconds or so to list all the improvements which were made to this line when it was nationalised?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, 20 seconds would he an unduly generous period in order for me to make such a list. Clearly, there has been significant under-investment in the railways over many decades and services have declined. We want to see those services improve and that is why we are undertaking a massive structural change. Already there have been major changes to the railways, complaints have fallen by about one-third and there has been massively increased investment. Those are all tremendous improvements which the whole House should welcome.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be aware that 10 or 15 years ago there were regular direct services between Euston and Holyhead. We are appalled to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that mostly passengers on that line must change at Crewe. Will the Government apologise to the travelling public for the running down of that service? What steps will they require of the rail regulator to improve the service and return it to what it was only 10 or 15 years ago?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord did not hear my response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I said that all the franchisees have agreed to run services to the British Rail timetable or more. I believe the noble Lord will welcome the announcements made by Virgin for its running of the Intercity West Coast franchise. It is determined to bring forward the new modern tilting trains, with a £150 million investment, reduced journey times, better facilities, entertainment within the trains and more reliability. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome all those improvements when he travels on that line.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government apologise for running down the service during the past 10 or 15 years?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is nothing whatever to apologise for. I shall not apologise for better services, more investment, fewer complaints, more innovation and shorter journey times. These are not things to apologise for; they are things to commend.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister has told us yet again that the number of complaints has been reduced by one-third. Does he recall that a few days ago when we were discussing South West Trains I reminded him that the notices advising people where to complain had been removed? Is that one of the reasons why there has been a reduction in the number of complaints? If so, can we have the notices back again, please?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have always found the ability to complain of people who travel on the railway to be perfectly adequate. If people are upset with the service, it is important that they complain. One needs to remember that until only a few years ago the passengers' charter did not exist; people were not able to be compensated; if British Rail decided not to run a service it did not run it, often as a result of industrial action. I am pleased to say that there have been tremendous advances in industrial relations on the railways.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, in view of the second part of the Question about attracting freight to the North Wales coast rail line, will the Minister agree to prod Railtrack into getting on with devising its price regulation with the rail freight distributors?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I emphasised that the Government were keen to see more freight on the railway. We recognise the developments that have occurred with the privatisation of the freight operators, as with Railtrack. Beyond that, the Government have an overall role in putting forward schemes such as the freight facilities grant, which is designed to do exactly what the noble Viscount desires; that is, to make a difference where there are infrastructure projects and where a case has been put to the Government. Beyond that, it is for Railtrack to talk to the freight operators, as it continually does, in order to come up with innovative plans.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in response to the supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, the Minister said it was for the operator to cut its staff, and that if it chose to do so by 40 per cent., that was all right. That was exactly what happened with South West Trains, and 70 drivers is nothing like 40 per cent. of the staff. Does the Minister agree that it is of concern for an operator in the north west to cut staff by that amount? Should not the franchising director be encouraged to impose more penal damages than he has done on South West Trains for any inconvenience caused to passengers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the fact that considerable penalties are laid down when train operating companies do not deliver the services. That was the case with South West Trains and we have seen a considerable improvement in the problems highlighted by the noble Lord. Beyond that, we want to see an efficiently run railway. We have laid down what services must be provided and the operators have volunteered additional services. We want to see a safe railway. Therefore, in terms of guaranteeing the service and the high levels of safety, the Government have a strong role. As regards how the companies go about delivering that, we would not want to fetter their discretion beyond those constraints and regulations.

Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Road Traffic Reduction Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Architects Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): moved the amendment:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("on") to end of line 3 and insert ("1st July 1997").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 9 provides for the Bill to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State shall appoint by order. This is because the Bill consolidates provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and that Act has not yet been brought into force. However, when the Bill was before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, it was noted with approval by the joint committee that if the order bringing the 1996 Act into force was made before the Lieutenancies Bill completed its passage through your Lordships' House an amendment would be brought forward to provide a fixed commencement date for this Bill.
The commencement order has now been made; namely, 1st April 1997, as the date on which the 1996 Act will come into force. As a consequence, this amendment carries through the intention to provide a fixed commencement date for this Bill. The date chosen of 1st July 1997 should allow for a three month period to elapse, as is customary for Consolidation Bills, between Royal Assent and commencement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pharmacists (Fitness to Practise) Bill
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: 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.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley):: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 112A not moved.]
Clause 26 [LEA plans relating to children with behavioural difficulties]:
Baroness David moved Baroness David moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert ("having regard to the contents of any guidance issued by the authority to schools in its area in connection with their responsibilities under sections 154 or 306A, and to any written statements produced by those schools in accordance with those responsibilities.").
The noble Baroness said: We are still on behaviour and discipline policies. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that there is a sensible connection between disciplinary policies adopted by schools and support plans of the relevant LEA.
Clauses 19 and 20, which we discussed last week, introduce a new duty for school governors to develop a policy setting out a framework for discipline within the school and for head teachers to plan their disciplinary strategy within the governors' policy.
Clause 26 sets out a duty for the LEA to review and consult upon its plans for supporting schools in the exercise of good discipline; and to set out the arrangements it will make to deal with excluded pupils.
It is clearly a matter of common sense that those plans and policies should dovetail in order to provide consistent and coherent arrangements for the whole area. In particular, it is important that this consistency and coherence will operate between the authority and each of its maintained schools. This could be more difficult to achieve if the demands made of the authority by different schools were in conflict with each other. It is also desirable that, within a given area, there is a degree of consistency of approach between different schools. Clearly it is right and proper that each individual governing body should have control over its own policy. The legislation does of course require governing bodies to have regard to guidance by the Secretary of State. It should also be incumbent upon governing bodies to take account of the policies of neighbouring schools and develop their policies in the light of the support plans issued by the LEA.
This amendment therefore builds in a reference to the issue of guidance from the authority to schools in its area in pursuance of its responsibilities and an encouragement for all parties to work together. It mirrors the proposal in Amendment No. 95 that governing bodies should contact LEAs when developing their discipline policies.
When this issue was debated in another place, the Minister made heavy weather of this simple amendment, which is designed simply to clarify the Bill and ensure greater co-operation among relevant parties—all the schools and the LEAs. The only argument against its inclusion seemed to be that because consultation is required, co-ordination would automatically follow. That is an optimistic stance and one which is not always supported by experience. This Bill would be strengthened by the amendment and I hope very much that the Minister will see fit to accept it and realise the good sense behind it. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness,
1506
Lady David. It is all part of the same wish to try to ensure the greatest possible co-operation and co-ordination among the various partners in education in the way in which they approach difficult subjects. I agree with what the noble Baroness said. Experience teaches us that co-ordination and co-operation are not always the same and that co-ordination is extremely important in those matters.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that we agree with what I suspect are the main intentions behind the amendment. However, I hope to be able to persuade her that it is not necessary to amend the Bill because those concerns are already met by the clause as it stands.
Clearly, an LEA's behaviour support plan should reflect the approach which local schools take to discipline and behaviour issues. Equally clearly, it is essential for the LEA and schools to work together constructively to ensure a consistent and coherent approach to those issues. Schools are at the forefront, after parents, in promoting good pupil behaviour and tackling indiscipline and disruption. That is recognised in Clauses 19 and 20, which will ensure that governing bodies agree the framework for schools' discipline policies, and that those are widely publicised.
Clause 26 acknowledges the need for LEAs to support schools in that role: subsection (2) of the proposed Section 527A specifies that every LEA's plan must cover the advice and resources it makes available to local schools in relation to behaviour problems. That would include any guidance which the LEA might issue in connection with schools' responsibilities in relation to discipline policies under Clauses 19 and 20 of this Bill. Indeed, it ought to go wider than the amendment and cover any guidance or advice which the authority issues to schools in relation to behaviour and discipline. We shall be making that clear in the Secretary of State's guidance to which, under Section 527A(6), LEAs will need to have regard. I hope that that meets the first part of the amendment.
The second part of the noble Baroness's amendment would require an LEA to take account of discipline statements adopted by local schools under the provisions of Clauses 19 and 20. We believe that this point too is already addressed in Clause 26. Subsection (4) of new Section 527A will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations a list of interested bodies whom LEAs must consult in preparing their plans. And LEAs will have to take account of the responses of those consulted.
I give the noble Baroness and the Committee an assurance now that it is our firm intention that LEAs will be required to consult local schools. That will ensure that schools will have a say—not just in relation to their own policies, but also in relation to the full range of the LEA's provision for tackling behaviour problems.
I hope that the explanation and assurances I have given today are sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness both that the Government take those issues very seriously, and that they are fully addressed in the

1507
Bill as it stands. I hope therefore that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for her support and the Minister for his response. His response was, of course, rather what I expected but the Minister has given certain assurances that there will be consultation. However, I hope that it will be both ways—that is, between the schools and the LEAs and the LEAs and the schools and that similar policies will apply within a given area. I believe that the Bill will work much more satisfactorily if that is so. Granted the assurances that the Minister has given, I am happy at this moment to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) The statement shall in particular have regard to—

(a) the principle established in section 316 of this Act that children with special educational needs (including behavioural difficulties) should where possible be educated in schools which are not special schools, and

(b) any plans made by the local authority or any health authority for children's services in the area.".").

The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115. Clause 26 requires LEAs to prepare statements setting out the arrangements that they will make in connection with the education of children with behavioural difficulties. In general, the clause is to be welcomed but that does not mean that it is incapable of improvement. Amendment No. 114 seeks, first, to ensure that children are not excluded from school just because they have special educational needs. Indeed, we are seeking to see some of circular 10/94 actually on the face of the Bill. That is because of the discrepancies in practice between those schools which do not exclude those whom they should and those who do exclude even when they should not. Ofsted's report on exclusions in 1995–96 drew attention to those problems. We feel that the discrepancies require a more binding directive to be placed on the face of the Bill.
The second objective of Amendment No. 114 is to ensure that the LEA co-operates with the other agencies, such as social services, to address all the problems of children with learning or behavioural difficulties and thus enable them to remain in mainstream schools. In the ordinary daily experience of many authorities, it is not just the LEA which can bring to bear important aids in the drive to keep children with special educational needs in the mainstream sector. The second part of the amendment is directed at that concern.
Amendment No. 115 would amend subsection (3) of Clause 26. As it stands, subsection (3) says:
"The statement shall also deal with the interaction between the arrangements",
1508
made by the LEA in the statement and those made by its policies towards pupils with special educational needs. While we welcome the acknowledgement that the policy and the practice should at least interact, we believe that Amendment No. 115 would strengthen the provisions of subsection (3) by requiring consistency between the LEA's statement about the children with behavioural difficulties on the one hand and, on the other, the LEA's policies as they affect children with special needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I should like to express my support for the amendments. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 115. The measures proposed in Clause 26(3) requiring LEAs to prepare a statement setting out the support that they will provide in respect of children with behavioural difficulties ensure that the statement required of the authority about the arrangements for supporting good behaviour and discipline should take account of the "interaction" between arrangements for such pupils and its policy with regard to pupils with special educational needs arising from behavioural difficulties.
The measures are designed to promote good standards of discipline and behaviour and, in intent, are obviously welcome. However, where the measures fall short of being effective is in the weakness of the requirement. The word "interaction" recognises that there is a connection between pupils who are identified as having special needs associated with behavioural difficulties and the disciplinary problems which may arise from a similar cause. It suggests that there should be some consistency of practice between the treatment of individuals who come to the attention of the authority by different routes, but it remains weak in its formulation.
It is desirable that the policies adopted by an authority to discharge its responsibilities under different parts of the Bill should be informed by a similar approach. Amendment No. 115 would strengthen the Bill by seeking to ensure that the authority's statement is consistent with its overall policies and practice with regard to SENs. It is likely that local educational authorities would wish to do so in any event and we fully recognise that fact. However, we believe that the amendment would put the matter beyond doubt.
Lord Addington: I believe that both amendments are very sensible. First, they try to bring children with behavioural problems into mainstream schools where it is possible to do so. I believe that we can take it from that that the intention is not to have such children there when it is damaging to other mainstream pupils, but it would stop such children being ghettoised. Surely that is something that we should strive to do for the simple reason that if you remove children from mainstream schools they have great difficulty in getting back into such schools; indeed, their education almost inevitably suffers.
Secondly, when it comes to co-ordination, if you have a behavioural problem which is caused by something like hyperactivity, you must take into account such factors as health authority plans and programming because it is a medical problem which is leading to the

1509
educational problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments or at least give us a very firm assurance that they are unnecessary because the matter is already dealt with.
Lord Northbourne: While I agree with the proposed amendments in that support should be co-ordinated within the children's services plans, I should like to question the philosophy that we constantly hear from the Opposition Benches that it is always best for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties to remain within the mainstream. I simply want to say that that does not correspond with my experience. Indeed, children whom I encounter on holiday schemes from Tower Hamlets go to two different schools for EBD children—a day school, Weavers Field School, and a boarding school, Bowden House School. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the more severely damaged children who are sent to a boarding school make the fastest progress because they are separated from a continual "reinfection", so to speak, with the problems that they have encountered either in the home or in the street culture to which they return every day if they are in a day school or a mainstream school.
Lord Monkswell: In expressing support for the amendments, I do not believe that anyone is saying that there are no occasions when a child needs to be educated in a special school. One of the things that the amendments are saying is that, historically, we can recognise that there have been a number of children who have been to special schools and who would in fact have benefited from being in mainstream schools, with adequate support to enable them to flourish.
However, having said that, I should also like to add that, when we talk about children with behavioural difficulties separately from those with special educational needs, one of my concerns is that there is the risk that we may not recognise that those children have, almost by definition, special educational needs in that they have not learned what one might describe as the "normal modes of behaviour". I happen to believe that that sort of education is something which it is essential for schools to undertake; indeed, it is part of their remit not only to inculcate an academic education but also the whole range of social, personal and practical education which is so essential for young people growing up in a modern world.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, I hope that he will go some way towards persuading us that the problem of children with special educational needs will not be sidetracked or detracted from by describing them as just children with behavioural difficulties and, therefore, not really in need of support and assistance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I believe it will be helpful for me to stress that we are not seeking to impose a rigid policy on LEAs with regard to the way in which they treat pupils with special needs which lead to, or are connected with, behavioural problems.
It is a fact that Ofsted reported that the majority of children who are excluded from school have unmet special needs. Not all those needs will inevitably be
1510
behavioural in origin, but the symptom may have become behavioural. I refer to the example of the child with mild dyslexia who has above average intelligence but whose problem is not recognised and whose frustration at not being able to perform may lead to severe behaviour problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the circumstances of some children are such that they may be well adjusted to the home environment but they may have totally ill-adjusted social behaviour that makes them unable to function in mainstream education. Circumstances will vary but these children deserve to be treated as having special needs.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I think the noble Baroness would accept that she, myself, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are very much in agreement when we say that it is obviously not always right that every child should be integrated. As the code sets out—and as all the provisions following the 1993 Act have sought to do—every child should be looked at, whatever his special educational needs may be, in terms of whatever is the appropriate provision for that child within the resources available and all the other factors that LEAs have to take into account.
I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I have considerable sympathy for these amendments but they seek to add detail to the framework for LEA support plans as set out in Clause 26. We have drawn that deliberately widely to ensure that the new plans encompass the fullest possible range of local arrangements for pupils with behaviour problems.
As regards Amendment No. 114, I believe it is not necessary. New Section 527A will already require LEAs in drawing up their statements to cover their arrangements for pupils with SEN who have behaviour problems. Those arrangements are subject to the existing legislation, including Section 316 of the 1996 consolidation Act. There is nothing in Clause 26 of the Bill which would relieve an LEA of its duties under that section. It follows, then, that any arrangements set out in an LEA's plan must, under Clause 26 as it stands, take account of those duties. There is absolutely no need to reinforce that in the way the amendment suggests.
Also on Amendment No. 114, I wholly agree that children's services plans are key documents. It is clearly important that LEA behaviour plans build on them, and that in turn children's services plans are influenced by the arrangements set out in LEAs' behaviour support plans; in other words, that all the different component parts of the authority talk together and co-operate. I can certainly give an assurance that we shall cover this issue fully in our guidance to LEAs. But given the variety and the range of local children's services, we do not believe it would be appropriate to have further specific requirements on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 115 does not require LEA support plans to say anything about links with SEN policies. Clause 26 as it stands requires the plans to deal with this. One could argue that the interaction is somewhat on the weak side. As regards that amendment, we agree

1511
that there is a clear need for an LEA's policies and practices in relation to special educational needs to dovetail closely with its arrangements as regards behaviour problems. Clause 26 already ensures they do so by specifying in new Section 527A(3) that that interaction must be covered in behaviour support plans. We shall emphasise that point again in our detailed guidance to LEAs on implementation of their new duty under this clause. Any inconsistency between an LEA's SEN policies and its behaviour support plan would become apparent when the plan was published. It would emerge in any Ofsted inspection of the LEA's services, as provided for by Clause 54 of the Bill which we shall reach at some point later this evening, or perhaps later today.
These considerations will provide powerful levers to promote consistent and well balanced provision for pupils with behaviour problems. While we are sympathetic to the intentions underlying the amendments of the noble Baroness, I hope she would agree that it is not necessary to add them to the Bill in this way.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this debate, and the Minister for his response. It is always rather disappointing when the Minister tells us that he agrees with almost everything we have said but that he will not do anything about it. It seems to me that there may be provisions that ought to be on the face of the Bill but are not. However, given the circumstances, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
EXCEPTIONAL PROVISION OF EDUCATION IN PUPIL REFERRAL UNITS OR ELSEWHERE
(" . In section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996 the words "or part-time" shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the LEAs' new duty to secure the provision of education for children who are out of school—which was introduced in the 1993 Education Act—is for full-time, not part-time education. I cannot understand how it could be considered right that pupils out of school should be entitled only to part-time education. After all, parents are under a duty to ensure that their children have full-time education, so how can this provision be different?
I am aware that in his letter of 14th February after the Second Reading debate, the Minister made the point to my noble friend Lady David that for some—he gave the example of school phobics or those who are in hospital—full-time education may not be appropriate. However, the definition of "full-time" does not have to correspond with school hours. It is a principle of long standing that full-time home tuition, for example,
1512
is much more intensive than a normal day's school work. Therefore, full-time education can be less than the 9.30 to 3.30 school day. Indeed, that is the case with schools in hospitals.
Nonetheless it is quite unacceptable that excluded pupils receive—as many do at present—only a few hours' home tuition a week. The Minister indicated that he also considered that unsatisfactory. Both the Home Office and the Audit Commission have documented the strong correlation between out-of-school pupils and offending. Surely this is an additional reason for trying to ensure that these pupils should receive full-time education. If pupils who have already demonstrated behaviour problems serious enough to be excluded are left unoccupied and without stimulation, can anyone be surprised that many of them come to the notice of the police? I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this new clause which would ensure that an excluded pupil is entitled to full-time education appropriate to his age, ability and aptitude. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I wish most strongly to support this amendment. I raised this matter at Second Reading. Excluded pupils need a great deal of education, more perhaps than those who have not been excluded. It is most important that they are educated properly. My noble friend Lady Ramsay has raised the point that it is very much excluded children who are the offenders and are constantly in trouble with the police. If they are not occupied, it is not surprising that that is so. It is the duty of parents, after all, to ensure that their children receive education. Therefore, I think the Government should do something to be much surer than they are now that proper education is provided for these children. That seems to me vitally important.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In terms of benefit to society and to the individual, full-time education for those who have been excluded is paramount. I believe that to allow anything otherwise is a short-sighted policy. I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment. I hope that it will not be rejected simply on the ambiguity of the expression of "full-time education". I understand entirely the difficulty. To calculate how many hours of education in the week are full-time equivalent would be difficult. On the other hand, we know that a number of children who have been excluded receive literally two hours teaching a week. That cannot be sufficient. I hope that some formula will exist—it may not be in the words of this amendment—to impose an obligation to provide supervision as well as education for children who have been excluded. If the amendment is not accepted, there must be some provision in the Bill to make it positively illegal to provide only two hours' education in the week for a child, with no further supervision or supervised activity.
Lord Tope: I add the strong support of the Liberal Democrat Benches. Many of the points have been made. It cannot be right that an excluded child is entitled to less education than a child in school. If anything perhaps

1513
it should be the other way round. As the noble Baroness said when moving the amendment, full-time education does not necessarily mean school hours between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. or 3.15 p.m. There are different ways of providing full-time education. Nevertheless, the quantity and quality of that education is at least as important—some would say more important—for children out of school as for those in school.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, I hope that the Minister is able to support the amendment, or at the very least will assure us that he will come back with some provision which meets the concerns expressed on all sides of the Chamber. We have not yet heard the Minister's views.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support the amendment. For the majority of children for whom the measure is appropriate and in their interests, the primary aim is to reintegrate the child into mainstream education as soon as possible. Often alongside the behavioural problems is the problem of under-achievement. The more the child falls behind, the more difficult it becomes for him or her to be reintegrated into the peer group at the end of the process of additional help. Therefore we support the amendment.
Lord Henley: Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, on the importance and primary need for reintegration. I cannot say that I am not sympathetic to such an amendment, but there are two main arguments against it that I must address before I advise the Committee as to what I consider the best way forward.
First, I believe that an amendment of this kind could be over-prescriptive. Insisting on the provision of full-time education—we shall come back to that definition; it is important—for all pupils regardless of their circumstances could prohibit LEAs from making the most suitable provision in some cases.
Perhaps I may give one example. The noble Baroness. Lady Ramsay, referred to the letter I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady David, about school phobics and those in hospitals. That is a concern for them. I can think of another. We know that the alienated 14 and 15 year-olds—those coming to the end of their compulsory school life—are at the peak ages for exclusions. The reason that many of those pupils are being excluded, that they are being difficult, is that they are disaffected from normal schooling. A number of LEAs seek to re-motivate such pupils by putting together a package of provisions according to their individual needs. That might involve a couple of days a week at an FE college and a couple of days' work experience. I do not know whether the words "full-time education" would count under that definition. But we know that that kind of provision often works in turning around young people who would otherwise be at risk of dropping out of mainstream society. It gives them a new interest in education, training and the world of work.
1514
We know the effect and advantages of the world of work. I suspect that a provision of this kind could remove the power from LEAs to do that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further. Pupils from many schools undertake work experience schemes. We are not dealing in that situation with excluded pupils but with those who are required to have a full-time education until they reach statutory school leaving age. To the best of my knowledge, no one has challenged the position that those pupils are not in receipt of full-time education. It is an integrated part of a good programme of full-time education for secondary school pupils in virtually all schools. It would be wrong to dismiss the amendment on that ground.
Lord Henley: I accept that many secondary school children undertake a degree of work experience. As I remember the figures—I stand to be corrected—something like 98 per cent. of secondary school children are doing a small amount—possibly a week or two weeks over the whole year—of work experience in their final year at school. I agree that that is important and a part of education.
However, we are talking about definitions. If we are considering some plan put forward by the local education authority to involve considerably more work experience than that which currently exists, that provision might be affected by the definition of full-time education. If we are to go down that route, we have to be wary and get our definitions right. That is why I come back to the clear difficulty which has to be addressed of the definition of full-time education.
There are a great many other important implications behind such an amendment. The point was not addressed by Members of the Committee but there would be significant cost implications if LEAs simply expanded their current pattern of out-of-school provision. We know that in its report on pupil referral units published in December 1995, Ofsted found that some provision was of both poor quality and extremely expensive. We do not wish to go down that route. It found that the best provision was often also the most cost-effective because those individuals could then be reintegrated into school. There is clearly some scope for more efficiency in this area of education expenditure.
While giving no commitments because, first, of the implication of high costs, and, secondly, the fundamental point on the definition of full-time education, I am advised that work experience in statutory terms is "authorised absence from schools" and is therefore permissible for a short period. But we are talking of much longer periods; and for that reason the definition of full-time education would not necessarily be appropriate.
Having mentioned the three points of cost, over-prescription and definition, perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay. Without giving any commitment, I should be more than happy to consider whether officials can do something on an amendment like this, or whether the noble Baroness might wish to bring it back at Report stage. I shall not

1515
give commitments at this stage, but with the assurance that we might have further discussions between now and Report stage, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, since his answer seems to imply that for once we are in agreement as regards what we seek to achieve, can he assure us that he supports the philosophy that children who are excluded through behavioural problems should be fully occupied during normal schools hours and that the Government will consider the amendment between now and Report? Does the Minister agree that we should seek to meet the objectives, the general principle and ethos underlying the amendment?
Lord Henley: I cannot accept the noble Baroness's precise words. I believe that the appropriate provision should be made by the LEA. Some provision is not as good as it might be. Some is extremely cost-effective and is very good. There might be times when pupils do not have to be occupied to the full length of the school day. The matter warrants further examination. However, I am not happy with this amendment on the three grounds that I gave: first, potential cost implications; secondly, over-prescription on the face of the Bill; and, thirdly, the definition of full-time education.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I do not accept the three reasons he gave for the clause not being acceptable. Cost could be worked out—if necessary, within the framework of the capabilities of LEAs. I do not believe the amendment is over-prescriptive. I also think that one does not need to become so "hung up" on legal definitions of full-time education. I agree with my noble friend Lady Farrington that many provisions would qualify under the term "full-time" education and were certainly intended in the clause.
However, given the Minister's indication that he is willing to enter discussions about the matter, I am willing at this stage to withdraw the amendment. I hope that on Report we can arrive at a proposal that is mutually satisfactory and satisfactory to all sides of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 116A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
HOME SCHOOL POLICY
(" .—(1) The governing body of a county, voluntary, maintained special school or grant maintained school shall ensure that policies designed to promote partnership between home and school are pursued at the school.
(2) The governing body shall in particular prepare, and from time to time review, a written statement "a home school policy" specifying

(a) the school's aims and values;

(b) the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of children admitted to the school; and

1516

(c) the parental responsibilities, that is the responsibilities which the parents of such children are expected to discharge in connection with the education of their children while they are registered at the school.

(3) In determining the provisions to be included in the statement the governing body shall have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may from time to time issue.
(4) Before making or revising the statement required under subsection (1) above the governing body shall consult in such a manner as appears to be appropriate—

(a) the head teacher;

(b) the staff of the school;

(c) the parents of pupils registered at the school; and

(d) other bodies or persons who appear to the governing body to have an interest in the school.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to the amendments grouped with it; namely, Amendments Nos. 126A, 127A-C, 128A-C, 129A-C and 130A-C. I am sure that the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak to each of them at this stage. I am sure that others will wish to enter the debate in support of this group of amendments.
The home school policy is an extremely important part of the clauses in this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 116A seeks to insert after Clause 26, in Part IV of the Bill, the following provisions on home school policy:
"The governing body of a county, voluntary, maintained special school or grant maintained school shall ensure that policies designed to promote partnership between home and school are pursued at the school …The governing body shall in particular prepare, and from time to time review, a written statement 'a home school policy' specifying—

(a) the school's aims and values;

(b) the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of children admitted to the school; and

(c) the parental responsibilities, that is the responsibilities which the parents of such children are expected to discharge in connection with the education of their children while they are registered at the school.

(3) In determining the provisions to be included in the statement the governing body shall have regard to any guidance which the Secretary of State may from time to time issue.
(4) Before making or revising the statement required under subsection (1) above the governing body shall consult in such a manner as appears to be appropriate

(a) the head teacher;

(b) the staff of the school;

(c) the parents of pupils registered at the school; and

(d) other bodies or persons who appear to the governing body to have an interest in the school".

We believe that the home school policy provisions proposed in the Bill need support. They also need a degree of strengthening and clarification. Many issues are addressed in this batch of amendments. I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the proposals. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: This is a very large grouping. Some amendments seem to us to be more important than others. The two that seem to me important are Amendments Nos. 126A and 127B, to

1517
which I shall address myself—necessarily, I am afraid, at reasonable length. I hope that the Committee will bear with me.
The purpose of Amendment No. 126A, and indeed of the whole group, is to make what may appear to be substantial deletions to Clause 30 in Schedule 5. However, they arise mostly because of the structure of the drafting that has been necessary. The effect of the amendments is to require schools—that is, governors and head teachers jointly—to make a partnership document available to parents but to remove the admission condition attached to the present wording. That is what we find we have to insist upon.
This section of the Bill arises from good intentions on the part of the Government. It arises from an idea put into practice by some schools on an entirely voluntary basis which seems to have worked perfectly well. Many have argued that the provision should be more widely extended. As I say, the Government have proceeded from excellent intentions. However, the drafting of the Bill before us is not well thought out; indeed, it is ill thought out and could have unlooked for and damaging consequences. This amendment is designed to improve the Bill by retaining those good and laudable elements while eliminating the problematic aspects of the present drafting.
Every one of us can agree that parents should be given every encouragement to support the education of their children in the schools that they attend. Everyone can agree that the schools themselves should be clear about what they expect of pupils and parents and the ways in which they will help parents to support their children in the learning process. It is eminently sensible that these matters should be clearly understood and clearly written down in a document so that all parties can know where they stand. However, there are worrying elements about a law which allows schools to choose whether or not they will offer such a document and to impose their version of what it should contain. More than that, it seems to us dangerous that that should be done with the sanction of refusing a place at the school if the parents do not comply. The Government are, and always have been, keen advocates of parental choice. But providing a charter for schools to browbeat parents in this way is hardly an enhancement of that.
In Standing Committee D in the other place on 14th January, the Minister conceded that the Government's intention was indeed to tip the balance in favour of schools. In reply to my noble friend leading for the Opposition he said:
"I concede one part of the argument of the hon. Member for Walton. He said that the provision tipped the balance in favour of schools—'weighted in favour of schools', was, I think, the exact expression that he used. That is true, and deliberately so, for this important reason. The Government have talked over and over again in recent years about parental rights, and we have gone to great lengths to establish parental rights to express a preference for a school, to give parents a role in electing governors, to establish school annual general meetings, and so on. It is now time to talk more in terms of parental responsibilities. If this provision does one thing, it enhances and encourages the role of parental responsibility".—[Official Report,.Commons, Standing Committee D, 141/97; col. 541.]
1518
It can be agreed that parental responsibility is a good thing. However, there is an inconsistency here. Parental rights are set out in great detail in statute and in regulation. It is not left to individual schools to determine how far those rights should extend. Why should schools be the arbiter of the extent of parental responsibility? If the Government are now persuaded that parental responsibility is important, they must concede also that it is desirable that it is accepted by all parents.
In the public debate that has surrounded this issue there has been a great deal of talk of home school contracts or partnership agreements. The Bill is careful to avoid terms such as "contract" or "agreement". Such words are associated with voluntary agreements between parties of more or less equal standing. They cannot properly be used to describe a situation where one party is in a position to dictate terms to another. Yet we are here faced with legislation which is weighted in favour of schools, where a school can choose whether or not to offer a partnership document and to determine its content but parents have to accept the school's decision on that point.
However, the clause as presently drafted is not quite as simple as that. It recognises that there is a potential conflict between the ability of a school to refuse admission to a child whose parents will not sign an agreement and the right of access to free education. It makes it clear that admissions authorities can waive the requirement to sign; it gives the Secretary of State the power to strike down unacceptable conditions and to prevent certain kinds of requirement being imposed upon parents; and the final subsection, subsection (6), says that these documents:
"shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort".
In short, it is conceded that these documents are unenforceable. We have a document which purports to be enforceable but on closer inspection its sanctions are revealed to be ineffective.
What will the practical result be? The majority of parents surely actively support their children's education and want to work with their children's schools? For them, enactment of this part of the Bill will make no difference. Parents will happily sign up to a statutory document, just as they would have subscribed to an informal, non-statutory one. But what of the minority of cases? There are good but argumentative parents who are keen supporters of their children's education but who may object to some particular in the partnership document or may have a principled objection to being required to sign such a document. In those cases—and they will not be a few—there will be a dispute between the parent and the school. Either the school will refuse entry or it will back down and waive the requirement for the document to be signed. That will mean either that the parents' choice of school will have been defeated for no particularly good reason or that the authority of the school in insisting on its partnership document will have been undermined.
Surely neither of those outcomes is desirable? In both cases time and energy will have been expended, resulting in damage to the relationship between the

1519
school and the community that it purports to serve. On the other hand, less conscientious parents who have less regard for the education of their children might readily sign the necessary papers that enable them to secure their child's place at the school in question and subsequently pay no heed whatever to their responsibilities. Once the child has been put on the school roll, the sanction of refusing admission falls. The school is then no more able to procure the appropriate behaviour of the parents than it was before.
In most cases this legislation will have secured no practical advantages and in a small number of cases it will have been responsible for unhelpful or damaging consequences. That is the poor basis that we are presented with for law-making.
Perhaps most important of all, the amendment will require every school to draw up a statement of what it understands to be the mutual rights and responsibilities of school and parent. It will ensure that every parent has a clear statement of where the school stands on those important issues; it will provide the opportunity for a mature dialogue between the parents and the school; it will allow every parent to know what the school will offer them and what it expects of them; and it will provide a vehicle to assist schools in encouraging parents to live up to their duties and responsibilities. In short, it contains all the positive features of a home-school agreement idea and none of the disadvantages inherent in the present draft of the Bill.
If Members of the Committee will permit me, I shall say a few words on Amendment No. 127B, the purpose of which is to insert a simple requirement for consultation by the Secretary of State with parents on the partnership agreement.
Clause 30 works by enabling admission authorities to make the completion of a partnership agreement part of the admissions arrangements of schools. Other amendments in this group draw attention to the contradiction that the Bill introduces between this proposal and the continuing duty of the LEA to educate children in its area. Amendment No. 127B looks at the narrower question of how the documents will be drawn up. It suggests that parents of existing pupils have a valuable role to play in offering views on the detailed content of the partnership documents and that they should be given a voice by the admissions authority before—under the Bill's proposals as they stand—it decides the content.
It is suggested that, solely for practical reasons, consultation might most easily be organised with parents of existing pupils while recognising that parents of future pupils will have a particular relationship with the documents if they are implemented in this form since it is they whose children will be most directly affected by provisions affecting admissions arrangements. Nothing would prevent an LEA casting the net wider in general consultation in its area.
I concede at once that there is one slight difficulty with this, which is that of identifying exactly what that constituency would be. I can offer no easy solution to saying who should be definitively inside and who should
1520
be outside; but I am sure that the constituency itself is an important one, if not the most important one, in this process of consultation.
The Bill rightly acknowledges the importance of consultation elsewhere, as subsection (6) requires LEAs to take note of representations from governing bodies about whether the admission arrangements for a school should include a partnership document and about the terms of any such document and parental declaration and provides for annual consultation thereafter about whether the terms of any existing document and declaration ought to be changed. If the principle of consultation is accepted here as a necessary and important one governing the vital relationship between LEAs and governing bodies within the system of accountability in our public education system, why should it appear to be so unimportant when it comes to the public accountability of the Secretary of State to the parents of children being educated in our schools?
Governing bodies expect to be accountable to the parents of children in their schools and to the wider community that they serve. As an inevitable part of their accountability, governing bodies will necessarily be sensitive to the views and interests of parents. The use of partnership agreements where they have already been introduced in many schools and in various forms demonstrates very clearly the value of such agreements in making the partnership between schools and parents work effectively to the benefit of the children educated in those schools. It is a shared commitment. Closer working together between schools and parents is the hallmark of good schools in this country and elsewhere. That commitment in turn depends upon effective communication and dialogue between the schools and the parents.
Consultation is an indispensable element in the public accountability of our system of democratic government. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment or clarify how the principle of consultation with parents is to be adhered to in relation to the extension and development of partnership agreements in our schools for which the Bill provides. I hope that the amendment is a sensible one within the context of the somewhat flawed plans set out in the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise to support these amendments. I believe that their effect will be to give importance to the whole idea of the parent-school relationship and the mutual obligation which that imposes while subtracting from it what I believe to be the noxious element of making accession to this agreement a condition of admission.
I do not think that anybody in this Chamber needs convincing of the importance of the relationship between the parents and the school in furthering the education of the child. That point has been raised in many of our debates on this Bill and previous Bills.
In practice, at all levels of school education there is a growing realisation of the importance of those agreements or contracts, however one describes them. Perhaps I may refer to one at the upper end of the education system, which was discovered in a major

1521
secondary school in the authority of which I happen to be a member. By telling young people in the sixth form what would be their likely attainment if they worked hard for two years—emphasising that that was not just something which the school could do for them but something which they had to do for themselves—and by reviewing their progress on a very frequent basis, the results obtained by those pupils were very considerably improved. That was a practical, down-to-earth example of a relationship between various players in the educational field. Also, at primary school level, there are quite large numbers of parents going into schools and directly assisting with the education of their children. I have every confidence that a home-school agreement of the type enabled or created by these amendments would be of great use in the children's education.
But we must remember that the point of education is the children. Education is not for the teachers, the governors or even for the parents; it is for the children. It seems to me a most monstrous suggestion that if a parent is incapable, unable or unwilling to sign an agreement prior to the entry of a child into school, then that child can be excluded from that school. Also, on the purely practical level, it cuts across all the traditional ways of admitting children, for example, by nearness to the school, by sibling preference and so on—all criteria which have been built up over time. I find it impossible to see how the association of the excellent idea of a home-school agreement and the admissions policy of a school can possibly benefit anybody in the education system.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It seems to me that there are reasonable grounds for concern about the clause as drafted. I believe that schools could use the home-school contract as envisaged as a form of back-door selection, simply by including conditions with which it would be difficult for some sets of parents, some class of parents or some kind of parents to comply. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that consultation with existing parents is important has its dangers in that context. If existing parents wanted to exclude certain other groups of parents, they could do so by including in the proposed partnership documents certain conditions which would be difficult for those other parents to fulfil.
The second danger is that contracts designed and written by the school without consultation with the parents and simply slapped on the table as documents which have to be signed or there would be no entry are not partnership documents. That kind of attitude could destroy the relationship between the school and home which is now absolutely agreed to be a key factor in the educational success of pupils. I do not believe that anybody challenges the fact that home-school relationships and parents' involvement in education are
1522
some of the most important factors in children's success at school. I hope that the Minister will consider making some kind of amendment to the proposals as they stand.
Baroness Warnock: I support the amendments in a negative form, in the sense that I believe that as the partnership appears in the Bill, it has very dangerous consequences.
I want to ask one question which has not yet been clearly answered. What is the case with regard to children in care? Who is supposed to sign the document, which I hesitate to call a partnership for the reasons made clear by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. Such a contract would be useless if signed by the parents of children who have been taken away from them and placed in care.
The reply might be that schools do not have to issue such a document. But schools which are the only schools to which children in care may go—because they are the only schools which do not have contracts between them and the parents and there is no question of real partnership—will automatically contain a vast number of children who have special educational needs that derive from their behavioural problems.
It is very well known that the second largest category of children with special educational needs is that of children with emotional and behavioural problems. Years ago, when writing the report on children with special needs, we became very used to the expression "partnership between parents and teachers". At that time we became extremely conscious that the idea of a partnership worked very well over a whole range of disabilities that children might suffer but not their behavioural difficulties. So often the behavioural difficulty arises in the first place because the child is hopelessly at odds with the parents or is completely beyond the control of the parents. Some of those children are in care and some are wandering the streets.
The idea that an agreement can be reached between the school and the parents of those children, who in a way are the children most acutely in need of improvement in their education, seems rather a fantasy. It is on grounds of wishing to change the precision of the language of the Bill on the question of partnership as well as to challenge the propriety of using a document of that kind as an entry requirement for any school that I support this group of amendments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I welcome the emphasis in the Bill on the introduction of partnership agreements between schools and parents, which, I believe, have been neglected by certain schools for far too long. The Hamlyn National Commission on Education, which I the privilege to chair, was very much in favour of developing such partnerships to an increasing extent.
My concerns are largely those that have been expressed by my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lady Warnock. They derive from the single fact that in Clause 30 of the Bill as it stands parents would have to sign a partnership agreement before their child or children could be allocated a place. It is said quite plainly that the intention of the clause is not legalistic.

1523
Yet it reads as though it were a legal requirement. I believe that there is perhaps a remote prospect that the introduction of such agreements as a requirement of entry could ultimately lead to litigation.
It is well recognised that many parents are extremely supportive of their children's education and would welcome the opportunity of becoming much more involved. But there is also evidence that, particularly in certain inner city areas, there is a small hard core of parents who have an anti-education ethos and do not willingly take part in discussions—or indeed would find it difficult if not impossible to accept that they would be required to sign such agreements.
For that reason, I believe that the approach embodied in the principles underlying these amendments is much to be preferred to the way in which the requirement is expressed in Clause 30.
I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will remember that when he spoke on home-school contracts during the passage of the Education Act 1993 he said that in his view the contractual approach was not the right one; it carried too many risks of confrontation and allowed schools too much scope to exclude pupils. He felt that that could be self-defeating, making relationships between parents and staff rather stiff and adversarial rather than promoting partnership. He said that voluntary partnerships entered into with commitment on all sides are preferable to compulsory contracts entered into because they are required. I wholly agree that that would seem to be much the better approach. That is the principle underlying the amendments, which I am happy to support.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has done his homework, if I may say so, to remember that I was involved in that Bill, albeit in a minor capacity. He deserves much praise. However, I shall explain why we believe that the approach we are adopting, which is a permissive one, is the right one rather than the approach put forward by the amendments.
We are discussing a whole group of amendments—in effect, Amendment No. 116A and Amendment No. 126A and those following it. As far as I can make out, they have a broadly similar effect. We have a convention in this Chamber when discussing a group of amendments, and perhaps the noble Baroness will respond to the point later. If both amendments were accepted, there would result what could only be described as a nonsense. The same would be true if Amendment No. 126A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, was accepted. Clause 30 would then remain as part of the Bill as drafted. I hope that the noble Baroness will advise the Committee on that matter when she responds. The mere passage of one of the amendments would not in any way bind me with regard to the later amendments and it may be useful to put that on the record.
Unlike these amendments, the provisions in Clause 30 are permissive and not compulsory. We believe it should be left to individual schools to choose whether or not they wish to draw up a home school partnership
1524
document or statement; that individual schools admission authorities, be they the schools themselves or the LEA, should be able to choose whether or not to use a home school partnership document in an admissions process. The amendments seek, by different routes—I repeat the confusion between them—to compel the former and prohibit the latter. In our view that is the worst of both worlds.
Many schools recognise that parental involvement is one of the keys to raising educational standards. Many schools have excellent home school partnerships; many publish the type of statement envisaged by the amendments and many have written home school agreements. Probably, most do. We recognise that a few schools have yet to be convinced of the benefits of working with parents. However, legislation is not necessarily the answer. There is a case for the dissemination of good practice and guidance and we shall continue to do that, just as the noble Baroness and others would want to do that. But schools must have the freedom to decide how they can develop their own relationship with parents.
Parents—or, referring to the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, those who currently have responsibility for the care of children—may be invited voluntarily to sign a home school agreement after that child's admission. Nothing in existing legislation prevents schools from doing that. I remind the Committee that our recent admissions circular—Circular No. 696—issued in July of last year makes it clear that there is also nothing to prevent schools admissions authorities from taking into account a parent's willingness or otherwise to sign a home school agreement in determining priority for places where a school is oversubscribed. That has been the case for some time and nothing new in that regard appears in the Bill. But some schools may feel that inviting parents to sign a home school agreement after their child has been admitted is akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Our proposal takes the use of the home school agreements in the admissions process one stage further. They enable—not compel—admissions authorities to refuse to admit a child unless his or her parent signs a home school agreement, even if that means keeping a place empty. It is right that parents should consider carefully whether or not they can support the aims and values of a specific school before seeking a place there. Where they are unwilling to do so, there is a strong case for saying that they should not necessarily expect to gain a place at the school concerned. I do not believe that is a back-door method of bringing in selection, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested.
Again, such matters are best determined locally so that proper account can be taken of local circumstances and the views of the parents concerned. That is why, before schools' admissions authorities change school admissions arrangements, they will be expected to consult parents. That is the position at the moment—I can quote from Circular No. 696 which I have before me—and will certainly apply following the introduction of a home schools agreement policy. Also, under subsection (3) the admissions authorities will have to

1525
take account of the guidance from the Secretary of State. Again, I can give an assurance that we will be consulting on the guidance and it will include the necessity of consulting parents.
The decision on whether or not to use home school agreements in an admissions policy is properly one for the individual schools' admissions authorities; it is not one that would be appropriate for central government. Those that decide to require parents to sign an agreement as a condition of gaining a place in the school will be able to waive the requirement or specific terms of the agreement in individual cases if they consider there are good reasons for so doing. Parents refused a place because of their refusal to sign an agreement will still have the right of appeal to the independent appeal committee, as at present.
Amendment No. 127B, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, also embraces a specific requirement for the Secretary of State, in drawing up any guidance on the use of home school partnerships, to take account of the views expressed by,
"persons representative of parents of pupils in schools in the area".
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made some criticisms of our drafting—something that he promised to do at Second Reading—when he talked about the infelicities of some of the drafting in the Bill. However, his words seem no better and in fact bring in more confusion. Taken at face value the phrase,
"persons representative of parents of pupils in schools in the area",
would imply that the Secretary of State will draw up individual guidance for individual areas or even for individual schools. I am sure that that is not the intention. The reality is that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State will apply to all schools. It may be that the amendment is simply intended to ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account, for example, the views of national parents' organisations. If so, such an amendment is unnecessary. Such organisations are routinely consulted in consequence of the guidance put out by my right honourable friend and they will have the opportunity to make their views known.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also raised the point that the clause reads as though it is a legal requirement that parents sign an agreement and that that could involve litigation, if I understood him correctly. Where the partnerships policy is used, it is a legal requirement to sign an agreement in order to gain a place. That is all we are saying. But the admissions authority can make exemptions for individual parents. The clause also specifies that there can be no obligation in contract or in tort in respect of a breach.
The amendments, in the various ways they attack the problem, would remove the substance of the clause and compel schools to do something which is appropriately left to their discretion. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment; if not, I advise the Committee to vote against it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister asked me a question. If Amendment No. 116A was accepted, it would clearly involve a tidying up of the Bill—specifically Clause 30—at a later stage.
1526
Amendment No. 126A and the rest of the group do not follow on from Amendment No. 116A. They are an alternative way of breaking the admissions link and were grouped for that purpose. On this occasion I can—
Lord Henley: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? I was merely trying to make it clear that obviously I would not feel bound, under the normal rules that guide us, to accept this should the Committee decide to accept Amendment No. 116A.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think the problem that we face is one of grouping, as I understand it. I think what the Minister has said would clearly apply. The only reason they were grouped together was to deal with the fact that the Government are trying to get this legislation through at the very dying end of this Parliament. We still believe very seriously that all the important issues in this part of the Bill ought to have been debated over two Committee days. However, we accept the point made by the Minister.
We cannot accept the Government's position with regard to this. The Government persist in seeing the admissions policy and the admissions authority as having some sort of power, though not to exclude parents. In one of his replies the Minister referred to parents being unable to gain a place. It is not parents: it is children. This is not the free market system of the private sector. It is the sector to provide an education for every child. We believe that the partnership process is not one where the school or the admissions authority ought to be able to say "You are denied access to a place". We believe that in the community, in order to gain a partnership, it is necessary to support the alternative to linking the home-school agreement which, by its very nature, ought to be a freely agreed agreement. That ought to be separated from the right of the child to an education in that locality. In the light of that, I wish to press this amendment.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116A) shall be agreed to?

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Addington, L.

David, B.

Annan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dubs, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton,B.

Borne, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carlisle, E.

Geraint, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chorley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Grenfell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

1527

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hughes, L.

Richard, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ripon, Bp.

Jeger, B.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sewel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kintore, E.

Simon, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Stallard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Taverne, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tenby, V.

McNair, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mallalieu, B.

[Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thurso, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tope, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Nicol, B.

Warnock, B.

Northbourne, L.

Wharton, B.

Palmer, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Ferrers, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gage, V.

Aldenham, L.

Gainford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bowness, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burnham, L.

Keyes, L.

Butterfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Byford, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cadman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Luke, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lyell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

McConnell, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Courtown, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V.

Manton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L.

Middleton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moyne, L.

Erroll, E.

Munster, E.

1528

Nelson, E.

Seccombe, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Selborne, E.

Norrie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northesk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Terrington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Teynham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rees, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rowallan, L.

Wise, L.

Saatchi, L.

Wolfson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Young, B.

4.41p.m.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [No requirement to admit persons permanently excluded from two or more schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("of") to end of line 38 and insert ("—

(a) a child who has been permanently excluded from two or more schools during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the latest of those exclusions took effect; or

(b) a child who has been permanently excluded from a previous school during the period of two years following the date of exclusion where, in the opinion of the Chief Education Officer employed by the local education authority, the circumstances of the child's transfer from one or more previous schools gives rise to concern that the application of that duty would prejudice the provision of efficient education.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, the application of the duty imposed by section 411(2) above may be taken to prejudice the provision of efficient education even if the number of pupils of the relevant age group at the school concerned does not and will not by virtue of the admission to it of the child exceed either—

(a) the relevant standard number, or

(b) the admission number fixed in accordance with section 416 below.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 117, I shall be speaking also to Amendment No. 121. These amendments are part of a package designed to clarify and strengthen the section of the Bill related to exclusion from schools. Amendment No. 117 effectively ends the largely illusory right of parents to choose the school for their excluded child after only one permanent exclusion rather than two where the LEA considers that its exercise would prejudice the efficient provision of education.
This effectively gives the LEA the power to step in earlier in the "hard" cases, using its power in the 1996 Act to place a child in a school irrespective of the availability of places—that is, making the best choice for the child.
The phrase used in the Bill, "disqualified person", to describe the excluded pupil has been dropped in these amendments in favour of the description of that person given in the Bill. I know that in Amendment No. 118—and in a great many others—the Government get rid of the words "disqualified person" and I am sure that a good many of us who spoke about that phrase at Second Reading are extremely grateful that the Minister has taken the initiative. For my part, I thank the noble Lord for that.
As it stands, the Bill removes the right of a parent whose child has been twice excluded to gain automatic admission at any school with a vacancy for their child. We must always be cautious in approaching legislation that removes individual rights. In this case it can be argued that the existing clause may have very little practical effect. The capacity of parents to enforce the right that they have in law can apply only where a school conspicuously has vacancies. The schools which parents are most likely to choose are, by definition, popular and therefore likely to be full. The right of the parent, paradoxically, becomes in practice a mechanism which ensures entry of the child to an under-subscribed school which may be unpopular with parents and which may therefore become a substantial recipient of excluded pupils from elsewhere. Your Lordships should remember that the Ridings School in Calderdale—we have all heard a great deal about what went on there—had been forced to admit a number of pupils who had previously been excluded from neighbouring grant-maintained schools. I do not think that any of us wants to end up with all these excluded children being pushed into one or two schools.
Removal of this parental right therefore means that an excluded pupil can be legally denied entry into any school, but means in practice that the LEA's duty to seek a place at an alternative school for the child can operate in respect of any school in the area. Sections 431 and 432 of the 1996 Act give the LEA powers to direct admission of an excluded pupil to schools even if they are technically full. In practice, local authorities will always seek to find a school that is willing to take the excluded pupil and to give them a genuine second chance rather than using legislative power to enforce an admission on a reluctant head teacher. Nevertheless, the existence of this power is very helpful to LEAs in negotiating voluntary arrangements with the schools in their areas so that each school is willing to take its fair share of pupils who have been excluded from elsewhere in order that every excluded pupil would be given a "second chance" in an alternative school.
The effect of Clause 28 is therefore to help and encourage LEAs and schools to work together to get excluded pupils back into mainstream education as quickly and as successfully as possible. This is a valuable addition to the law and LEAs support it. However, the amendment, while remaining within the spirit of the original drafting of the Bill, improves upon it and will make it more effective.
The amendment creates a discretion for chief education officers to operate in the way envisaged in the Bill when a child has been permanently excluded from only one school. It has been drafted in this way because
1530
LEAs do not believe that the right to express a preference should be removed automatically after one exclusion, but it recognises that the circumstances that are likely to arise in most cases after two exclusions could sometimes exist after one; for example, where a parent is "persuaded" by the school to remove a child voluntarily and seek admission to a second school, which then carries out a formal exclusion, the position in law will be that the child has been excluded once. However, for all practical purposes, it will be as if the child had been excluded twice. In these circumstances and others that might be envisaged, we believe that mechanisms to secure an appropriate placement for that child should become available immediately.
Debate in another place on a similar amendment focused on anxieties that the amendment would give too great a power of discretion to chief education officers to override parental preference for an unlimited period of time. This amendment has been redrafted to include a two-year limitation on the alternative power and to make it more explicit that it should be used only in circumstances where there has been a history of "de facto exclusion" preceding the formal exclusion that triggers the power. The amendment has also been improved to rectify certain other technical faults in the original drafting.
I hope that the amendment will make the Bill much better for LEAs and for excluded children and their parents. This is a very difficult area, but I hope that the amendment will help to make things slightly better. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am somewhat confused by the amendment because it struck me—having listened to the noble Baroness, I am not sure whether this is the intention—that she was taking a considerably more draconian line with excluded pupils than we were proposing under the Bill. Perhaps that is a sign of New Labour attempting to outflank us on every occasion.
The noble Baroness seems to be suggesting that the parent of the once-excluded pupil shall be treated like the parent of the twice-excluded pupil. Under the amendment, like the parent of the twice-excluded pupil, the parent of the once-excluded pupil would have no right to a place in their preferred school. However, in this case, the decision on whether a place should nevertheless be offered will not be for the admissions authority of the school concerned which could, after all, be the LEA, but merely for the LEA's chief education officer. It will give the chief education officer the very broad discretion to take away the right of parents of the once-excluded pupil, rather than of the twice-excluded pupils to whom we refer, to gain a place in their preferred school.
In drafting Clause 28, we considered very carefully the loss of that right for parents. In concluding that it should be suspended for a period of two years in the case of pupils permanently excluded from more than one school, we judged that such a pupil might rightly be considered to have a proven record of violent or disruptive behaviour. That cannot be assumed in the

1531
case of the once-excluded pupil, as is proposed by the slightly more draconian provisions put forward by the noble Baroness. The exclusion may simply have been the result of a one-off incident caused, for example, by the pupil reacting badly to a temporary upset of one sort or another.
It is not clear whether the parents of once-excluded pupils will have a right of appeal against the chief education officer's decision. In practice, it would be very difficult for those parents to challenge the chief education officer's decision, since under the amendment he does not have to be satisfied that prejudice would be caused at the school of the parents' choice by the child's admission but only that the relevant circumstances "give rise to concern" that there would be prejudice. I believe that that is a very imprecise and weak test. As the amendment is drafted—I believe that the noble Baroness must accept some criticism in this regard—it would be unnecessary for the CEO to concern himself. It would be sufficient if someone else were concerned; for example, a group of parents.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has discussed this matter with the Church authorities. I believe that some of the voluntary aided and special agreement schools would have considerable doubts about giving the chief executive officer power to intervene in their admissions processes. Currently, an LEA has little say in those arrangements. The matter is left to governing bodies. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate has his own views as to that, because it certainly has implications for such schools. I also point out that the amendment is technically flawed. Subsection (1A) is unnecessary since the duty to comply with a parental preference as to choice of school for an excluded pupil covered by the clause would already have been disapplied by subsection (1) of the provision.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said about the amendments that I shall move shortly. From the tenor of the debate at Second Reading and from what she has said, I believe that those amendments will receive a degree of support from the Committee. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In response to the comments of the Minister, at this stage I should like to take advice on what he has said. I accept the thrust of his comments, but I should like time to reflect upon them and, if they prove to be right, to return to the House.
Baroness David: This amendment seeks to improve the position of excluded pupils and the LEA. It gives the LEA greater power to control what happens to excluded pupils so that they can return to school and are not all massed into one school. I hope and believe that this amendment would make for better planning. I should like to discuss this further in the light of what the Minister has said, particularly about the technicalities of the drafting, and also in the light of what the right reverend Prelate has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 24, line 33, leave out ("disqualified person") and insert ("child to whom subsection (2) applies.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 118 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 131, 132, 133 and 134. These amendments are intended to fulfil the commitments that I gave at Second Reading. I undertook to look again, in the light of the concerns then expressed, at the use of the term "disqualified person" in Clause 28 and related clauses to see whether we could come up with a better way of describing pupils who had been permanently excluded from two or more schools, while still retaining the principles of this provision.
The original form of words was a drafting device. I made clear that there was never any intention that any pupil should walk around with a label on his or her chest—or worse—saying "disqualified person". But I recognise the validity of the concerns expressed on that occasion. Therefore, to remove any doubt we propose this series of amendments to Clauses 28 and 29 and Schedule 5. I hope that the Committee will accept these amendments in the spirit in which they are tabled. I also hope that the Committee accept that they honour my undertaking to preserve the principle of the provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris:
"Accept a miracle instead of wit,
See two dull lines with Stanhope's pencil writ".
I can see from the look on the face of the Minister that that is one quotation he does not recognise immediately, although a few moments with the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations will probably assist him. Those were the words of Edward Young in 1820 in Spence's Anecdotes. And so say all of us in 1997, since only last week both my noble friend Lady Farrington and I were forced, sadly, to complain that in over 100 amendments so far the Minister had not felt able to accept even the vestige of one. Lo! here today we are able to thank him for his acceptance so far, not of two lines, but of two words anyway—"disqualified person".
This is a serious issue. I should like to quote one terrible historical occasion. In the late 19th century in Welsh schools it was the practice for any child caught speaking Welsh in the playground or classroom to have a piece of wood placed around his neck and the words "Welsh not" emblazoned upon it. That was a cause of both shame and delight to some of the people concerned, but it was a matter of enormous political passion in Wales at that time. We felt that the use of "disqualified person" might well have come into that category, even in this enlightened England, since I understood that it would not have to be done in Welsh.
The age of miracles is not passed. Now that the noble Lord has broken his duck, I hope that he will go on to rattle up a respectable score of matters that he is capable of taking away and reconsidering. The two words cause deep offence to all kinds of people. In the meetings that we held before this Bill came on to the Floor of the

1533
House, or since for that matter, it was regularly referred to as one of the matters that many people and organisations hoped would be removed from the Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to our request. I can only say to him:
"For this relief, much thanks".
Hamlet, Act I, scene I.
Lord Tope: I believe that in the Second Reading debate I was the first speaker to express concern about the use of the words "disqualified person", solely because I was one of the early speakers. That concern was shared by many noble Lords on all sides of the House. I cannot match the literary eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, or his expression. I believe that all I can say to the Minister is, thank you.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, should accept that my education may be limited, but even I would have got the second quotation. The first was beyond me. However, he will also have seen my entering the Chamber with a fairly large pile of documents. I think that to have brought with me the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations in anticipation of the wit of the noble Lord would not have been appropriate or necessary. No doubt those who advise me, if they have a moment, will look up these matters at some point. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I beg to move.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 119 and 120:
Page 24, line 35, leave out from ("schools,") to ("during") in line 36 and insert ("this subsection applies to him").
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("in relation").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
COSTS OF PERMANENT EXCLUSIONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the resources available to local education authorities, including resources from recoupment, in respect of the functions exercisable by them under sections 411A(l)(b), 431 and 432 of the Education Act 1996 are sufficient to enable them satisfactorily to carry out those responsibilities.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to draw attention to the need for adequate funds to be available to LEAs to enable them to meet their responsibilities to excluded pupils. In this connection one should remember the introduction of the special education needs code of practice. It was argued at the time of the 1993 legislation that to introduce better procedures would lead to more efficient use of public funds and therefore no additional resources would be required. One knows that earlier and more comprehensive diagnoses of children's special
1534
educational needs have led inexorably to a demand for more and more costly provision to meet newly developed needs. In short, costs have gone up enormously. The costs of exclusions may very well be similar. To require LEAs to devise and publicise explicit policies to deal with excluded pupils is bound to encourage schools to make increased demands on these services. No bad thing, one might well say, but it will create increased pressure on public expenditure, and that should be recognised by the Government.
The objectives in the Bill of trying to make the public education system more effective by improving schools' approaches to discipline issues, regulating the use of exclusions and trying to secure the best possible continuing education of excluded pupils are all strongly supported by LEAs. They also recognise that an LEA has an important role in that. They have to put in place appropriate frameworks of support for schools, and when a child is permanently excluded they have quickly and effectively to make alternative arrangements for his education or secure admission to an alternative school.
Those functions are recognised by LEAs and by us all as important and necessary, but they do not come cheaply. There is a serious possibility, if not a likelihood, that the resource implications of those functions will, to say the least, sit uncomfortably with the pressure to reduce central functions and delegate more resources to schools.
It may be argued that the problem could be solved by LEAs offering those services for purchase by the schools from their delegated resources, but the structure of the legislation (Clause 26) seems to make it clear that each LEA has explicitly to offer services to meet requests of schools for "support and assistance" in connection with the promotion of good behaviour and discipline on the part of pupils. That seems to amount to a requirement that the LEA offer a free service. In addition, it is part of the LEA's duty to deal with permanently excluded pupils, and the responsibility for providing alternative arrangements for the most difficult and disruptive pupils will devolve on the LEAs. They are of course the most expensive of all.
It is therefore most important that we can be sure that the resource implications of this legislation are fully taken on board by the Government and that the Secretary of State will give proper consideration to ensuring that LEAs have sufficient resources to implement it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may say just a few words in support of the amendment. I had the opportunity during the past few weeks of discussing this problem with a recently retired head teacher of a secondary school in my area. He said that sometimes this matter can be easily settled but at other times it is extremely difficult and costly. Occasionally head teachers can, in the kind of freemasonry that exists among head teachers of secondary schools, get together and discuss excluded pupils and by moving a difficult and disruptive child from one secondary school to another can, as it were, give that child a fresh start and a clean sheet.

1535
It is possible in certain such cases—they are more than a few—to solve the problem cheaply, quickly and effectively. But in other cases that is not the case. I should like to ask the Minister how any cost estimates for this activity have been arrived at. Secondly, is it obligatory that the LEA offers a free service, or would it be permitted to charge for its advice? Thirdly, is there a known average cost for fulfilling responsibilities to a permanently excluded pupil? That would be a helpful figure if it is available.
Fourthly and finally, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of, as I am sure he is, the activities of organisations such as Cities in Schools. I have had extremely useful discussions with the officials of Cities in Schools, who seem to be offering a remarkable service to excluded pupils by arrangement with LEAs in certain areas. If they have an 80 per cent. plus success rate with excluded pupils by virtue of the fact that they can pay close attention to individual cases. I should like to know whether the Government approve of that organisation and others like it as fulfilling a useful role in dealing with this difficult and recurrent problem.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment and the concern which was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I know that the costs of SEN have soared astronomically in recent years. I would not attribute that entirely or directly to the code of practice, but I am certain that that has been part of it. For the reasons that have been given, the same could well happen, for good reason, in the case of exclusions. I await with interest the answers to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who as, so often, posed the questions that I was going to pose. It is to be hoped that we will receive the same answers.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may intervene briefly in the light of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to make the point that the Churches have made provision in this area in the past. I think, in particular, of St. Francis, an institution of the National Society, which provided the kind of help to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred. It is the lack of resources which has forced a number of these institutions to close. Therefore, the question of resources is of enormous importance.
Lord Henley: Pupils who have been excluded from school should receive the appropriate support. That is something with which we all agree and which local authorities are bound to offer in appropriate ways. The amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State a wholly inappropriate role in scrutinising the availability of such provision. Resources in relation to excluded pupils, or for that matter in relation to all educational matters which are the responsibility of LEAs, are provided from within the local authority's overall budget. It is up to local authorities to decide what provision is needed. The Government play a role in deciding what the overall level of resources should be. That, in essence, is the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord,
1536
Lord Morris, about the Secretary of State determining what the need should be. He will know that it is part of the annual public expenditure round, and then of negotiations with the local authorities, as to what the final support should be.
It should not be for the Government to lay down what that should be. It would be wholly inappropriate. But within the resources available to them, it is properly for local authorities to decide what support they should devote to meeting the needs of pupils excluded from school.
I say in all sincerity to both noble Lords opposite that it is difficult to see how that local discretion can be reconciled with the amendment. I just cannot understand how the two parties opposite, who believe in the independence and autonomy of local authorities, can support an amendment like this.
The question is not whether schools and local authorities can afford to provide effective support for excluded pupils but whether they can afford not to do so, as the alternative to successful education and re-integration—something about which we talked earlier—of excluded pupils should be their long-term aim and could possibly be cheaper. It is an expensive and often ineffective alternative if the LEA is obliged to continue to provide for pupil referral units, or whatever, if reintegration fails. Again, perhaps I may mention the Ofsted report of late 1995 which I mentioned earlier. In that inspection it was made clear that the cheaper provision was sometimes the better provision and the mere level of expenditure on any provision was not necessarily a sign of how effective it is.
For those reasons, it is important for the LEAs to have in place effective policies which support the education of such pupils and their re-integration into mainstream schools. The introduction of LEA behaviour support plans under Clause 26 will help to ensure that they do so. For the first time, the full range of each LEA's provision in relation to pupils with behaviour problems must be the subject of local consultation and the LEAs must publish details of their policies and arrangements.
The noble Lord asked about Cities in Schools, a programme of which I must confess I was not aware. However, my officials are well aware of the work that is being developed. Some LEAs and the department have been encouraging that—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am happy to hear that his officials are in possession of that information. However, I shall ensure that I send him all the information about this valuable service.
Lord Henley: If the scheme is as effective as the noble Lord says, it is one that I shall be more than happy to know about. I regret that it is not within my remit in the department and perhaps that is why I am not aware of it. I shall be more than happy to read the information that he sends.

1537
I hope that for the reasons I have given the noble Baroness will feel it unnecessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I find the Minister's response very disappointing. The amendment is about ensuring that resources are available to the LEAs. It has nothing to do with interfering with an LEA's internal responsibilities. I did not understand the Minister's point about that.
It is cold comfort to be told that the LEAs must find the wherewithal to carry out these functions from within their own resources. Anyone who has first-hand experience of LEAs and their current problems knows the real difficulties which exist in providing the requirements for children with special educational needs. The issue of looking after excluded children shows all the signs of going the same way as that relating to children with special educational needs. It is a difficult burden on LEAs.
As I made clear, no one, least of all the LEAs, believes that anything but good is coming out of the actions which are laid down to look after the needs of excluded pupils. The amendment related only to the question of where the resources will come from. That is all it was about and we have not had an answer from the Minister—
Lord Henley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. This year the schools have had a pretty good settlement. We made available an extra £1.7 billion. That is money from taxpayers going to LEAs. It is up to LEAs then to decide how to spend it. The noble Baroness cannot have it both ways and say, "Yes, but governments then find specific extra money for specific things". That is taking the discretion away from local authorities.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Minister must be as aware as I am of the difficulties which the LEAs already have in relation to special educational needs. That is the best example because it is the best parallel for taking on the responsibilities for excluded pupils. However, I see that I shall get nowhere with the Minister and in a spirit far from contentment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Appeals in the case of persons permanently excluded from two or more schools]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 125:
Page 25, line 30, leave out from ("made,") to end of line 32 and insert ("section 411A(2) applies to the child.").
Page 25, line 37, leave out ("who,") and insert ("to whom,").
Page 25, line 38, leave out from ("made,") to end of line 39 and insert ("section 411A(2) applies.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 125A:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: ANONIMITY OF CHILD
(" . Where any child is the subject of disciplinary proceedings within a school, or related appeals procedures, there shall be no publication which reveals the name, address or school of the child concerned in the proceedings, except as may be required by the school's disciplinary procedure or any statutory procedure.").
The noble Lord said: Recently there have been an increasing number of occurrences where cases of alleged indiscipline on the part of individual school children have made the national news; that is, radio, television, newspapers and so forth. Serious anxiety has been expressed in a number of quarters about the damage that that can cause to children, their friends, families and communities. There is a precedent for our proposal at Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That prevents the publication of details about young people who are subject to proceedings in the courts. Those rules are firmly enforced and as a result the process of youth justice is enabled to proceed unhindered. How many times have we heard the phrase, "The young person whose name cannot be revealed for legal reasons"? That appears to be a remarkably effective deterrent.
It is a paradox that a young person accused of a serious offence outside school automatically receives the protection of legal anonymity, but children accused of misdemeanours at schools can find themselves the subject of national attention and branded, to quote a recent example, "the naughtiest child in the country". To have that label hung around one's neck must be as inflammatory as being labelled a disqualified person.
It was used of someone who I shall call Boy X, simply in order to avoid naming the poor fellow again. He was the subject of the exclusion row at Manton School in Nottinghamshire. The effect of that was to make Boy X a hero among his peers. Anyone aged from 10 to 14 will tell you that a boy or girl excluded from school instantly becomes a member of an elite. In the old days he or she was caned. He was pointed out as one of the boys who was regularly caned by the headmaster and of whom it was said, "My goodness, can't he take it". It gives a wholly unnecessary and undesirable notoriety to the children concerned. However, it will also be remembered when Boy X applies for a job near Manton School in Nottinghamshire. In fact, he would be well advised to get as far away from Nottinghamshire as he can when he seeks permanent paid employment. Furthermore, the notoriety is unnecessary unless one regards it as part of the punishment.
It might be possible to argue that the shame and obloquy of being branded in such a way by the tabloid press is part of the punishment. I would answer that by saying that all too often it appears before any guilt is established. Although of a lesser order of seriousness, school exclusions take the form of a quasi-judicial procedure including rights of appeal. Undoubtedly, it is the case that the individual child's right to a fair hearing and natural justice can be seriously prejudiced by media

1539
coverage. In addition to undermining due process in the fair disposal of the immediate cause of disciplinary action, there is a danger of much longer term damage to the individual child.
Being publicly branded as wicked, evil or irredeemably disruptive at a young and impressionable age can have a profound effect. It can often bring about the result which the branding suggests. Even if the disciplinary procedures work properly and the young person concerned is ultimately not excluded from school, the very fact of national publicity can make it impossible for him to continue in that institution.
Similarly, it is very difficult for a person who has been branded by the media to move to a different school and become integrated because everyone at the new institution will be perfectly well aware of the case. The new pupil will be pointed out in playgrounds and will be noticed by all his peers. Inevitably, that will militate against re-establishing successful educational progress. In many cases, it could and would be a permanent blight on the young person's life.
In addition, the onus lies upon the Government, and perhaps the Minister, to prove that to name the individual concerned is necessary. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the press, local or national, will usually act responsibly. We have a thousand recent reasons for noticing that it has not and it does not. We all know that existing voluntary press codes suggest that children should not be named or interviewed without the consent of their parents. It seems that that is well and good, if it works. But recent experience has shown that that is an appallingly unsatisfactory and inadequate safeguard. For example, parents who are unfamiliar with being in the limelight and who may feel that it would be extremely beneficial to have their point of view aired in public are easily tempted to give their consent and to speak voluntarily to the media.
We have all had experience of being telephoned and asked to comment or to fill in a lacuna in the story a journalist is trying to write, which, of course, will be wholly to our satisfaction. A journalist will talk on until he gets what, in his trade or profession, is known as the "killer" quote. Sooner or later, any one of us has been put in the position where we have said something which we perhaps did not intend to say. We have had one or two quite recent examples in your Lordships' House. I shall say nothing about the individual instances, but they were painful to all concerned and should never have occurred.
Parents are placed in that position and are perhaps even more vulnerable than we are. Many of those who have spoken to the media have lived to regret their decision when they realise the full implications of what follows. But by then it is too late. Their name, address, such descriptions as "attractive, blonde-haired mother of two" and the identity of the child become public property and there is no way in which to recover their anonymity. There is no way back.
This amendment, about which I feel very strongly, as the Committee will probably have noticed, would protect children by preventing—in the scriptural sense that it would go before—disclosure of personal details in the media.
It is important to note that the drafting of the amendment would not preclude discussion of any general issues raised by particular cases or, indeed, identification of particular schools. Therefore, this amendment presents no threat to press freedom. The press need not fidget that they are being shackled in any way whatever. The amendment would not have prevented the media reporting the overall situation at, for example, the Ridings School but it would have prevented some of the more specific abuses which have subsequently given rise to complaints, many of which are still before the Press Complaints Commission.
The amendment makes it clear that the limited publication necessary to allow the legitimate exchange of information among professional persons entitled to have it would not be impeded, and the local authority would be able to undertake such communication of relevant details to fulfil its function under other education Acts. I should stress that the amendment has the support of the National Governors Council and the local authority associations.
I end my plea for this amendment with a short quotation citing examples of unacceptable behaviour by the media from a report of the 22nd annual meeting of the Metropolitan Local Education Authorities at Salford in November 1996. It states that that behaviour included,
"offering money to children as an inducement to act up for the cameras".
Many of the children would not have needed any inducement at all to do that but money was actually offered. It goes on to refer to,
"The use of a mobile crane and telephoto lenses to film pupils in the classroom".
I think that most of us will have seen the shocking television pictures of that taking place. It goes on:
"Branding individual named children, who had been found by an independent body not to merit exclusion from school, as 'unteachable' or 'out of control"".
It is against that that I am fighting, and I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support the amendment. I attended the AMA education conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred. That took place shortly after the news and media circus at the Ridings School. Calderdale, the local education authority concerned, is a member of the AMA and naturally there was great concern about what was going on. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to a number of activities by the media there about which, I think it is fair to say, all of us—and most of us are fairly hard-bitten as regards the media—were quite shocked. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the fact that the media offered money to children to act up for the cameras. The sum of money quoted was £150. That is quite a lot of money to me, and to a child it is a lot more. That is not just pocket money. It is a substantial sum of money. I do not believe that those stories were disputed. They were accepted generally to be true.

1541
There is an area of very great concern here. It is fair to say—and I should put it on record—that at that conference the AMA did not call for statutory restrictions on such reporting but called on the Press Complaints Commission to develop and implement a professional code of conduct and so on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the amendment does not seek to prevent the media reporting and discussing the issues which arose at the Ridings School. Nor does it seek to prevent the naming of the school. But it seeks to prevent the naming of individual pupils, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, gave good reasons why that should be so.
First, it is a paradox that where children are accused of misdemeanours outside school there is a law to prevent them being named. When those misdemeanours, which may sometimes even be the same misdemeanours, are committed inside school, and subject to school disciplinary procedures, there is no legal prohibition. That must be a paradox and we should take this opportunity to correct that in relation to the naming of individual children.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said rightly—and we all know and recognise this—that at the time it can be enormously seductive and attractive to children to be the hero of the moment and have their name in the papers and to be foremost among their peers. But that soon fades and we all know, perhaps better than the children concerned, how quickly it can fade and what price those children may have to pay later for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the parents of those children, who may often feel that they have a real grievance. They may welcome the attention and interest of a journalist in promoting that grievance. They may thereby find that the story of their child is plastered across the pages of the national or local press; and it is more likely to be the local press.
It was felt not to be right that that should be so in regard to legal proceedings. Exactly the same issues should apply to what were referred to as quasi-judicial proceedings—certainly proceedings within schools. The same issues apply to such proceedings and we should take the opportunity of this amendment to correct that paradox. The same restrictions should apply to the naming of children and young people in school proceedings as would apply to them were they having proceedings taken against them in the courts of the land. I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Morris of Castle Morris, about the behaviour of the press on many occasions. Like the noble Lord, I refer especially to the instance at Manton and that at Calderdale. However, I should make one point about Manton. As in many similar cases—and I shall stick to calling him a "boy", even though his name was published—it was the boy's parents who drew the case to the attention of the press. The mother in that case believed that that was in the boy's best interests. That implies that the difficulties are somewhat greater than the noble Lord has quite grasped.
1542
I have much sympathy for what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I also have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. Nevertheless, there are difficulties in framing suitable legislation which would be an effective and practical solution. I should like, first, to make one small point. The amendment is drafted far too widely when it talks about "disciplinary proceedings". For example, does that cover every possible disciplinary proceeding from mere oral rebuke up to exclusion? Secondly, there is the problem of enforcement, and the proposed new clause says nothing about that. For example, should publication of the proscribed details be a breach of the criminal law and, if so, what should the penalty be?
I accept that we are discussing a complicated area and that it is something which goes wider than my department; indeed, I believe that it would quite likely involve the Home Office, the Department of National Heritage, because of its interest in the press, and could even have implications for the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I acknowledge that there is possibly a problem which needs to be tackled. I should like to consider the matter further to ascertain whether—and I stress "whether"—a workable solution can be found. I shall certainly read carefully in Hansard what both noble Lords said and, indeed, I shall consider carefully what others might wish to offer me in the form of writing. I do not think that I can promise that I will be able to come back with anything; indeed, I do not think that the noble Lord would necessarily be able to do so in view of the timescale involved and the fact that we have reached a relatively late stage of the Bill. However, as I said, I accept that there is the possibility that we have a problem here and one which needs to be tackled.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course there are difficulties. Indeed, I would not like to try to give a definition of "disciplinary proceedings" from the Dispatch Box. There is a genuine question as regards how this provision would be enforced. However, I do not believe that the problem is insuperable but it needs serious consideration in a wider forum than this and among a more expert group of people than is the case in a Committee stage in this Chamber.
I therefore gratefully accept the Minister's offer to go away and think about the matter, without commitment and without prejudice of any sort. If we on this side of the Committee—and I believe that I can speak for the Liberal Democrats on this occasion—can be of assistance, I am sure that the Minister has only to ask us and we would be delighted to attend any small meeting which he might like to arrange. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 33 to the Education Act 1996]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 64, line 22, leave out ("constituted in accordance with paragraph 3").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical drafting amendment to remove from paragraph 13(2) an unnecessary cross-reference to paragraph 3. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Home-school partnership documents]: [Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 26, line 31, after ("education") insert ("and the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 196 to 200 which I believe all deal with the same area. The amendments before the Committee are concerned with moral and spiritual education. It is a most important issue which has not so far been touched upon in any of the other amendments which have been considered under the Bill.
I believe we can all agree that there has been a general call today for a moral and spiritual revival. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, both in this Chamber and outside, has made such an appeal which I believe was very welcome. I am sure that we were all deeply moved by the statement made by Mrs. Lawrence after the tragic death of her husband. She made an important national appeal for a statement of moral and spiritual values. They struck a chord in our society and, I believe, were widely welcomed throughout all the political parties.
Therefore, it seems to me that we have an opportunity with the Bill to do something about this issue. I believe that it could be particularly valuable to send a clear message to the new body which is to be set up under an acronym which I cannot possibly pronounce—QNCA —and to the education service generally, to governors and to teachers on the importance of moral and spiritual education, something which I believe has much support in this Chamber.
In tabling the amendments to the Bill, I should like to make it clear that I am not someone who believes that schools alone can instil those values. Teachers have an immensely difficult task today. I hope that such amendments will be seen as an attempt to be helpful in a difficult situation. As I am sure we all know, many teachers work hard and successfully to instil into their pupils moral and spiritual educational standards; indeed, visits to schools show how effective that can be. Those teachers deserve our wholehearted support.
Many people find it difficult to talk about such matters, and schools alone cannot be held responsible. I should like my amendments to be seen as part of a general need for society to look at moral and spiritual values. They need to be seen in conjunction with the fact that I believe parents have a very important role to play in all of this and one that is in many instances more
1544
important than that which can come from schools. But they, too, find it difficult to know what to say. I also hope that we shall hear from the Churches, because I believe that they, above all, have an important role to play in such matters.
Perhaps I may make one general observation. We have had much discussion not just on this Bill but in this Chamber about crime and the rule of law. One of the questions which I believe we should ask ourselves is why in the 1920s and the 1930s, when poverty was so much more widespread and people suffered so much more, there was far less crime. Although that is a subject for a long lecture, one answer is that adult society spoke with one voice. If a boy got into trouble—it was more likely to be a boy than a girl—he was, first, told off by his father and his mother, then by the school and, if necessary, told off by the police. Everyone knew where they stood on a set of values. One of the difficulties today is that people simply do not have that kind of code to abide by.
The basic principle behind the amendments is extremely important. Amendment No. 127 would impose a general duty and, in a sense, is a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 196 to 200. The 1988 Education Act requires the curriculum to be balanced and broadly based, which includes a requirement to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and to prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Thus it asserts that spiritual, moral, social and cultural values form part of a broadly based curriculum.
The 1992 Government White Paper argues that education cannot and must not be value free. It states:
"At the heart of every school's educational and pastoral policy and practice should lie a set of shared values which is promoted through the curriculum, through expectations governing the behaviour of pupils and staff and through day to day contact between them".
The 1992 Education Act reinforces this by requiring that inspectors report upon the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils within the schools which they inspect. Therefore this matter already has precedents in law.
What I think is the problem today is that there is a separation between what can broadly be described as the secular curriculum and the moral and spiritual curriculum. I believe that education means that spiritual, moral, social and cultural values are most often associated with religious education, and at best today form what can only be described as a kind of "add" on to the central task of schooling, which is the delivery of the secular curriculum. This view seems to be supported by a selection of reports that I have seen from Ofsted showing that schools have a great deal of difficulty in this area.
The SCAA forum on values in schools has sought to reach a consensus, following a wide-ranging consultation, on those values which all schools should be promoting across the curriculum. We now have to consider how far this will be taken up by the new QNCA. However, the statements of value which have resulted are not linked to religious belief or tradition. The danger here is that the set

1545
of values which will become the Government's guidelines for all schools, while representing the lowest common denominator among a wide range of people who were consulted, are actually much more likely to become a ceiling.
The problem is that there is a separation between the secular curriculum and spiritual and moral development, which means that in the challenging context of modern life pupils are in many cases being inadequately prepared as young people to understand the significance of spiritual, moral, social and cultural values for the whole of their lives.
The amendments that I have proposed will begin to address these issues—they are simply a start—by making a connection between the spiritual and moral development of pupils and the secular curriculum. They also make a connection between spiritual and moral development and a belief in systems and traditions. They do this—I refer to Amendments Nos. 196 to 200—by asserting that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian, and that in the formulation of policies relating to the aims of schools and the spiritual and moral development of pupils, proper regard should be paid to that fact by local education authorities and governing bodies. Further, they require head teachers to ensure that the secular curriculum, in so far as it relates to the spiritual and moral development of pupils, is compatible with the policy of the governing body, and require local education authorities and governing bodies to include spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the formulation of policies for the secular curriculum.
I recognise that there is a great deal of concern in schools as regards talking about religion at all. There is a great deal of concern in society as regards talking about religion at all. Yet I could produce a great many statistics from a variety of sources which assert that, contrary to generally perceived opinion, a high percentage of the population sees itself as being a Christian of one kind or another, even if those people do not regularly attend Church. One of the most useful things that we can do is to look to values and standards which have stood the test of time.
I was struck by a speech of Dr. Nicholas Tate—he has sent me a copy—in which he talked about our shared and common heritage. I wish to conclude by quoting from that speech:
"Unlike previous societies we lack a shared story to tell ourselves about who we are, where we came from and where we are going. We had such a story once. It was based on the narratives of the Bible. We hear it loud and clear in the literature of the Middle Ages. We hear it still in Tudor and Stuart times: in the sonnets and sermons of Donne, and (loud and clear still) in the poems of Milton. People continued to hear it throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised Version, but weakening now and competing with contrary voices. It peters out finally in our century and has almost ceased to be heard, even at times within the Church. But we haven't replaced it with a new story that is widely shared".
A good basis for choosing to do anything in life is considering whether what one is proposing to do has stood the test of time. These shared values have stood us in good stead for nearly a thousand years. I see no reason why they should not stand us in good stead in the 21st century. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I wish to endorse what she has said and perhaps in one or two regards to elaborate on it. The word "spiritual" was insisted on by a former Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, when he negotiated with R. A. Butler on the terms of the 1944 Act. I think it is fair to say that the term lay dormant and almost unused until the 1988 Act when it was used in spelling out the purpose of education as having spiritual, moral, social and cultural implications. That is now also built into the inspection process of Ofsted, which is required to inspect these dimensions of education.
As the noble Baroness has said, there was a temptation in the original emphasis to look particularly to collective worship and religious education as being the means by which the spiritual and moral development of pupils should be encouraged. She is absolutely right in insisting that it has to be wider than those two elements. It is not only the ethos of the school about which we are speaking, but it is also the curriculum. The whole curriculum cannot be value free; it is the whole curriculum which has to be measured against these elements of development of young people.
I wish to make one or two comments with regard to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority document. The noble Baroness has already referred to the remarks of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I encouraged him to look at the SCAA process and to use it as a peg on which to hang comments and in particular to promote a debate in this Chamber which took place in July of last year. I think there was a widespread feeling that that debate was of significance and value. The point I am making is that it arose out of the work which had been done by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
The difficulty of the forum which SCAA has proposed is that it has been based on consensus. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there is a danger that that forum will simply propose and put forward—indeed it has proposed and put forward—what can command general assent. There is a distinction between what is the case and what ought to be the case. Those of your Lordships who are students of Immanuel Kant will know the emphasis he lays upon unconditional obligation—the sense of that which ought to be the case.
It is perfectly possible to accept that the SCAA document describes what is the case at the moment. However, it does not necessarily describe what ought to be the case—what are those shared values which ought to be part of our heritage which are shared with youngsters within schools. The SCAA forum process cannot deliver that dimension of values, it can only deliver the case at present. I owe that insight to a conversation with the chief executive of SCAA, Dr. Nicholas Tate, who clearly is influencing a number of us in the debate. He made the point that it is perfectly proper for Parliament to legislate for what should be the case in the light of our convictions but that the forum can only describe where people are at this moment.

1547
Many schools have difficulties over the word "spiritual". Those who are religious find difficulty in understanding the notion of spiritual without its setting within religion. Those who are not religious find difficulty in attaching meaning to the word. On occasions I have had conversations with heads of county schools in my diocese. They ask what is meant by spiritual development. Many are finding answers and I believe that that debate is significant and important.
However, one of the difficulties as regards the SCAA document is that people found problems in recognising the routeing of spiritual development and values in religious traditions. In this country today many people are not religious. Some make particular point of declaring that. Because of the emphasis on consensus, those who represented the Churches in the SCAA forum found great difficulty in obtaining any acknowledgement of religious routeing, both spiritual and moral.
I recognise that schools are not entirely clear what they have to deliver in this context. I reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that schools, parents, Churches, and indeed those of other religious traditions have to work together. Young people are influenced by many senses of belonging: to school, family and community of faith. Each of those senses profoundly affects the way that young people think.
Nevertheless, within the overall partnership there is clearly a role which schools have to play about which some may not be entirely clear. Many young teachers are not quite sure what they are expected to deliver. They are clear about the national curriculum and other aspects that they have to deliver, but not as regards this area. It is important that initial teacher training and the training of head teachers should include reference to spiritual and moral development. I hope that the guidelines now being issued by the teacher training authority on what is to be delivered to those who obtain qualified teacher status will include reference to those dimensions of education.
I accept the phrasing of the amendment which refers to having regard to religious traditions which are in the main Christian. However, we need to recognise that our shared story in this country includes religious traditions other than Christian. The values that we propose are almost entirely shared by other religious traditions. We do not need to regard those values as being derived solely from the Christian tradition. We can look for allies among other communities of faith as we seek to restore those values to the heart of our own story as a nation, and to our educational system. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Addington: The debate on this amendment brings to mind several debates in which I have found myself contradicting the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Spiritual, moral and cultural development depends on one's view. We are at the mercy of fashion. From the Benches opposite over a period of time we have heard much criticism of trendy theory. I suggest that at present the trend is towards what I regard as a more traditionalist view.
1548
I agree with the logic of the right reverend Prelate who spoke but I disagree with his conclusion. We have many traditions and styles. We have had a similar debate as regards SCAA. If a specific provision becomes part of the curriculum and one says, "Thou shalt do it in a certain way", that alienates certain people.
As regards the shared tradition of spiritual guidance, for every example of good, moral sense one can find an example of bigotry. Societies which say, "This is the way that we go forward", traditionally become incredibly intolerant. On the last occasion that we debated the SCAA report, I used the example of the communist society of Eastern Europe which gave us a mantra to chant. It happened to be one interpretation of the works of Marx. There is always a danger of some such development at a minor level.
I suggest that the cultural and spiritual development of young people is best left predominantly to their parents. If one starts interpreting events in history, one is bound to distort them in some way or another. By putting this measure into the Bill there is a far greater danger of damaging people's development than of creating benefit. The moment a provision goes down on paper, it will be interpreted and reinterpreted. This type of approach is so fraught with danger that it should be avoided at all costs.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord falls into a trap in ignoring history. Perhaps I may refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He referred to 1944 when Archbishop William Temple requested of Mr. R.A. Butler that "spiritual" be on the face of a Bill. We were in a desperate extreme in a war with a country more powerful than us, recently joined by an ally which had not yet rescued us from what looked like a terrible defeat. We were confident of victory because of our spiritual qualities. We were aware of our interdependence as individuals within the nation. Self-sacrifice was an obvious virtue. Courage was an absolute essential. There was a clear moral matrix without which we could not survive. It was perfectly reasonable then to ask that this should be recognised on the face of the Bill; and it was perfectly reasonable then that Rab Butler should ask the departing delegation, in an aside, to pray for him.
Now in 1997 we are in a world in which success is not seen as the fruit of courage, self-sacrifice and high moral endeavour. It is seen as skill in extracting benefits from the market and from society. The right reverend Prelate says that schools have difficulty deciding what spiritual means. That is an indictment of our education system, because those people are the product of earlier generations of education. If we simply accept that difficulty and say that it is irremediable, we shall accelerate down a very slippery slope into a bottomless chasm. If we are to survive as a nation worth its salt, we have to realise that self sacrifice, courage and endurance are virtues; and they are virtues not simply because they result in the survival of the country but because they are the inescapable conclusion of anyone who examines the religious basis of this country's history which is Christianity.

1549
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is poised to leap to his feet. However, perhaps he will restrain himself for a moment. He will say that this measure is in danger of becoming a bigoted enforcement of a single religious viewpoint upon the many minorities in this country. But it will not be for this reason. The amendment does not refer to Christian spirituality. The Act of Parliament under which the amendment would be interpreted is the Education Reform Act 1988. Thanks to the exertions of my noble friends, and noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the 1988 Act states that what we are teaching recognises Christianity as wholly or mainly the tradition in this country. It leaves ample scope for the local religious advisory bodies to ensure that the local curricula take account of local religious minority circumstances which in certain parts of this country are predominantly non-Christian.
I am looking only at the first word of my noble friend's amendment; namely, "spiritual". The others seem less desirable, but less essential, and simple to explain. If we ask teachers to teach children the moral and cultural background, that again answers the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because it will teach the cultural and social backgrounds of the community in which they teach.
In her amendment, my noble friend asks us to recognise virtues which are too easily brushed under the carpet and too easily silenced by those who wish to be politically correct. I hope that the Committee will support her.
6 p.m.
Lord Howell: I support the amendment and wish to comment on the noble Baroness's remarks about the relationship between schools and parents. That is the great justification for the amendment. It is the duty of parents to do much more. But unfortunately, as we all know, many parents do not accept their responsibilities in this area or indeed other areas. Therefore the question facing us is: if we do not tackle these problems in schools, even though we hope that they will be tackled in the home, in so many cases where will they be tackled at all? That is the great justification for the noble Baroness's approach.
Incidentally, I undertook some research in my old constituency—which I am sorry to say has the highest infant mortality rate in Europe—on the effect of some of these issues on single parents. I have been astonished to find that the attention of single mothers—with all their problems, living in high-rise flats, often trying to earn a living—to the spirituality of their children is probably greater than in many other areas of the city. That in some ways is a great comfort. We must not assume, as I know the noble Baroness does not assume, that the biggest problem is that of single parents. I do not find that to be the case. There is perhaps some complacency in that regard.
1550
The main point that I wish to take up, especially following the remarks by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, with which I strongly agreed, is the wording that the noble Baroness has used in her amendment,
"the religious traditions of Great Britain, which are in the main Christian".
That wording is very sensible—"in the main" Christian, but not exclusively Christian.
Again, I fall back on my experience in Birmingham to point that out. I hope that I am dealing with the right point.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is perfectly correct in his reference to the other grouping. I spoke simply to the first amendment, in which the words do not occur. I apologise for interrupting him.
Lord Howell: I am so glad to know that the referee is not offside on this occasion. I wanted to draw attention to a problem that worries me enormously. In my city, Birmingham, as I have mentioned before, in three years' time 50 per cent. of the schoolchildren will be Moslem. Some will be Hindu, some will be Sikhs, and a few will be Jewish. But the balance has changed. The challenge we face is how to deal with questions of spirituality and morality in a society with that sort of make-up. As a member of the Church of England, I do not think that we give enough attention to the problem of how we relate to each other in terms of religion. There is still a great lack of communication between the various religions.
The right reverend Prelate asked us to define "spirituality", or at least to discuss the question. I prefer the phrase "ethical studies" so far as schools are concerned. Ethical studies, which should be central to a school curriculum, can be related to each one of those religions. A great deal of common ground can be found between them. Indeed that is true of religion generally.
I support the later amendment because it uses the phrase "in the main Christian", which is a matter of fact. Religious traditions in this country are Christian; but we have to acknowledge the evolving situation and make arrangements in the schools, the Churches and society to deal with those changes. I would plead that, when these matters are discussed in schools and in churches, the ethical basis of society is the issue that is likely to hold the greater attraction.
I am pleased that, more and more, the Church has regard to ethical questions. In the church to which I am attached we formed a centre for ethical business studies. It is becoming quite revealing and produces a great deal of information from the business community about the ethical basis of its activities. This is an all-embracing question. However, its fundamental consideration has to start in the schools. That is why I am delighted that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment. It enables a few of us to make one or two points that we have wanted to make for some time.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment and very much hope that it will not be

1551
turned down on the ground that it is not necessary or that the implications are already there in the 1988 Act. It is fairly obvious that, as a society, we are in worse shape than we have been for a long time not only in regard to crime but in regard to a kind of total forgetfulness of morality. It is not sensible to say that the teaching of morality is a function of the family. As we have heard, an enormous number of families do not even possess a moral vocabulary. I was very encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elton, use the names of virtues as part of that which it is incumbent upon schools not only to teach by example but to name and to hold up as ideals for their pupils. If the schools do not do it, we shall repeatedly and increasingly be in a condition where we have no vocabulary left with which to say plainly that some things are morally wrong and other things constitute ideals.
I have some sympathy with the heads whom the right reverend Prelate came across who did not quite know what to make of the word "spiritual"—unless it means religious. Immediately we say that it means religious, we fall into the difficulty that there are numerous different faiths in one school.
I should feel perfectly happy to say to people who do not know what "spiritual" means, that they are there to teach the possibility of an ideal, a fundamental value, wherever it may come from, from whichever faith, or indeed no faith. "Spiritual" entitles someone to hold up an ideal which is absolute and which may never be attainable. If a child is presented with that idea, an enormous change for the better will come about.
I should therefore like to retain both words—"moral" and "spiritual". However, I believe that in teaching these values in schools it is important for teachers themselves to be unashamed of using deliberately moral words and not to be obsessed with moral relativism or saying that what may be right for one person may not be right for another, but to come down—if necessary, in an Aristotelian way—and talk about virtues and vices. We know that there are such things. I believe that, if the schools do not teach children that that is so, many of them will never pick up the idea and we shall continue in the wave of crime that we now find ourselves in. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: It is with pleasure that I rise to support everything said by my noble friend Lady Young. Her amendment seeks to place emphasis on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children, including the importance of marriage and parenthood in the bringing up of families, with which I wholly agree.
The majority of marriages are for life; the majority of children live with their married natural parents. We do not read nearly enough about the successful upbringing of children; we read too much about the occasional dramatic failure. Too much emphasis is placed by the media on the statistics of failure. Marriage and parenthood are not easy responsibilities to assume. On occasion difficulties loom large in everyone's life. Careful and sympathetic preparation at school, including how to deal responsibly with problems, will give
1552
children strength to cope in their later lives. We all know of the problems of housing, finance, mortgages, hire purchase and different family customs. All those problems contribute stresses and strains to marriage. Even such humdrum decisions as who does the washing-up and who makes the bed can be the cause of great tension. If children discuss such problems openly at school under proper supervision, incorporating the principles put forward by my noble friend Lady Young, which have stood the test of time, they will later recall what they have learnt and, we hope, find permanent solutions in their own lives.
If the children of a marriage also see their parents come to an amicable solution of their problems following a disagreement, that will provide a stable basis for their upbringing and will help in their own future marriages.
As a fellow member of the Church of England, I support the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lady Young on Christianity; but I also support an ecumenical viewpoint and co-operation between different religions on spiritual development of children. A spiritual vacuum, which is the alternative, is a much more dangerous situation.
I hope that the Government will accept the principles of my noble friend's amendments and incorporate them into the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question, but before doing so I should like to comment briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said when he linked history, religion and morality.
It is simply not possible to look back at the history of our own country, and certainly not at the history of our own continent, and say that religions were always virtuous. We have had persecution of the Jews by various Christian bodies; we have had persecution and burning of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics. We cannot say that just by looking at religion we shall obtain a guide for today's morality. In fact everyone who has spoken has also said that tolerance, which is a modern virtue—it was not a virtue 300 years ago, but is one of today's virtues—should be part of our moral armour. We should not always refer back to what were our basic virtues in the past. What people perceive as being important changes over time. There are a lot of things that many of us would feel are virtues; I personally think of truthfulness, courage, a generous heart and modesty. However, over time not everybody has necessarily supported the same set of virtues. Morality changes. We are all human beings and therefore our ability to interpret religion changes. That does not mean that there is not a spiritual aspect to the life of every human being that needs to be nurtured.
I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. It is important that educators take on board some of the aspects of education that she raised. I remember some years ago an education committee trying to lay down what education should be about. Some of us had to struggle to get the word "moral" back

1553
into the list because we were then talking of vocational matters. "The person" was being edged out because of the need to prepare that person for adult life.
I have a problem with the reference in the noble Baroness's later amendments to the principle of a mainly Christian approach. If I understand it correctly, this set of amendments has to do with the home-school agreements with which we were concerned earlier. Those home-school agreements are still part, or potentially part, of the admissions process of schools. I should like the noble Baroness to tell us how she thinks that will work when parents who wish their children to go to a particular school come from a wide range of different backgrounds, including non-religious people. That does not mean that those people do not have spiritual values. In today's world people can be very considerate of others and very keen to do their best for the world but be anti-religious. That must be accepted.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: Does the noble Baroness agree with the estimate of one of the most revered humanists in this Chamber—he may address us—when he told us long ago that 10 per cent. of the population was non-religious?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I cannot dispute or agree with the figure because I do not remember, but I am willing to accept that that was what was said. All I can say is that, in my experience, a considerable proportion of people are anti-religious. I am not part of that group. That is one group who might be disconcerted. A second group might be unwilling to sign the pre-admission agreement between the school and the parents. The same might be true of those who come from different religious backgrounds. How does the noble Baroness, Lady Young, see this fitting in with the rest of the Bill?
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. It is clear that her amendment has a great deal of support in this Chamber and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept it into the Bill. Amendment No. 127 refers to "spiritual, moral, social and cultural development" and does not include the word "Christian" at all. That does not mean to say that Christian values are not included. In her later amendments she correctly points out that Christian tenets are in the main the ones that are recognised in this country. However, in the context of Clause 30 that does not lead me to say that every religious class will be dealing with Christianity. On the contrary, I believe that it is very valuable that the word "spiritual" is used rather than the word "Christian" in that it gives a wider definition of what children should expect to learn. In all the cases that I have known over the many years in which I have dealt with schools, I have seldom found that parents—even when they are non-religious or when
1554
specifically atheists—object to their children having some kind of general spiritual education in school. In fact I believe they expect it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she would accept that in this country there are places where people have fought to retain county schools because all the other schools for the age group in that area were religious schools. It is simply a matter of fact. I may not agree with it but it is part of the society in which we live.
Baroness Elles: I thank the noble Baroness for pointing that out. But this particular clause is a voluntary and not mandatory provision. The clause states:
"The admission arrangements for a county or voluntary school may include provisions".
It gives the opportunity to those schools which wish to include these provisions to do so. I believe that that is the right and proper way to do it. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend's amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that it seems to me—though I may be wrong—that the amendment refers to Clause 30. It simply states that schools in their statement should specify, among other things, not only the education but:
"the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development"
of the pupils. Schools could specify that it was nil. The provision does not state that there has to be spiritual development and so on. It is simply a statement.
It seems to me of the greatest importance and interest to all parents to know whether or not a school is delivering those kinds of teaching and if so what they are. This particular clause, unlike subsequent clauses, is in no way mandatory and does not tell schools what they have to do.
Lord Stallard: I can be very brief. Much of what I would have said has already been said. But I feel that it is necessary to rise in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in support of my noble friend Lord Howell's remarks about his experience in the inner cities. I have lived in London now for 60 years, come next month. I have seen the tremendous changes that have taken place in schools, education, housing, crime and goodness knows what. Much has gone on in those years.
Those of us who can remember the atmosphere that surrounded the 1944 Education Act, and immediately afterwards when it was implemented, know that there was then a totally different atmosphere. There was a far wider acceptance of the spiritual and moral standards that prevailed in those days. An acceptance of those standards was written into that Act and encompassed everything that surrounded it.
We are now in a totally different set of circumstances. The country and society have become more secularised than it was and there are many more problems as a result. Certainly, I accept and support what the right reverend Prelate said about the need to pay attention to other

1555
religions. I do not advocate that this area is solely the province of Christians. For example, there is the understanding and acceptance of the relationship of marriage as a necessity rather than just something which happens and the emphasis on marriage as a basis for family life and for communities. Those views are shared by the people of other religions who have come to this country. Many of the views that we hold as Christians are shared by the followers of other religions, whose children go to our schools and are taught by the same teachers. That has made it much more difficult for the teachers. Gradually, through the years, religion has changed. In this country religion has meant Christianity and Christianity has implied something traditional, old-fashioned and out-of-date. As time has passed it has become a lesson which is added on to the curriculum, to be spoken about if there is time. It does not have its own space. It is not something which should first be there and then go on to embrace all the other aspects mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. If such teaching were put back on to the agenda, teachers could talk to the children. It would be understood that they must advocate marriage and a stable home.
Teachers face much opposition at the moment. We could discuss for hours the opposition they encounter from videos, television, the tabloid press and so on. The papers are full of examples from soap operas which seem to emphasise the virtues of homosexuality, drugs, and so on. All those aspects are brought in. Teachers may well try to teach one thing during the day and find that in the evening or after school the children are being taught by a different medium altogether which pushes out what they have learnt at school. I do not blame the teachers.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned training. Religious or spiritual training does not come through from some teachers, some of whom have themselves been brought up by a generation which did not believe in religion, did not understand it or came from the same background as some of the pupils of whom we have recently been speaking. There is a big problem, but it is not insurmountable. We should all speak with one voice and the people should be given a lead.
I do not criticise present company but I am saddened by the lack of a lead from the Churches. It is all very well to talk above people's heads. Much of the discussion about morality and spirituality goes way above the heads of ordinary parents. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches was almost right to say that we should talk to people about the meaning of tolerance and of following virtue and shunning vices. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, mentioned rights and wrongs: people understand that. That ought to be placed high on the agenda and not just be something that is mentioned in passing or if there is time or a teacher who used to go to Church can be found who is inclined to speak about it and is willing to be used as a part-time tutor, and so on. Those things have to be put back on to the agenda.
Therefore, it is necessary to accept what the noble Baroness seeks in her amendments. I understand exactly what she wants and why the amendment should be included. The amendments should be carried and then
1556
we should discuss, if we have to, how best to implement them in order to obtain what we all understand is absolutely necessary if we are to make any impact on the major problems.
Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to support this amendment and to speak very briefly. It is sad to have to make the observation that, say, 30 or 40 years ago the word "education" would automatically have included the words in the noble Baroness's amendment:
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
That was a tradition that we all shared.
I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who said that we have shared traditions but in fact it is now the fashion to be religious, moral, ethical, spiritual and so on—that is not exactly what he said, but that was the inference—and we should not pander to fashion. I suggest to him that the breakdown in the spiritual, social and moral standards in this country is a fashion and not a tradition. We ought to try to make sure that we go back to the traditions of this country.
Lord Addington: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. We can always select from history examples of spiritual and moral values. At the beginning of World War One a very high proportion of the population was illegitimate. Marriage was not that common. One can go back to periods when prostitution was rife in London. One can always select examples. Whether or not one goes to church makes no difference.
Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Lord and I may have listened to the same radio programme this morning. But the shared traditions of this country are very strong. I believe that the word "education" should encompass those four requirements of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development included in the amendment.
I am sure that the whole Committee is concerned about the lack of spiritual, moral, cultural and social development in young children. When people consider all the problems that we face, they ask why we do not have that spiritual, moral, cultural or social development.
I fear it is too easy to say that it is the duty of parents. We all know the problems that parents face—we heard them graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in relation to single mothers and high-rise blocks. Parents do their best to instil those values into their children against all odds, and I am sure they are succeeding. But it should also be part of education. Once we assumed that it was part of education; now it seems that everything must be defined. The requirement should be defined in this way in the Bill. I support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My objection to the amendment is the use of the word "spiritual"—a concern expressed also in the debate by other Members of the Committee. The word "spirit" has a connotation of

1557
religious belief; indeed, it is more than that. Some of us do not believe that there is such a thing as "spirit" and therefore what the noble Baroness said is a non sequitur and should not be part of the normal education our children receive.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon spoke with his usual courage in attempting to deal with the word "spiritual". However, he did not appear to reach a conclusion, though I am sure he could convince me if we spoke about this matter outside the Chamber. My message is simple: around 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the people in this country do not have a religious belief.
The Earl of Longford: On the last occasion my noble friend told us the figure was 10 per cent. It seems to have multiplied very quickly.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I did not catch what my noble friend said. What I was about to say was that there will be disagreement about whether the figure is 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 30 per cent. What is accepted is that a substantial number of the population of this country are non-believers; they are atheists, agnostics, humanists and so forth. The Committee may be interested to know that there is a parliamentary humanist group which has no fewer than 50 members from both Houses. That seems to be an indication that there is another viewpoint. I do not deny that religion in its full sense can and does produce high standards; I am saying that there is not necessarily a connection between the two.
I want to be brief but perhaps I can remind the Committee what the clause is about. Clause 30 states:
"The admission arrangements for a county or voluntary school may include provisions"
and they are listed. If the amendment is carried the clause will include the word "spiritual", to which some of us are opposed.
Suppose the parents of a child in a school are presented with the list of requirements for admission and say, "We are not believers. We are agnostics, or atheists, non-religious and so forth. As I interpret the clause, it means that they would not be allowed to send their children to that school. That is something which must be of fundamental importance.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will accept that it is already a requirement on governing bodies that they should have a policy on spiritual, moral, cultural and social development. All Amendment No. 127 does is require them to publish it so that parents know what the policy is.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I was aware of that. I am also aware that three or four years ago we had a long debate as to whether or not we should include the word "Christianity" in the Act. That was agreed at that time, though some of us opposed it. But that is the law
1558
and we accept it. However, when a specific word which has a religious connotation is being included, we cannot treat it lightly.
The Earl of Longford: I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, very strongly. Years ago Rosamund Toynbee, the famous writer, wrote about her father. She said that he was "a good pagan". The noble Baroness is a "good Conservative"—not the only one, of course—in this area.
I opened a debate on moral education last November and, if anyone wants my views, they are set out succinctly in the Official Report. One can look at this argument from two standpoints. First, one can consider the kind of education one would like to see adopted throughout schools in this country; secondly, one can consider the kind of education one might reasonably expect the Government to ensure.
I speak unequivocally as a Christian. I am not one of those who thinks that Christian ethics are much the same as others. Of course there are wonderful Christians, like my noble friend here. However, I understand that she was baptised a Catholic and may well look down on converts like myself. We also have wonderful humanists, like others who have spoken; they are wonderful people.
I worked as bottle washer for Lord Beveridge for three years. He made wonderful plans for the welfare state and for humanity. At the end of his life, in 1961, we had a debate in the House on Christian unity in which Lord Beveridge took part and spoke up for Christian unity. I said to him at tea afterwards—I always called him "Master" because he was the Master of University College—"Master, I am glad to see that you came out as a Christian. What denomination do you belong to?" He paused and then I said, "When I was at school, if you could not get a boy into a house, you put him down on the general list. Put me down on the general list". Today I ask the Committee to put education on the general Christian list; I am certainly not speaking on behalf of only one denomination.
In relation to Christian ethics, no one can deny that the ideas of humility and forgiveness were introduced by Jesus Christ. They are distinctive Christian virtues, though they were adopted and adapted by other faiths. One cannot imagine a Christian community today persecuting Salman Rushdie. There are therefore differences of ethics between different religions.
I speak unequivocally as a Christian. It is strange that people do not like to mention their Christian beliefs— I think for two reasons. First, they fear it may be boastful; that it may be thought they are claiming to be better than other people. Secondly, people in this country do not like talking about that which is most sacred to them. That is why even very good Christians do not mention the word "Christian". As I say, I speak unequivocally as a Christian.
Does that mean that one is entitled to ask the Government about Christianity? I am sorry that the number of humanists appears to have been multiplied since we last debated the issue. I remember the figure of 10 per cent. well because I quoted it myself in

1559
the debate I opened in November; it has now risen to 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. though I have no reason to believe that the humanists are increasing. At the beginning of this century the Bloomsbury set were high-minded humanists. I do not believe that there is anything in the world today equivalent to the Bloomsbury set.
One must face the fact that this is primarily a Christian country with a small proportion of humanists—about as many humanists as there are Roman Catholics. As I quoted in the last debate, 3.7 per cent. of the population belong to other religions. This is primarily a Christian country. "Christianity" was installed in the Act of 1988 on the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I hope that that promise will be fulfilled tonight.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I can point out that the noble Earl combined the word "spirituality" specifically with the Christian faith. But surely spirituality is part of any faith; even a humanist has some feeling of good or ill. It must have some connotation of spirituality about it.
Spirituality is an aspiration and it may be that many of those who aspire to the Christian faith, as I do, still regard it as an aspiration. As an aspiration and an aim spirituality is an important goal for young children. The sooner our teachers can get spirituality into themselves as they teach it, the better for all of us.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: At the risk of being brief and boring perhaps I can recall the Committee to Amendment No. 127. I am sympathetic to the view of the noble Baroness; but this amendment would require schools to state in home partnership documents not only what the school intends to do about the education of children admitted to the school, but also about the children's,
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
The phrase originates from the School Inspections Act 1996, Section 10(5)(d) which says that registered inspectors conducting an inspection have to report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school. The phrase was added to the original legislation following pressure from Back-Bench peers, although it was a government amendment in 1992. That formula was devised for registered inspectors carrying out inspections. I do not think it necessarily translates easily to what schools might wish to put into a partnership document. It might be better if parents were directed to the general duties in respect of the school curriculum which are found in Section 351 of the Education Act, for instance.
Generally, Amendment No. 127 has difficulties because it makes an additional requirement to the already difficult burdens that schools will have in meeting other government education legislation. Let me point to just three things. First, we live in a multi-faith society. Moslems, Hindus and Sikhs might very well have difficulties in signing up to a home school partnership which included terms of this kind.
1560
Secondly, people whose ideals of morality are not religious would certainly have difficulty in signing up to this kind of document, and that might well affect the way in which their children were treated. The noble Baroness referred to the moral and spiritual consensus which lasted from the Middle Ages until Victorian England, and how true it was that it did. However, it does not apply now: it is all in pieces, all coherence gone, as John Donne put it.
Thirdly, this has not been discussed, so far as I know, with head teachers or governors. It could be used as part of the admissions procedure to a school, and it is in such a sensitive area and it is so big an issue that the home school contract is just too small a room for it to be contained.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 196 to 200, may I put on the record the other technical difficulties which get in the way of my sympathy. These amendments require the local education authority, in Amendment No. 196, county controlled and maintained special school bodies in Amendment No. 197, head teachers of county controlled and maintained special schools in Amendment No. 198, governing bodies and teachers of aided and special agreement schools in Amendment No. 199 and grant-maintained schools in Amendment No. 200, to exercise their functions to promote the spiritual and moral development of pupils. Amendment No. 199 would appear to me to restrict the responsibilities of aided schools in respect of religious education. Amendment No. 135 inserts a similar formulation to what schools state they will do for pupils through home school partnerships, and that is why they come together.
I wonder whether they are not present already through the general duty on the school curriculum covered by Section 351 of the Education Act 1996, as we now have it, which requires schools to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. I have difficulties in fitting all these things together, and for those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this to a Division tonight. We must give the Government time and opportunity to reflect on the significance and the technical difficulties which these wholly admirable amendments, for which I have great sympathy, present.
Lord Henley: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on one thing and, I suspect, as always, on one thing only: that is the primary role of parents in terms of the spiritual and moral development of their children. It is always important to remember that primary role where there are parents so to exercise these functions. However, I also fully share my noble friend's views that schools have an important role to play in promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of their pupils.
That is why, like my noble friend and also like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on behalf of the Government I would like to make it clear that we recognise that Section 351 of the 1996 Act requires local education authorities and the school governing bodies, together with head teachers, to ensure that the curriculums of their schools promote the spiritual, moral, cultural,

1561
mental and physical development of pupils at the school and in society and prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. I believe that the reference to schools discharging their general responsibilities in connection with the education of children in the school can already cover all those things.
However, talking particularly about Amendment No. 127, I believe that when it comes to home school partnerships, the partnership documents and how they should be used, these should be matters for the admission authorities to decide what they want to include in their documents. I think I said earlier that I, for one, would not want to be prescriptive about that. Our proposals merely seek to set out a general framework for the partnership document, and it is right that decisions of coverage and points of fine detail should be decided at local level, no doubt bearing in mind Section 351 of the 1996 Act, as quoted by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Parents will be aware of the school's position and the action it proposes to take for the promotion of its pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, as the schools are required to list that in their school prospectus. They have to have a statement on the ethos and values and such matters, and there is no reason why parents should not know what is going on.
Perhaps I might also very briefly follow on from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and say a word or two about the amendments to which my noble friend also spoke, Nos. 196 to 200. The effects of those amendments would be to bring these considerations within the scope of the secular curriculum, which I suspect is not something that my noble friend was necessarily trying to do. As happens already in denominational schools, the parents who choose a non-denominational education in a county school have a right to expect that the secular curriculum—for example, in ancient history or in science—will be precisely that: it will be secular.
I have now twice repeated the provisions of Section 351 of the 1996 Act and I think they go a long way towards providing exactly what it is that my noble friend is so committed to. Indeed, that is what so many of your Lordships on all sides of the Committee are committed to—that schools, as well as parents, play their part in encouraging the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of the pupils that they are responsible for. Having said that, if my noble friend would care to have further discussions with me between now and a later stage of the Bill, I am prepared to consider that. I am not sure that the words she proposes actually add very much more than the words in Section 351 of the 1996 Act. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment on this occasion.
Baroness Young: We have had a useful and important discussion and I am extremely grateful to those of your Lordships who have supported me and made such valuable points. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon how very pleased I was to have his support. I believe profoundly that the role of the Churches in all of this is absolutely paramount in our society, and I was encouraged by what he had to
1562
say. May I also say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Elton. He is right to draw to our attention the fact that a great many words have gone out of the British vocabulary: "duty", "honour", "self-sacrifice" and "endurance". Use them in some places and people have no idea what you are talking about. We have simply forgotten what they are and what they stand for.
I was also particularly interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, had to say, and I will read carefully in Hansard her extraordinarily interesting speech. She was so right to say that teachers should not be afraid to use moral words. Let us face it, some things are right and some things are wrong. When the noble Earl, Lord Longford, introduced a debate on the subject, I said that I should have thought that we could all agree that bullying, cheating and stealing were wrong—I did not think that that was a matter for debate—so why should we not say that they are wrong? Furthermore, one could add to the list. Those who have responsibility for children should not be afraid to say such things.
I thank also my noble friend Lady Platt and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who has been a great supporter on such issues on many occasions in the past. The noble Lord was right to draw our attention to the Education Act 1944 and the general agreement which preceded it. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, who made the important point that "education" should encompass spiritual and moral education.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke movingly about his experiences in his former constituency. I assure him that I am not in the least bit interested in blaming anybody. It is a worrying situation for all of us. We are all looking for a solution to a difficult issue.
I was sorry to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. Of course, there have been endless failures by Christians and by the Church in the past, but surely we are looking to the ideal, even if all of us, every day of our lives, fail to live up to the ideals in which we believe.
I was also sorry to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said. However, the noble Baroness asked me a question to which I hope that I can now give the answer. If I got the question down correctly, she asked me how I see Amendment No. 127 working in the rest of the Bill as it stands. I see the amendment as a fundamental part of the Bill because I see,
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
as a fundamental part of education. Indeed, Clause 30(2) states:
"For the purposes of this section …a 'partnership document' is a statement specifying —
(a) the school's aims and values".
Let us suppose that the school's "aims and values" do not include teaching the secular curriculum; I cannot believe that that would be accepted, so why should we not include those other things that are a part of life? I believe that it was my noble friend Lady Elles who made that point very clearly and, again, I am most grateful for that. I was interested also to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, and I am glad that in principle he agrees with me.

1563
I was, of course, extremely interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister had to say. But perhaps I should conclude by saying that I do not believe that Amendment No. 127 would affect admission arrangements. I believe that it would only strengthen them. It would send out a very clear signal that I believe we should send out in this muddled and confused society in which we live.
The amendment would help to ensure that the values that schools seek to promote take account of our mainly Christian religious tradition. On this difficult point, it is interesting to note that British Social Attitudes found that only 3.6 per cent. of the population adhere to a non-Christian faith, whereas other surveys—and many have been carried out—consistently show that between 70 and 80 per cent. of the population describe themselves as "Christian". Of course, the extent to which they are practising Christians is another matter, but that is how they describe themselves.
In conclusion, this is a most important issue. It will not go away and even if this amendment is not accepted, I am certain that Parliament will return to it time and again until its importance is recognised. However, in view of the offer made by my noble friend the Minister of further discussions on the matter, I shall not seek to press the amendment today. I hope that we can come to some useful agreement between this stage and Report stage. In the meantime, while thanking all those who have supported me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127A to 127C not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 27, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) Every partnership document shall be deemed to include the following provisions—

(a) that its terms may be revised at any time if, in the opinion of the head teacher of the school, that is necessary in consequence of the child's academic performance or the child's behaviour; and

(b) that if the child is excluded from the school the head teacher may require its revision as a condition of readmitting the child to the school.").

The right reverend Prelate said: We have had a debate with high moral content and the amendments to which I now speak—Amendments Nos. 128 and 130—might seem to be a descent from that high moral plateau to a more mundane issue. Nevertheless, they address the profoundly moral issue of how to respond to disruptive pupils. Like many moral matters, there are no easy black and white answers. There is a moral tension here: on the one hand, there is a need to pay regard to the worth and future of the individual pupil while, on the other hand, there is a need to have regard to the community of the school and the effect that that individual may be having on the education of others in the school.
There has been some debate about the partnership document playing a role in admissions. The amendments are an attempt to lift the partnership document out of
1564
the context of admissions and place it in a fresh context. Perhaps I should add that, irrespective of whether the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to remove subsection (1) of Clause 30 had been successful, Amendment No. 128 would still have stood because Clause 30(2) specifies a "partnership document" and it is to such a document that my amendment refers. Therefore, I hope that, whatever views there may be about the use of the partnership document in the context of admissions, noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will be willing to reflect on the significance of this amendment in placing the partnership document in a different contexts. Indeed, there are two contexts.
I refer first to the position that may arise when a crisis is beginning to loom—that is, when it becomes necessary in consequence of a child's academic performance or behaviour to consider how best that child may be helped. We are all saying that the partnership between parents and school is of enormous significance. I warmed particularly to the comments on that made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in relation to a previous amendment. I believe this profoundly. I accept that there may be parents who for one reason or another—perhaps because of parental inadequacy—may be unable to provide the support which is necessary, but in many cases that is not so. When situations are beginning to become difficult, it seems right—indeed, it is normally the case—that a school will consult the parents and work with them in order to bring about a change in the pupil's behaviour or attitudes.
Is it not a strength that revision of the partnership document should be part of that negotiation? It would mean that instead of being a general document, applicable only to those pupils wanting admission to a school, the partnership document could be deemed usable where negotiations with regard to a particular pupil were required. In the context of a child who has been excluded from school for a period, such negotiations could be part of the process of readmission.
If the amendments are accepted, they will allow schools to take into account the response of parents in determining their attitude and actions both in relation to the original exclusion and in relation to readmission. If an appeals procedure were to be invoked, the fact that a partnership document had been revised could be part of the evidence taken into account during that appeal. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take some interest in Amendment No. 128 and that he may possibly warm to it. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the right reverend Prelate for further explanation of the amendment. It was not our understanding that the home-school agreement was an individual document child by child. Having said that, many schools have very successfully negotiated two different kinds of document. One is an agreement with parents as to how to deal with a particular problem when it arises—for example, when a child is falling down academically or is being disruptive. Obviously, the child and the parents will

1565
have their attention drawn to the home-school agreement. To start adding to this particular mechanism may create enormous difficulties and problems.
With regard to academic performance, one of the most successful projects is the record of achievements that is used successfully in many schools. It deals specifically with those years which for some parents, perhaps many, can be very difficult—say, the ages between 13 and 16. It deals with it by producing records of what the pupil can achieve. However, we have difficulty in seeing how that can be attached to this particular procedure because it may lead to confusion.
I have a general concern about the assumption that is increasingly being made in this debate that there are good parents and parents who are inadequate and who need to be cajoled, nay bullied on occasions, or trained—perhaps that is a better word—to behave properly. It is my experience over many years of contact with a very large number of schools that we are ignoring a totally different group of parents. I refer to children who are the sole carers of parents who are in need of care at home. I refer to parents with alcohol and drug-related problems or parents, possibly single parents, who are being treated at home for severe mental illness. I worry about taking the whole of the home-school agreement into that sensitive area.
The work that schools do is often very good. We on these Benches agree with the proposal that underlies the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. However, we need to be convinced that this is the way to achieve that very worthy end.
Lord Henley: Obviously, it is for the right reverend Prelate to respond in his own way to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. Perhaps I may make one or two general points that will assist both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. Strictly speaking, the Clause 30 home-school partnership documents and associated parental declarations have no legal life outside the admissions process, and the question of renegotiation of such documents does not arise. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, put it, such documents are intended as statements of general principles, not individualised documents for individual pupils. They set out what the school will endeavour to provide for every child and what it in turn expects of every parent.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. Is the Minister saying that virtually the sole purpose of the home-school contract is for the purpose of admissions, or that it is to be used at the time of admission and at no other time?
Lord Henley: Their sole purpose is not for admissions. I believe that most of us take the view that they are important in their own right. They are not matters to be considered simply at the point of admission and then forgotten. Their legal life outside the admissions process is the important matter to get right. They are intended as a statement of general principle—
1566
I believe that that was the matter about which the noble Baroness was concerned—and not matters that are peculiar to particular children.
In essence, the position after admission would be no different from what it is now, where parents, after their child has taken up a place, may be asked to sign voluntarily such a document that may be personalised to take account of the circumstances of the individual child. The noble Baroness asked whether it could be used as some form of mechanism or condition of reinstatement in the case of an excluded child, as I believe is the intention of the second amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I believe that here the right reverend Prelate has in mind something other than the Clause 30 home-school partnership. Having said that, obviously there is nothing to prevent a school from asking parents to sign an individualised form of home-school agreement as a condition of reinstating an excluded child, provided that its contents are reasonable. But if the parents refuse to sign, and consequently the LEA or governing body decline to direct the head to reinstate the child who has been permanently excluded, the parents will have the right of appeal to the independent committee, which may still direct unconditional reinstatement of the child.
What the right reverend Prelate seeks is perhaps not appropriate for what may be called Clause 30 home-school partnership documents. I do not think that they would necessarily be the right way forward either. But I hope that the right reverend Prelate accepts, as both I and the party opposite accept, that they serve a very strong purpose in their own right and they are important in that respect.
Baroness Warnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, I seek clarification. I have become rather muddled as to whether the home-school agreement is general or particular. Although it may set out the general policy of the school, what the school expects of the parents and what it promises to do, each parent will sign it on behalf of a particular child. It may be that one would feel unable to make this particular promise about the particular child. How do I know that I can control him or get him to go to school? I thought that this document was made with reference to a particular parent and for his particular child or children, but perhaps I am wrong.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness has misunderstood it. The documents are intended as statements of general principle setting out what the school will endeavour to provide for every child and what the school in turn expects of every parent. It may be that the school will, quite rightly, expect the child to turn up every day. Obviously, it will be particularised to the extent that it will be signed by the particular parents, but it is a general statement of principles.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask a further question. It seems

1567
to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raises an extremely important point about certain parents, particularly single parents, who may for one reason or another be inadequate or find very great difficulty in fulfilling the conditions of the partnership document. Is there any possibility that the child of such parents may be regarded as a child in need and the social services department or the local education authority may assume some of the responsibilities of the parents?
Lord Henley: Obviously, if the child was formally in care they would be the appropriate authorities to make such a decision. If the child was not in care and its parents fell into the category spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am sure that, as we discussed earlier in considering the interaction between social services, the LEA and so on, that would be something that they should take into account. I am sure that in developing their proposals for such a home school partnership such possibilities—sadly they are rather frequent—should be taken into account. But in the end it must be the parent. As always, I should not want to undermine the role of that parent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I have a similar question to that asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am a little confused, and I apologise if it involves repetition. The House of Lords Library notes on the Bill state, "The clause allows"—that is, Clause 30:
"for LEA schools to use home school agreements as part of their admission arrangements and to refuse a pupil whose parents have refused to sign the agreement".
In his reply to that I think the Minister said that the parents would have a right of appeal to the independent commission. But if we take that sentence at its face value, it means all of the agreement. As I made clear in a contribution to an earlier debate on another amendment that is in need of clarification.
Lord Henley: I am not sure that that is the case. As I made clear earlier, and as I have made clear on this amendment, they can be used as part of the general admissions process. If parents are not prepared to sign them, well then it is open to the school, even when they have surplus places, to say that they do not wish to take that child.
Lord Dormand of Easington: With great respect, and I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, that does not answer the point which we have both made. To put it bluntly, does it mean that part of the document may be agreed, or not? That is the point we dealt with.
Lord Henley: I do not know what the noble Lord does when he signs a document, but normally when one
1568
signs a document—insurance, or whatever—one signs the whole document. One cannot sign part of a document and then suggest that one has agreed partially.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Or one does not sign at all. The Minister could not have given a better example, because I had to sign a document today. I refused to sign it because of a certain figure on it.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord refuses to sign, or if the parents—as I made clear—refuse to sign, it is open to the school to consider that as part of the admissions process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, the most recent exchange has demonstrated the grave concern we feel that this home school agreement should be used in any way as part of an admissions process. It would appear to us on these Benches, and to other Members of the Committee, that for a government who have espoused the cause of parental choice, to bring in a mechanism which may allow schools to create a home school document which some of the parents in their catchment area find unacceptable, and then to be able to exclude them from school on those grounds, is dangerous. Perhaps more worrying than that, it is a denial of the advantages of the home school agreement in principle, because once it becomes a matter of coercion—we must keep putting this on the record—it is no longer an agreement.
The document may have been agreed by a group of parents, or the majority of the parents, in a set of circumstances, but in no way can it be called an agreement if a parent is told, "You either sign, or your child does not get the place". That is anathema to anyone who has watched with pride and pleasure the development of the home school agreement. To turn it into a mechanism for turning away children is wrong.
Secondly, the concern is that by making it such a rigid pre-admission agreement, there is a danger of it being used, wittingly or unwittingly, against certain parents. I think of the cases of children I met in Lancashire where I chaired the education committee. They were young children going into secondary school for the first time. They lived at home with a parent in advanced stages of an illness who was not able to read or sign anything. The child was the carer.
Of course a reasonable governing body or head teacher will take into account the fact that that parent is unable to sign, when they discover all the circumstances. School places will quickly be filled with those who sign readily, quickly and on the right day, and some people will quickly be denied their rights.
The Government have done what they have sadly done on so many occasions with education legislation: they have taken home school agreements which have been a brilliant—where they have occurred

1569
imaginative, and innovative process, and then sat in Whitehall and tried to legislate to impose them on all schools in the country.
Lord Henley: We have just debated an amendment upon which the noble Baroness was defeated, where the noble Baroness was trying to impose it on every school in the country. That is not what we are trying to do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was to enable schools to use it to exclude pupils from the school. There are things which are necessary if there is to be an agreement. On these Benches we would not start from here. If the Government are determined to impose the agreement as an admissions procedure we shall seek to amend it. The words used by the Minister tonight give grave cause for concern.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may come back just once again. I have said nothing different from what I said on an earlier amendment moved by the noble Baroness upon which the Committee divided and came to a firm conclusion. In that amendment, the noble Baroness and her noble friends were seeking to impose a duty on local authorities to have such a home school policy in all schools, but not to allow them to make use of them in the admission process. All we are saying is that we believe it is for the schools to decide whether to have such a policy. We should like to see many more, although I believe the vast majority of schools have such a policy, but in addition—it is clear in Clause 30—then to use them as part of the admission process should they so wish.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down, did I hear him say that he thought that most schools had a policy for some sort of home school arrangement which they could use to exclude people coming into the school?
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness did not hear me correctly. Most schools have some sort of home school policy. I did not say that they would use that as part of the admission process. What I am saying is that Clause 30 gives them the power to do so, and just that.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My attempt to lift the partnership document out of the context of admission has obviously failed totally. That no doubt indicates where emotions in this place lie at the moment. I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate, particularly those who paid attention to the thrust of the amendments. I am glad that there has been such a warm reception for the principle which lies behind the amendment.
I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about those parents who might, for one reason or another, be in need of some kind of care. I had a recent experience when I went into a home in Leeds. A single black mother had two children. She was partially deaf. As a result of that, when her children came back from school—I was present in the home
1570
when they did—they were unable to communicate to her their sense of freshness and interest in the work that they had been doing. Because I was in the house, they did so to me. I found it a moving experience. I wonder what would have happened had I not been there. They would have come back, and they would not have had the kind of encouragement and support for which they might have looked. It was no one's fault that that was the case, but it inevitably happened. I do not have any easy answers. I am sure that the schools are aware of the home circumstances of their children and will find ways of working with such families. I agree that it is a point of great importance.
I do not believe that I heard any Member of the Committee say that an amendment with the intentions of mine should not be enshrined in statute somewhere. I did hear objection to linking it to this particular partnership document.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I understand that my amendment would mean a shift. The partnership document as at present in the Bill would be a general document to which each individual parent would be required to assent. My amendment would require it to be a matter of agreement and negotiation between a school and a family. I accept that that is a change in the intention of the partnership document.
I have listened carefully to the debate and I shall read what the Minister has said. It may be that we shall wish to find a way of expressing our concerns, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that we reconvene as a Committee no earlier than 8.20 p.m.
House resumed.

Design
7.21 p.m.
Lord Palumbo Lord Palumbo rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage industry to recognise and make full use of the wealth of talent available in this country in matters of design; and what steps they are taking to discourage such talent from seeking employment abroad.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Design Museum, the brainchild of Sir Terence Conran, who has done as much as any man in this country to further design. Next, in putting this Question, I hoped that it might be helpful to the House to be able to consider the importance of design in shaping the environment we inhabit, the products we use, the communications we make, the national talent we encourage and the wealth we generate.
The fact is that design touches the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, and indeed the world, every single day of their lives. There are many definitions of design. One I particularly enjoy is that of Le Corbusier, "Intelligence made visible", counterpointed by one I equally enjoy of Jimmy Knapp,
"Design is the creative force by which we realise our hopes for a better environment".
Design is about the planning of man-made things, the reconciliation of practical needs and aesthetic taste. Where it is recognised and understood, the benefits are striking.
My purpose in raising this Question is to concentrate upon the necessity to encourage good design and open up a debate about it. My Question seeks both to ask Her Majesty's Government how industry and every aspect of our society is encouraged to make full use of the talent available, and what steps are being taken to be sure that such talent flourishes here. That is in no way to discourage our designers from seeking experience and spreading their influence elsewhere, but let us aim to be sure that the fulfilment of that talent takes place here. Once done, that talent can in its maturity, spread the excellence of our talented designers world-wide.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the successes of the last century: the railways in South America; shipping in Japan. Invariably it was a Scottish engineer who was responsible. British designers nowadays are like the itinerant philosopher-soldiers of the Middle Ages, ranging the globe from court to court. Two of Paris's oldest established fashion houses now star young Englishmen. Volvo's chief designer is not a Swede, but a Briton. We have more expertise in advertising and graphics than any other country anywhere. Like the Scottish engineers of yore, British designers are fundamental to international industry and commerce. Britain once led the world in promoting design. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was a highly profitable showcase for British manufacturers demonstrating their astonishing attainments; demonstrating, too, the powerful confidence of our Victorian forebears, to which, incidentally, this magnificent Chamber bears witness. I should like to think that we could, in the year 2001, create a like exhibition to celebrate our contemporary achievements.
In analysing the Question that is put in this debate, perhaps I may now urge upon your Lordships the following matters. First, design is a global industry in which the United Kingdom is a world leader. Secondly, the design consultancy market in the United Kingdom is larger than in any other European country. There are around 3,000 British companies employing 40,000 to 50,000 designers. Much of the growth in the United Kingdom is fuelled by the expansion in corporate identity, packaging, publishing, retail and leisure design. We should be proud that the United Kingdom design industry makes an enormous contribution to invisible exports. The design consultancies in the United Kingdom are increasingly developing interests abroad. The response is a demand for that British design which has established so high a reputation.
However, I would suggest that businesses in this country can make much greater use of our country's design resource, and every effort must be made to focus that aim. The effective use of design is fundamental to the creation of innovative projects, processes and services. It is amply demonstrated that good design adds significantly to the value of projects, leads to growth in sales and enables both the exploitation of new markets and the consolidation of existing ones.
The Design Council has created a voluntary network of designers under the title "Designer Links" to ensure that design counsellors can bring their special skills to the companies open to the effect of good design. Above all it is essential to have the designer involved in the early stages.
What of Britain's image abroad? That image is critical to the long-term success and promotion of exports, tourism, and the attraction of inward investment. The overwhelming majority of companies in the United Kingdom assert that national image directly influences their purchasing decision. "Made in the UK", is still a significant badge in the purchasing decisions of the vast majority of the world's leading companies. However, almost six out of 10 companies in the UK say they are not influenced by that label. It is evident that industry in this country fails to communicate success to the world. There is the national tendency to talk down success which only reduces the attraction of the United Kingdom as a place for investment, joint ventures or partnerships. There is an urgent need for Britain to communicate its strengths and successes more positively.
We must do everything to promote, both here and abroad, our national strengths in design and innovation. It is not a party political matter and assertions of support are to be found in the leadership of all major parties. But we must show that design makes a difference; that where that is applied, where excellence in design is insisted upon, the results are visible. There is a measurable effect upon profitability where companies differentiate themselves on the basis of three design matters: the quality of the product; superiority of service; and the product's appearance.
The Design Council, created by the Board of Trade in 1934 as a Council for Art and Industry, promoted the Design in Business Week, which last year held events in 22 different cities throughout the United Kingdom involving 39 separate organisations. This month, the Council is promoting Design in Education Week in order to raise the profile of design across the United Kingdom and focus upon all the issues to which I have alluded.
There is no doubt that we have both great opportunities and an obligation to exploit those opportunities in the shape of the astonishing resource of talent in design in this country. We should apply that talent in order to improve every aspect of the environment we inhabit—street furniture, signage, public buildings. Why should not we have the most beautiful and the most useful railway stations? Why should not items of everyday function—chairs, tables, cups—be a delight? Why should we be obliged to accept

1573
the proliferation of ghastly telephone booths and boxes that have supplanted the magnificent architect-designed red telephone box of 1924 which became a veritable symbol of Great Britain? Why should the liveries of privatised rail services be a rash of kitsch? And why should a visit to a motorway service area be such a lowering experience?
Perhaps I may suggest some practical ways in which we can grasp the opportunities that I have attempted to describe. In the public sector, the estimate of central government spending on goods and services—all of which must be designed—is around £40 billion each year. There are moves afoot to train Civil Service purchasers in how to apply good design in central government commissioning processes. That is welcome. Imagine the opportunities if there was that concentration on the imaginative possibilities in the excellence of design and equipment in every public building. Our crowded environment would be transformed; our international reputation boosted; our attraction to inward investors enhanced.
Should there not be a Minister in each department of government championing design and responsible for its application? Should not industrial and commercial companies ensure that there is upon their board a design director? I commend for your Lordships' consideration, as I have suggested already, an exhibition in the year 2001, 150 years after the Great Exhibition and 50 years after the Festival of Britain. Let us forswear our tendency to play down our talents, display our confidence in the talent that is ours in such abundance and show ourselves confident in the approaching millennium.
In putting this Question before your Lordships' House, I hope that a debate can be ignited, with a firm focus upon the effectiveness of good design, the benefits of which can be fully assessed, understood and promoted. Something as apparently slight as a single five-minute daily slot in prime-time television, describing the quality of a single design object, may do more to create awareness and promote confidence than many a debate.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a subject which is not only worthy of our attention but is of calculable importance in the shaping of the world around us; in how we see ourselves; in how we promote ourselves; and as regards the natural talent we have the privilege to enjoy.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on introducing the debate this evening. As he has rightly argued, Britain has an international pre-eminence in the field of design, appreciably ahead of its standing in other areas of industry and commerce. That pre-eminence is a source of strength and competitive advantage to other sectors which draw on that expertise.
The significance of the design industry to wealth creation in the British economy is greater than is widely appreciated and its importance for innovation and new product development is often under-estimated.
1574
I feel that I should explain how it is that a partially colour-blind, business school economist, devoid of design sense feels able to contribute to the debate. There are two reasons, one personal and one professional. The personal reason is that I am linked to the design business through marriage and, despite my best efforts, some knowledge has rubbed off. The professional reason is that two of my colleagues at the London Business School, Andrew Sentence and James Clark, of the Centre for Economic Forecasting, have recently completed a major and, I think, path-breaking research report commissioned by the Design Council on the contribution of design to the UK economy. It is based on a new and comprehensive survey of some 800 companies, undertaken through the CBI, of design activity in British manufacturing industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, mentioned two definitions of design. Perhaps I may mention another from an OECD report which suggests that:
"design is the very core of innovation, the moment when a new object is imagined, devised and shaped into prototype form".
That definition emphasises that design involves not just designers and not just those working for design consultancies but also engineers, scientists and all those including senior management and—dare I mention it?—finance directors and accountants who contribute and influence the process of innovation and new product development. It is a multi-skilled, multi-disciplinary function which is easy to get wrong but can be the key to business success.
The London Business School report which I mentioned estimates that British manufacturing industry spends about £10 billion on product development and design, rather more than 2.5 per cent. of its turnover and employing about 4.5 per cent. of the workforce. A little more than half of that takes the form of bought-in services, but nearly as much is provided by in-house design activities. Expenditure on design by manufacturing companies exceeds its R&D spend. Design makes a direct contribution to the balance of payments: about one-quarter of export earnings from consultancy activities come from design consultancies. But the indirect contribution to exports is much more significant than the direct contribution. Design-intensive industries and firms are much more active than others in export markets. Sectors which invest heavily in product development and design are those in which the UK enjoys a trade surplus.
A very important finding of the London Business School report is that design has a positive and significant impact on growth. It states that,
"devoting an additional 1% of turnover to product development and design appears to raise turnover and profits by 3–4% over 5 years".
On the whole, that impact is larger for product development and design activities carried out in-house than from bought-in design. That is possibly because good management is better able to integrate the multi-functional aspects to which I referred before of the process of new product development when it is all carried out within the firm.
The estimated impact of in-house design on growth is found to be similar to that of R&D expenditure, emphasising the importance of design alongside

1575
fundamental research and development in the process of innovation and new product development. But because of the difficulties of managing the multi-functional, multi-skill process of new product development, the effectiveness of design varies appreciably across companies. That suggests a need for management training in our business schools—and here I must declare an interest—to put much greater emphasis on the development of skills for managing the process of new product development.
So far, I have said little about the second part of the Motion to ensure that the best design skills remain here in the UK. The best way to do that is not through artificial aids or subsidies for the design sector but by the rest of industry appreciating the importance of design to new product development and innovation and to find better ways of harnessing design capabilities to those ends. The Government can help by raising awareness, perhaps by benchmarking best management practice in that area and by placing greater emphasis on the value of design spending by encouraging companies to publicise that.
However, fundamentally, it is the effective use of design capabilities which will retain the skill base here. The best outcome is for design skills to be used here so that there is no need to seek employment overseas. As I have suggested, there is a lot more that British management can do to improve its use of design skills for the benefit of the design industry, the rest of British industry and the growth performance of the economy as a whole.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, for his initiative in asking this Question about the dynamic field of British design and how it can best be encouraged in industry.
First, it may be relevant to examine how the Government can do their bit to promote British design. The Design Council tells me, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, that central government alone spend around £40 billion per year on goods and services, all of which have to be designed by someone. It points out that, wisely spent, that purchasing power can have an enormous impact on the quality of goods and services produced by companies competing for government contracts, which are also the companies competing in international markets.
Excellence of design can make an enormous difference to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a product. For example, until a few years ago, a huge 87 per cent. of Royal Mail redirection forms were filled out incorrectly, costing more than £10,000 per week to rectify. Also, the poor service reflected badly on the image of the Royal Mail. When in 1994 a new form was designed professionally, the design fee of £30,000 was recouped in only 17 days. Some £500,000 was saved in the first six months alone, with a projected saving of £3.5 million over five years. Further, the completion error rate fell to a manageable 3 per cent. It would be
1576
interesting to hear from the Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government take to monitor and continually streamline the way that they go about their own business.
The Government should be setting an example in the effective use of design, demonstrating the benefits of innovation, and encouraging the private sector to follow that example. I was encouraged to hear that 14 government departments met representatives of the Design Council on 29th January of this year and agreed on a programme of training and design championing in large organisations. I hope that that will lead to a real change in the way that design is used in central government, though that can only be achieved if the initiative has active political support from the highest levels in government and in all departments. It should perhaps be stated that design is also about improving well-being and not just prosperity. The public sector finances many things which directly affect UK citizens—such as hospitals and old people's homes. Effective design can help provide services and environments which are pleasant for the users as well as cost-effective.
What then are the benefits for industry in encouraging design? A 1991 Open University study of more than 220 manufacturing companies which undertook product, engineering or graphic design showed that 90 per cent. of implemented projects made a profit, the average pay-back period being 15 months from launch. Sales increased by an average of 41 per cent.
The term "design" includes a wide range of disciplines, from engineering, product and industrial design to fashion, textiles, graphics, interiors, exhibitions and architecture. These should not be underestimated. For example, the textile and fashion industries employ 410,000 people, and their output represents 6.1 per cent. of all manufacturing in the UK. It is exceeded in Europe only by Italy.
It should also be remembered that our skill at designing is one of the UK's greatest assets. As Sir Terence Conran put it:
"We won't make things cheaper than the Far Eastern nations, but we can make things better through design and innovation".
It is astonishing how little Britain values its own contribution in design compared to other European countries. A 1991 survey of attitudes to design among senior managers from 200 British, French and German companies showed that, by their own admission, the majority of British companies place a lower value on design than do their French or German competitors.
What is needed now is to educate industry; to see design as the all-embracing subject that it is. Every business is involved in design at some level: even the most non-design-oriented will benefit from services that designers and design consultants offer, from the best logos and presentation to the most creative ways of maximising office layout and creating a work-friendly environment.
If we are to create the right climate for designers to flourish in, there does, however, need to be a greater awareness of the benefits that good design can bring. That will only happen if it is implemented at the most

1577
fundamental level; if there is a drive to increase children's visual awareness at an early age. The benefits—pleasures—of such an education will be enormous: if people are taught to respond to design in a positive way, they will be able to take an active role in its implementation and promotion.
The Government, too, must be educated in the importance of the arts, not just culturally but also practically. No doubt the Minister will tell us how highly the arts are valued, but over the past decade or so his Government have been responsible for running down art colleges—the powerhouses of design training—and allowing the teaching of art in schools to decline.
Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, there has been a wilful policy of downgrading the visual arts at a tertiary level, as I myself witnessed when a student at Camberwell College of Art. In my specialisation—ceramics—there was a significant decrease in the funding over several years and a forced increase of students by more than a third. As a result, we worked in a seriously cramped space, with inadequate facilities. That created a depressing and discouraging, rather than positive and productive, climate. The Government have made it quite plain that they do not rate art and design. For their own and for the country's sake, they must reverse this policy and attitude. If they do not, we will continue to create a vacuum of people who might otherwise have been tempted into taking a career in the arts and making a useful contribution to design in industry.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Currie, I, too, am an economist. I may not be colour-blind but I am sure that I do not have very great taste in these matters. I rise to speak only because when I read the Question on the Order Paper tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo—to whom we are most grateful—I had but two complaints. I should say, first, that I do not like the second half of the Question; namely,
"what steps [the Government] are taking to discourage such talent from seeking employment abroad".
I shall return to that in a moment. The only other regret that I have is that this is not a full debate. Indeed, we could have done this on Wednesday instead of the futile debate that we are to have on the subject of the economy.
I return now to the Question. Perhaps I may quote what my honourable friend the MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, Mark Fisher, the Shadow Minister, said in a Social Market Foundation pamphlet called, Design Decisions: Improving the Effectiveness of Public Purchasing:
"It is a credit to British design training that other countries poach the best of our products. In itself this is not a matter for great concern. Many young designers come back later, and an international flow of ideas is important; but Britain has to encourage them to come back and bring with them the knowledge and excitement they have gained from their international experience. However, if people are going to work internationally, it should be through choice rather than just because they are not being picked up in Britain. There should be policies to promote British design
1578
abroad, using the Foreign Office and the British Council more positively to promote a more radical and innovative image. There is too much concentrating on heritage, rather than the creativity of British design".
I quoted that because I believe that design should be a global concept; in other words, there should be no national boundaries. It is quite true to say that we have some of the best designers. Design is not just the beautiful; it is also cost-effective. If a product is designed first, it will save a lot of money later when it will prove to be something that works.
I turn now to the case of the British Library. This matter arose in another Social Market Foundation memorandum which I read. It seems that the British Library had not been properly designed beforehand. If it had, the cost overrun would have been much less than it finally turned out to be. I do not know whether that is true, but it seems to make sense to me that by not investing properly in design beforehand, you not only get things which are ugly; you also get things which do not work. For example, much public housing is badly designed.
As I said, design is not really expensive; indeed, it is quite the most cost-efficient measure that we have. I welcome the debate sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. However, the other day we had a debate on the possibility of having a strategic authority for London. I pointed out then that we must not forget the contribution that the Inner London Education Authority made by establishing the London Institute which brought together many art schools—and I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said in that respect from his experience as a student at the Camberwell School of Art. I believe that it is British design education which has created the stars who are right now in Paris and elsewhere. Porsche apparently has a designer team of 10, out of which six are British. That is the kind of thing of which we should be proud.
We used to be known as "the workshop of the world" but today we are "the design studio of the world". That is a good change. I say that because these are the products that are now selling; and, indeed, these are the products which bring greater advantages. They are abstract, not solid, concrete products. It is not only the question of metal bashing that we should be worried about; we should be worried about things like design which involve a lot of expertise and skills. It is not concrete and it is not something that we can actually see. As I said, it is abstract, beautiful and very profitable.
Perhaps I may conclude by adding just one more definition of design. As I said before, this comes from a Social Market Foundation memorandum written by Katharine Raymond and Marc Shaw and it quotes an Open University Study, The Benefits and Costs of Investment in Design. It says that design involves,
"creating concepts, plans and instructions, usually in response to a brief provided by a firm or client, that enable a two or three-dimensional object that did not exist previously to be made. Everything from an aircraft to wallpaper has to be designed and the design of the object is the specific configuration of elements, materials and components that give it its particular attributes of function, looks, etc., and determine how it is to be made. Design therefore affects not just non-price factors such as the product's

1579
performance, reliability, appearance, safety, ease of use etc., but if affects price factors also, through its influence on how easy the product is to manufacture and its life cycle cost to the user".
I end by posing an examination question to the Minister. Who said,
"Design is important; it is unavoidable. Everything that is made has to be designed first and the way in which it is made has to be designed too, in the process as well as the product. Many world-class British companies will well understand the benefits of using good design. Such companies should be an inspiration to us all"?
I expect an answer from the Minister.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lawrence: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, for comprehensively introducing this Question. I should like to ask a question about three interrelated points. The first is about fashion schools; the second is about designing for industry; and the third is about the need for help and encouragement for high fashion in the home and overseas market.
First, British fashion schools are the most successful in the world. Foreign students know that with a British fashion degree they can go home and get a job easily. But for the British student life is different and hard. Whether it was a good idea to have made art and design schools universities is a moot point. The introduction of American modular and unit schemes tends to make the student a jack of all trades rather than a specialist.
The untimely demise of the CNAA has certainly had an effect as regards lowering overall standards and the overall supervision of academic standards in design education. The second point concerning young designers is that British fashion is dominated by the retailer. This has the effect that the high street shop buyer tells the designer what he wants. What is even worse, the central buyer tells the designer what he wants. That has the effect of producing goods for the largest and lowest market.
My third point concerns high fashion. This end of the market is left to designer brand names; I refer on the Continent to Armani, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein. In order to pick up the most lucrative worldwide sales these designer names are pushed in a way that is no longer possible with high street names. In England we have a number of good, struggling high fashion designers who do exceedingly well. They receive little help from the Government but they endeavour to survive with virtually no help from the City. The fashion industry was Britain's second largest industry and is now its fifth. It seems a shame that our talented designers in the high fashion end of the industry receive so little help.
My question boils down to this: instead of designers being dominated by a nation of shopkeepers, should not the world market be offered the products of a talented group of British trained designers, with all the help, expertise and investment that the City and the Government can muster?
7.54 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I find this an almost unique debate in my experience in that I believe
1580
the first three speakers all referred to engineering. Usually it is only myself who does that, to the annoyance of everyone else. It is important to mention engineering because it is a part of design that is often overlooked.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, has initiated this debate because I was one of those who were extremely disappointed and grieved when he was unable to get his skyscraper built in the City of London. I was a little surprised that his design sensitivities permitted him to change fairly abruptly from the austere classicism of Mies van der Rohe to the exuberance—I shall not say exhibitionism—of Sir James Stirling. I am glad he is getting something built and I hope he will derive pleasure from that.
I support this Question with the same reservation that my noble friend Lord Desai has expressed; namely, that I do not believe we should discourage people from going abroad. I suppose one might consider that they would go abroad as neo-colonialists, as it were, in the design world to bring civilisation to the under-civilised world. We should not discourage them. However, that is not, of course, what the noble Lord meant. We know what he meant and we support what he meant rather than what he said.
I wish to say a few words about the nature of design because I think that is largely misunderstood in the media and even in this Chamber in the sense that the media in particular think of design in the sense of appearance and of style. We all know that that is not the whole of it. Appearance and style are part of design but they are by no means the most important part. Some designers think that they are the most important part and some of the critics of design are of the same opinion, but they are mistaken.
Industrial designers do not make that mistake; they understand quite clearly what they are about. I am not sure about graphic designers and people of that kind who are a shade on the "arty" side, but industrial designers know what they are about. They are not indifferent to style of course, and nor should they be, but they realise that the essence of design is to produce an ultimately usable product. The usable bit is the target at which they aim. A good design works and it conserves materials. It is economical and it also looks good, which is part, but only part, of the total package.
There is another point which I believe my noble friend Lord Desai mentioned; namely, there is a life cycle cost element. A good design has the qualities I have just mentioned, it looks good and lasts. The Pompidou Centre has most of those characteristics but has lasted only moderately well. No doubt it will be pulled together and it will last for a long time. I sincerely hope that it does.
What I liked about the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, is that he mentioned two matters close to my heart. He mentioned railway engineers and Scottish railway engineers. They were not

1581
all Scottish of course; there were English ones too. The English ones comprised a fairly small number but they were good in their own way.
Noble Lords: Never!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, there were some good English engineers. There were some Indian ones too, although not too many. That brings me to the subject I really wanted to mention; namely, the design of bridges. I think that is within the ambit of the Question. A year or so ago the report of the Royal Fine Art Commission mentioned the appearance of bridges and how they could be improved if architects were made the prime movers and the lead designers of bridges. I dissent from that a little. The Forth Bridge is not too had and an architect did not go near it. The best looking bridge in London is Waterloo Bridge. The architect's part in that has been dispensed with. His elaborate handrail was discarded in favour of the temporary handrail which was put in as an economy measure during the war. The ceremonial arches which he wished, for some architectural reason, to put at either end were also dropped. The bridge is one of the best constructions in the country. I have spoken often in this House in defence of architects. Everyone who knows me, including the young Minister who sits on the Front Bench beaming at me—we have had many exchanges on this point—will realise that. Architects tend to make a statement; and a statement is not necessarily what is wanted.
I wish to conclude merely by asking the Minister a question about which I have given quasi-notice. I do not wish him to reply tonight. I merely ask him to ponder upon it. We recognise the importance of the Design Council in design work; we have also recognised the importance of engineering in design. Under the Government's policies, how is it that the Design Council receives an annual subvention or subsidy from the Government whereas the Engineering Council has none? It does similar work although not the same. There should be an answer somewhere. I have asked a similar question several times over the years. I ask the question again. I do not expect an answer.
8 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on so enthusiastically introducing the Motion, especially just after London Fashion Week in which we have seen again what a strong tradition we have in Britain for good design. And each year at this time the question is asked: why do we not celebrate this talent, and why does it have to go abroad?
The noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, spoke of the clothing industry. He is right. The retailing of clothing in Britain is largely in the hands of half a dozen chains led by Marks & Spencer, which naturally promotes its own brands. Years ago these retailers would copy designer clothing. Today, quite rightly, they employ their own designers as well as working with known independent designers whose labels they incorporate with their own. Most importantly, they tell designers what customers want to buy, but not what to design. They also tell them to which price points they have to design.
1582
In most other countries the sale of clothing is much more fragmented, and in those markets, such as Japan, highly promoted designer labels help the retailer to sell stock. The noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, mentioned designer labels such as Armani, Yves St. Laurent and Calvin Klein. They have a large and sophisticated marketing machine to support the retailer. Others, like Benetton, set retailers up in business and give them a franchise to sell the company's products.
Designers have to find a niche in all this. The European textile manufacturing industry today largely consists of small and medium-sized, privately owned businesses that exist on quick response and flexibility through lean manufacturing and design flair. They are close to their customers, and indeed have to be logged on to their customers' computer networks. In today's business world, designing skills are, therefore, not enough. Business skills are also important. My noble friend Lord Currie touched on that.
The answer is to provide designers with some understanding of business skills. What do designers and inventors need to make a success of their talents? They need to understand their industry, commercially and technically; how to protect their intellectual property; where to go for funding; they need personal development to give them confidence to project the excitement and advantages of their designs, and to be able to sell their designs and their knowledge.
I know of only one institution offering a course covering all of those aspects. I know about the course because it is near where I live—Richmond-uponThames College. It certainly fills a need. This course does not teach people to design or invent. It teaches them what to do with their designs and inventions. Certainly much design and invention work is done in large laboratories and studios; but the argument for supporting those individuals is the same as the argument for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, on which I know the Minister is very keen.
In preparing for the debate, I spoke to the organiser of the course and discovered that the real motivation for it is environmental sustainability. If we are to stick to Agenda 21 we shall have to reinvent and redesign many things. It is already happening in the way that we design and build our new buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, touched upon that. Our medicine has to be redesigned. The way we handle and manage energy will need redesigning. Many products and processes will have to be redesigned with environmental sustainability in mind.
Perhaps this is the area where design will become most important. These products and processes have to be redesigned and reinvented remembering the needs of modern lean manufacturing and environmental sustainability.
Here I should like also to salute the work of the Design Council in making business and industry aware of precisely these needs. Their Design in Business Week, their Design Councillors in Business Links, and their benchmarking and networking have all helped to make business and the public aware of the importance not only of the way things look but also of how they are

1583
put together and how they perform. My noble friend Lord Currie and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, told us that that attitude is the way in which successful businesses now think. They take the broader view of design.
If we have to redesign many of the things we use in everyday life, we need to keep our designers in this country. We should be honouring them, supporting them with training courses, and valuing them. That will help them to get their designs and inventions to the market on their own merits. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us on how the Government plan to do that. I also look forward to the Minister being able to answer the examination question put by my noble friend Lord Desai.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, like all who contributed to this short debate, I warmly welcome it. The Government have long recognised that the better and wider use of design is fundamental to improving Britain's ability to compete in the international marketplace. Indeed, if I may say so, last Thursday evening I was at an exhibition in Bahrain of British design excellence. If I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, I should like to express my congratulations to the Design Museum upon the excellence of its organisation of that exhibition; and to congratulate those who participated, showing the quality of British design to a wide audience. And, stumbling on to an aircraft at 2.30 in the morning, I particularly welcomed the design of the new British Airways horizontal bed highlighted in the briefing for the debate given to us all by the Design Council.
Definitions of what design is are legion and I shall not attempt to add a new definition. All I will say is that design is not simply a prettying up process that can happen at the end of the development of a product.
Properly understood and used, design should be embedded in all processes that lead to the creation of goods and—I am glad that it was emphasised in the debate—of services. This fact is well understood by many world-class British companies, whether British Airways that I mentioned, or Dyson. Design permeates their culture and underpins their international success.
And yet we puzzle. Why is it that Britain produces so many world-class designers of all disciplines—the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, was right to make that point—who operate successfully for clients all around the world and yet much of British industry seems to ignore the design talent on its own doorstep? Why is it that so many of the things we buy from abroad, be it French cars and toasters, German inhalers, or Finnish mobile phones, are actually the work of British designers?
Part of the answer is, I believe, that design is all too often seen by too many British companies as an "add-on", a costly luxury that can be dispensed with when times are hard. So the challenge is to persuade the owners and managers of our companies that design is not a luxury but an essential.
1584
Since its inception, the Design Council has done, and continues to do, much to raise awareness of design in both industry and commerce. As the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said, raising that awareness undoubtedly plays a crucial part. The council has done much to raise awareness, not only in industry and commerce, but among the general public as well. Over the years it has evolved to meet the changing needs of our nation, including the direct delivery of sound advice to companies through a regional network in England and operations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Design is important. But it is not a magic wand to solve all our problems. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Our industries need also to improve many other aspects of their performance if they and the United Kingdom are to prosper in the increasingly competitive and complex global market-place.
To encourage and help our companies to become world class is a central aim of government policy. Bringing encouragement and support to British industry in a variety of areas—quality, innovation, technology transfer, the exploitation of multi-media, financial planning, and management best practice—is as important as encouraging and supporting the effective use of design.
Until recently, the Design Council itself delivered advice and help on design issues to industry. In a sense, this tended to isolate design as a business issue. After all, why go to the Design Council for help unless you think you have a design problem?
The Government's decision to set up Business Links provided the opportunity to do two things for design—first, and for the first time, to integrate design into the delivery of a wide range of business improvement services and secondly to bring design much closer to small and medium-sized companies than the Design Council had managed to do.
All Business Links in England are required to provide design counselling services. The Government are providing funds to enable them to employ design counsellors. Today, 50 Business Link partnerships are providing design services. We expect the network to be completed in the next few months. At the same time, the Design Council has been revamped to become the high profile and proactive advocate for design. Its mission has been restated thus:
"to inspire the best use of design by the UK, in the world context, to improve prosperity and well being".
The "new" Design Council is a lean organisation which, since its relaunch in November 1994, has put in place a new team of people, new strategies and new programmes of research and development. The council operates at the national level.
The Design Council supports the work of the Business Link design counsellors and reports to the President of the Board of Trade on how effectively design services are being delivered by Business Links. The latest report, received at the turn of the year, reported that the design counselling services are working well and that their clients reported a high level of satisfaction.

1585
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked about the image of Britain overseas and how it needed to be improved. There have been some interesting studies of Britain as a brand. They inform the work of promoting Britain overseas by the DTI, the British Council and the Foreign Office. It is important to build on our traditional strengths, which bring us considerable business and exports, inward investment and tourism. However, presenting Britain as a progressive and successful industrial nation with which it is good to do business is equally important. That thought is very much at the forefront when overseas promotions such as those under the Commercial Excellence programme are being designed.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, asked why government does not use design better. Government procurement does indeed take account of design. There are a number of shining examples where design has been deployed to ensure efficiency. The brief of the Design Council includes the very interesting example of forms prepared for the Royal Mail. An excellent example of securing efficiency and value for money is that of the Ministry of Defence Abbeywood facilities. But I recognise, as does the noble Lord, that there is always room for improvement. The Design Council works with all departments across government including—dare I say it?—the Treasury.
The noble Lords, Lord Lawrence and Lord Freyberg, asked about design education in the United Kingdom. The evidence is that Britain's reputation and the reputation of individual colleges for design education remain particularly high. The courses attract high numbers of students from overseas—as many as 40 per cent. in some cases. However, again, there should be no complacency about the need to maintain and improve high standards. I look to the Design Council, the national authority for design, to alert government if there are perceived to be any problems in this area.
In the 21st century, Britain will have to make its way in the world by exploiting to the fullest all its resources of mind, ingenuity and creativity. The world has never owed anyone a living and it certainly does not do so now. And, while the world is opening up increasingly to free trade, new and hungry players are coming to the market-place. Most, and probably all, understand how important design is and send students to Britain to be educated and trained as designers or as managers of the design process.
Britain produces world class designers. That is because we are an inventive people. But it is also because we have a world class design education system. Design is included with technology in the national curriculum. Our design colleges and institutions attract students from around the world and they return to their home countries to design goods and services that we here may end up buying.
The second part of the Question related to what steps we are taking to discourage design talent from seeking employment abroad. It is very seldom that in this House we find two economists agreeing with each other. On
1586
this occasion they not only agreed with each other but had an engineer in support—an even more unusual combination. I add my agreement as well.
In the past, as will be the case in the future, talented young people will go where their talent is appreciated and rewarded. In the long run I do not consider that as necessarily being to our disbenefit. Indeed, as the economy becomes more globalised we shall probably benefit from their experience of other cultures and other design traditions when they return home, as they very frequently do. Their understanding of other cultures and traditions is important to British companies looking to design products for the international market-place.
As a number of noble Lords emphasised, what we are really trying to determine is not whether they should come and go but whether something more should be done to improve awareness of the calibre of those young designers in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that there is more to be done to create an understanding of their worth. We certainly wish to do all that we can to encourage major companies and small and medium-sized firms to appreciate design for what it is—an essential tool for business excellence and success. That is what we are trying to do, as I have sought to explain, through the work of the Design Council and with the new and improved design services at Business Links. As many noble Lords said, design is a British strength which British industry ignores at its peril. The Government remain firmly committed to encouraging and helping British companies to understand that and to exploit that talent.
I thought the quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, an exceptionally apt one with which to conclude any debate. Like his excellent piece in the Sun newspaper recently, it was a quotation that might have been made by the Prime Minister himself. I believe that in answering that question I have scored 100 per cent.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.22 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.22 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 30.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
ASSISTANCE TO PARENTS IN ADMISSIONS
(" . A local education authority may, in respect of admissions to maintained and grant-maintained schools in its area, exercise the function of distributing information to—

(a) parents; and

(b) schools,

1587
concerning respectively the availability of places at such schools and the number and content of applications from parents in respect of such places.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is that a local education authority should act as a clearing house for admissions to secondary schools. The amendment as drafted is a little narrower than I had originally intended. I had originally intended that a local education authority should also distribute school prospectuses and other supporting information to parents who are deciding where their children should go at the secondary stage.
The amendment arises out of a plea from the heart which I received from a friend who is the head teacher of a primary school in central Battersea, which is a feeder school for what has unfortunately become one of the sink schools in Wandsworth. That is a pejorative term but it is the popular perception of that school.
My friend the head teacher spends a lot of his time explaining to parents of pupils that they should take advantage of the choice now available to them in the London Borough of Wandsworth. He encourages them to exercise choice and think of moving their children further afield. However, his impression is that many of the parents are simply overwhelmed by the amount of time it would take to exercise their choice properly and make an informed judgment about what is best for their children.
Many children go to the local school for no better reason than that it is where their elder brothers and sisters have gone and where the other children are going. The head teacher said that the one thing that would lighten the burden for parents would be to have a single port of call to obtain information and literature about the availability of school places and the types of schools available. I propose in this amendment that the LEA should be given that role. The authority is not expected to be an advocate for any particular school. The sole purpose of the amendment is that the LEA should be a clearing house and a source of information for all schools in its locality. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise formally to support this interesting amendment and look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Henley: I note that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, originally wanted a different amendment. So be it, but I think it would be better to take the amendment before us today. If he wants to bring a different amendment another time, no doubt we can look at that.
The amendment is permissive and is therefore unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing to stop LEAs acting in the way proposed if that is what the admissions authorities concerned agree to do. I therefore believe that there is no need for the noble Lord to move the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The experience of parents in Wandsworth is that, although the local education authority may be entitled to distribute this information, they do not do it on a systematic basis and do not necessarily do it for the grant-maintained and private
1588
schools within the borough. The purpose of the amendment as I had intended it to be was to put a more systematic duty on local education authorities to make that information available to parents. I should have been more grateful if the Minister could have given some indication about the intent of the amendment as I described it in my introduction. Nevertheless at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [—Schedule inserted as Schedule 33B to the Education Act 1996]:
[Amendments Nos. 129A to 130C not moved].
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 131 to 134.
Page 66, line 13, leave out ("who is a disqualified person") and insert ("to whom sub-paragraph (3) applies").
Page 66, line 16, leave out ("the child is a disqualified person") and insert ("sub-paragraph (3) applies to the child").
Page 66, line 18, leave out from ("schools.") to ("during") in line 19 and insert ("this sub-paragraph applies to him").
Page 66, line 21, leave out ("in relation").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 131 to 134 with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 135:
Before Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF BASELINE ASSESSMENT SCHEME FROM SELECTION
(" .—(1) No baseline assessment scheme designed or adopted in accordance with sections 32 to 35 shall be used for the purposes of the selection of pupils as to school admissions whether by reference to ability or aptitude or otherwise.
(2) The duty on a school governing body to adopt a scheme under section 33(1), and the duty to assess pupils under such a scheme under section 34(1), shall be undertaken solely for the purposes for which the scheme was designed in accordance with section 32.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 135 and 137 were grouped on the first day but mentioned only briefly. Our recollection is that the Minister acknowledged that we would return to these. They are linked by subject to Amendments Nos. 139 and 141. I will speak to those when we reach them.
Amendment No. 135 is the first amendment which deals with baseline assessment and this is therefore an appropriate moment to place on record general support for the principle of baseline assessment. There is agreement across the political parties and among educationalists that the introduction of universal baseline assessment for children entering primary education is a positive development which should be supported.
The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) conducted a survey in early 1996 and found that about half of all English LEAs were involved in some form of baseline assessment and that it was well established in many schools and authorities. Reception class teachers have had an excellent record over many years of making formative assessments, finding out about the prior learning and attainment of children who are new in primary school. Information from that

1589
exercise has enabled the reception class teacher to plan his or her teaching programme, see to the educational needs of children and also provide information within the school about individual children who may need further help. What is new is that LEAs have been developing assessment instruments for all the schools in an area, so that reception class teachers use a common method of assessing pupils on entry to school. In part that has been brought about by having common assessment arrangements for children aged seven and 11 under the national curriculum.
The advantages of baseline assessment as opposed to reception class teachers carrying out their own formative assessments are that assessment materials can be esed across a number of schools and the results moderated. Common training can also be provided for teachers. Children will have a record of their learning at entry to school which can be carried on at school transfer and the assessment instrument can be used for diagnostic purposes—screening children for special needs, but not for assessing the detail of those special needs—and for value added information on the work done in school. The value added information is important as the development, for better or worse, of primary school league tables based on the achievements of 11 year-olds will mean that schools will wish to examine their performance against the achievements of pupils entering at the age of five.
We believe that the first purpose of baseline assessment means that schemes are expected to fulfil two not necessarily complementary objectives: formative diagnostic and value added. The other purpose of baseline assessment is the measurement of children's future educational achievements as referred to in the SCAA consultation document; namely, to assist with curriculum and resource planning, form part of a value added measure and aid accountability.
It is possible to speak in great detail on the issue of the way in which baseline assessments can be performed. It may well be an area to which we shall wish to return on Report. At this stage, suffice it to say that in recording a very broad measure of support for baseline assessment, there is certainly not a broad measure of support for what possibly the proposed law could enable or even plan to happen; namely, that the Government would use baseline assessment as a measure for entry tests to primary schools. If the Government are committed to preventing baseline assessments being used to create a new model of some kind of primary grammar school, we are able to support the government proposals in these areas. I await with interest the reply from the Minister. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I should first like to thank the Minister for his letter to me of 14th February after the Second Reading debate, assuring me that there has never been any intention that the information derived from baseline assessment should be used for selection purposes. He also specifically wrote about entry to primary school and made the point that children
1590
cannot be assessed until they have already entered a school in reception class. I thank him for that letter and the views it contained.
But the information could easily be used for subsequent moves of the child or for entry to junior school at the age of seven. There is also a possibility, which rather disturbs me, in Clause 34(8) of the Bill that the age at which baseline assessment takes place could be changed from what is currently proposed and that the baseline assessment could be done on children in nursery classes prior to admission to the school in the reception class. The Minister, I know, must be well aware that schools often—certainly those in London in my experience—have nurseries attached to the school which give no automatic right at all to admission to the reception class. The children have to apply again to go into the reception class from the nursery.
I suggest that if the Government are committed to preventing baseline assessments being used for any kind of selection, they should welcome this amendment and the amendments associated with it which will be moved later.
Lord Tope: I simply wish to put on record, if it needs to be put on record again, that there is indeed widespread support for baseline assessment. Certainly, my party wholeheartedly supports it. But we are quite right to be wary of its possible dangers. The Minister says—I hope he will repeat it in a moment—that there is no intention that it should be used for selection or for admission purposes. I accept that that is not the intention but I fear that it may be what will develop. We look at what is coming with test results, league tables and baseline assessment. There is a danger—I put it no more strongly—that this may be leading some schools perhaps toward introducing it as a means of selection. We are wary of that and this amendment seeks to address it.
Lord Henley: Let me first make it quite clear that we have no plans to bring in primary grammar schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, suggested. Obviously, we allow the possibility for primary schools to select, if they so wish. I feel that it is very unlikely that many would do so but the power is there and was always there.
Having said that, I am grateful to noble Lords on the two Front Benches for their support for baseline assessment. This is one of those occasions on which there is general agreement from all three parties and, dare I say it, all round the House on the virtues of baseline assessment and its usefulness.
I also ought to repeat the assurance that I gave at an earlier stage—it should hardly be necessary to repeat it, as I spoke from this Dispatch Box on an earlier occasion—that we have no intention that baseline tests should be used for primary selection. In fact, that would be impossible in that baseline assessment takes place after the child has entered the school. Therefore it could not be used for selection.
However, that is not to say that it would not be possible, should a school want to go down that route—I feel that it is exceedingly unlikely and it is not a route

1591
that many schools would want to follow—that they could not use the test, should they so wish. But that is not the function of those particular tests. The function is just what it says: baseline assessment. That is what it will be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, asked whether the information could in future be used for selection by means of baseline assessment taking place at an earlier stage—she quoted from my letter—on nursery school pupils. I should like to look at that point and possibly come back to the noble Baroness in correspondence between now and another stage.
There is one last point that I should like to pick up now in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. She talked about the tests having certain functions in terms of screening for special educational needs and so on. One must be very careful about thinking that baseline assessment can play so useful a role in that field. She accepted that it was not suitable for diagnostic purposes of special educational needs and I am sure that we all agree on that. I feel that we should probably all like to say that it is not necessarily suitable for screening for special educational needs but, like the noble Baroness, I suspect that there might be occasions when it may help for that purpose to throw up some problems earlier rather than later. But the important point to remember is that it does not have a special educational needs function. There are other mechanisms in place for that. Therefore, although she recognises that it does not have a diagnostic purpose, it possibly does not even have a screening purpose, though it might help on some occasions.
Lord Addington: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can pursue his last point in relation to recognition of special educational needs. Does not the Minister agree that it might be worth considering including some form of initial warning programme into the tests? A large amount of time and money is spent and many children suffer when problems such as dyslexia are not resolved early. The Government should look at bringing in some form of test at some point.
Lord Henley: The function of the baseline assessments is different to the requirement the noble Lord is talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, knows that children can be statemented from a much earlier age—indeed, from two onwards—and it is right that that should happen. As I said, it is possible that there may be occasions when it may help a bit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said, on the screening. But that is not the function of the test.
The function of the test is to get the baseline assessment right. Other mechanisms should be in place to ensure that there is early recognition—we all recognise its importance—of special educational needs. However, I am not sure that these tests should necessarily be designed to do that. If the experts who
1592
advise us on these matters say otherwise, and one could devise them in such a way, then so be it. However, I would not want to distort the tests in that way.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was trying to express from these Benches that we recognise that there is a difference between baseline assessments and the types of testing necessary for the detailed analysis of special educational needs, notwithstanding the fact that statemented pupils who may have quite severe learning difficulties may well be identified in advance of primary school age. However, we are concerned with the 18 per cent.—often referred to as the "Warnock" children—who have special educational needs and for whom a statement is not necessary, but provision is.
My understanding of the legislation as it is drafted—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that it does not require that the baseline assessment necessarily takes place after the child has started school; it could take place earlier. Given that there is a wide degree of support within the education profession from many schools and governors because of their experience, across political parties and from those with no political affiliation, and given that the Government's stated intention is that baseline assessment should not be used in order to select pupils at primary school age, cannot the Government accept amendments that would prevent such use? Such amendments could identify the purpose of baseline assessment as being those that the Government and SCAA have stated clearly. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond, at least to say that he will take the matter away and consider it.
Lord Henley: I repeat what I said earlier. Our intention is that baseline assessment should start after admission. The noble Baroness knows that my door is always open. Of course I shall take away this matter and consider whether the drafting needs to be tighter. There may be some who believe that there are occasions when earlier baseline assessment might be possible. I can only repeat that our intention is that it should not be part of the admissions process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I know that the Minister's door is always open. However, if it is open always to give the same answer, the open door can serve little purpose.
It is with deep concern that I record that many people will be greatly troubled by an apparent government refusal to rule out the use of baseline assessment for selection purposes. I noted the Minister's words carefully and shall read them again tomorrow in Hansard. I believe he said, "there may be some who would".
To start a system of selection by ability at primary age would patently be divisive and destructive. It is something with which we cannot possibly agree. However, I shall read the Minister's words carefully and hope that it is possible to obtain stronger support for ruling out selection at primary school age. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 32 [Introductory]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 28, line 39, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 136, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150. Clauses 33 to 35 relate to baseline assessments of primary school pupils. As has been said, there is widespread support for that. Clause 36 refers to performance targets. The intention of Amendment No. 136 is to link together baseline assessment and performance targets. It seeks to extend the definitions in Clause 32 to cover also Clause 36. The intention of Amendment No. 150 is to require that regulation should provide for annual targets in primary schools to be set by reference to the baseline assessment scheme for the school.
The general feeling is that baseline assessments will enable some kind of measure of what might be termed "value added" to be made. I do not believe that expectations of value added should be set low; indeed, I believe that expectations need to be high, whatever the setting of the school—it is particularly true in inner city schools. Nevertheless, it makes sense that the targets which are set under Clause 36 should bear some relation to the baseline assessments or at least should be prepared to take into account those assessments. With that brief introduction—I do not want to detain the Committee at this late hour—I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may speak to both Amendments Nos. 136 and 150. I found some difficulty in threading my way and wrapping my mind around those amendments. I shall be grateful if either the right reverend Prelate or the Minister will correct me if I have gone wrong.
As I understand it, baseline assessment is defined only for Chapter 1 of Part VI and, by substituting "Chapter" for "Part" the term "baseline assessment" can then be used in Chapter 2 on performance targets, which is the point of Amendment No. 136. Amendment No. 150 requires primary schools to set annual targets,
"by reference to any baseline assessment schemes adopted for the school".
One might hope that targets would be set in relation to numerical outcomes on baseline assessment schemes; that is, how many children each reach a set series of standards. Clearly, a school would not wish to set targets for the results of baseline assessments—by which I understand that schools should not themselves set the standards The net result is that the targets would be on a common basis.
If I understand that correctly, then the amendment is a probing amendment to find out whether "baseline assessment" can be used in relation to the construction of targets. Do baseline assessments count as,
"the past performance of pupils in the particular examinations or assessments"?
1594
That is a phrase used in Clause 36(2)(b). I shall be grateful for any correction or agreement that my understanding of the amendments is correct.
Lord Henley: Again, I express sympathy with Amendment No. 150—the substantive amendment following on Amendment No. 136. I believe what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed to is the problem with that specific amendment. There would be nothing wrong with using baseline assessments for the target; the trouble is that we do not intend to introduce statutory baseline assessment before September 1998.
As recommended by SCAA, there will be a nationwide pilot early this year. Obviously, children who undergo baseline assessment in six months' time will not be doing their Key Stage 1 assessments until the year 2000. It would therefore be wrong to wait until that came through to set targets for Key Stage 1 and deny pupils now in the schools the improvements that setting targets would bring. Given the delay in the instruction about targets for Key Stage 1, which Amendment No. 150 would entail, I suggest that the amendment is unwise. However, I accept the spirit behind the amendment, and good targets will be determined by reference to the starting points of the children concerned. That could include in the future baseline assessment or any other prior assessment, but obviously it cannot at the moment. To fix it on the face of the Bill at this stage in particular would be wrong. It might be something that could be addressed in a number of years' time but certainly not now. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and that the right reverend Prelate will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: At this late hour I too have difficulty in discerning precisely the meanings of amendments, but my understanding is that Clause 36 gives a permissive power to publish targets and past performances, whereas the amendment that I am proposing would require that annual targets would be set by reference to the baseline assessment. It is a slightly different point to the one about publishing, but I am glad there has been some warmth for the principle behind this amendment. I accept what the noble Lord the Minister says about the difficulties of timing, and in the light of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 29, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 4 and insert (""designated" means designated by the Secretary of State;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 138 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 140, 142 to 145, 161 and 172. These amendments are of a technical nature, and I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I welcome Amendment No. 138 as I have not welcomed anything for some time, for the simple reason that eight words

1595
replace 22 words. How refreshing to find that the art of précis is not dead: would that it had been extended to the rest of the Bill!
As regards Amendments Nos. 140, and 142 to 145, they allow for the possibility that there may be more than one designated body which can accredit baseline assessment schemes. I take it that this amendment is really looking at the possibility that the Welsh curriculum body would approve baseline assessments in addition to the English body. As regards Amendments Nos. 161 and 172, these are again concerned with baseline responsibilities of QNCA and refer to the responsibilities of QNCA and the equivalent Welsh body for baseline assessment, which is why they are grouped with Amendment No. 140. The Welsh body, Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu, has an acronym, which is ACCAC and takes the place of ACAC. Both are pronounced "ACAC", as far as I can see. I have no difficulty with these amendments.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is absolutely right. He is also right in giving what I think is now the current form of pronunciation of the assessment authority for Wales. It is pronounced the same, whether it is ACAC or ACCAC. I will not follow the noble Lord in trying to emulate his Welsh.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Adoption of baseline assessment schemes]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 29, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) A baseline assessment scheme may be so adopted if (and only if)—

(a) it enables the school to identify and meet the needs of pupils who have special educational needs without a statement; and

(b) no pupil is excluded from such an assessment on grounds of ability.").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 141. Amendment No. 139 will provide for a baseline assessment being adopted if, and only if, it enables the school to identify and meet the needs of pupils who have special needs without statement and that no pupil is excluded from such an assessment on the grounds of ability.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that baseline assessment schemes can be used to identify and meet the needs of pupils who have special educational needs. The introduction of a universal baseline assessment will enable for the first time a standardised formal evaluation of learning achievements to be made of children on entry to school. Given that a major objective of this exercise is diagnostic, the question is how can these assessments be best used to identify children with special educational needs. The draft national framework for baseline assessment published by SCAA in September 1996 requires approved baseline assessment schemes to be sufficiently detailed to identify the learning needs of individual children,
1596
including special educational needs, in order to support effective and appropriate planning for teaching and learning.
The consultation that ensued indicated that virtually all the 8,000 respondents supported such a requirement. The elements of the national framework will become the criteria determined with the approval of the Secretary of State as proposed in Clause 33(2). There were a few comments about using baseline assessment schemes for the identification of children with special educational needs. This was an area that we touched on in discussing Amendment No. 135.
Obviously, there are problems that need to be overcome. The Council for Disabled Children noted that it may categorise children and lower expectations, especially as the baseline assessment scheme does not reflect the very real achievement of disabled pupils. Authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham recorded that schemes which provide diagnostic information of sufficient detail to identify learning needs for all pupils, including those with SEN, are likely to be difficult to design and would certainly result in manageability problems and inflexibility. It is because of these problems that the draft criteria of the baseline assessment schemes published by SCAA on the 4th February—the consultation ends in mid-March—give further thought to how the baseline assessment should relate to the assessment of children with special educational needs.
It is accepted that there must be an effective link to the procedures developed under the DfE's code of practice for the assessment and identification of children with special educational needs. It cannot be a formal part of the process without a revision of the code. It is recognised that most baseline assessment schemes will not provide sufficiently detailed assessments to place a child on stage one of the assessment procedure, but viable information will be provided which may lead to the identification of some children's special educational needs.
It is expected that accredited schemes will have to provide guidance on how the results will relate to the assessment procedures, such as requiring a review of progress after a term at school. This approach could use baseline assessment not so much as a means of identifying children with special needs but as a means of providing initial screening of children with special needs. The amendment is raising with government the issue of what parliamentary scrutiny there will be over the approved criteria for accrediting baseline assessment schemes. The assessment arrangements at Key Stages 1 to 3 have to be made by statutory instrument, which, while not subject to the negative resolution procedure, as a statutory instrument, is readily available to Parliament. Clause 33(2) provides for the criteria to be approved by the Secretary of State and presumably published by a designated body. Can the Minister say how the relationship between the criteria for baseline assessment and the identification of special educational needs can be assured if this amendment is not passed into the legislation?
I spoke earlier to the issues covered by Amendment No. 141 which deals with the question of the sole purpose and function of baseline assessment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: As a matter of clarification, I wonder whether either the noble Baroness or the Minister can tell me whether either baseline assessment or the assessment of special educational needs—or both—cover the question of physical medical problems, such as limited hearing or limited vision, which are often undetected in young children?
Lord Henley: Such problems comprise special educational needs where they affect the educational requirements of an individual. They might therefore be taken into account.
Again, I sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment, but I do not think that it is appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. We must ensure that in due course we have got baseline assessment absolutely right.
The first objective of the proposed amendment will be achieved by the national framework in a way that has been largely welcomed by most members of the teaching profession and most SEN specialists. To undertake baseline assessment in accordance with the Bill's provisions, schools will have to adopt an accredited scheme. In order to achieve accreditation under the national framework, all baseline assessment schemes will be required to meet the criteria drawn up by SCAA or, dare I say this, by ACCAC in Wales. As the noble Baroness informed the Committee, those criteria are currently subject to consultation. That consultation will end in March. That is one very good reason why we want to be careful about how we proceed at the moment.
The criteria will require baseline assessment schemes to include guidance on how the schemes link in with more detailed assessments. The assessments might, indeed, need to be more detailed. That takes me back to what I said earlier about the assessments not necessarily always being suitable for diagnostic purposes. However, they might link in with the more detailed assessments which can identify children's special educational needs. Further, they will oblige scheme providers to offer guidance on how baseline assessments might link in with the Government's code of practice on special educational needs. At this stage, we must await advice following the consultation. We must see what the consultation turns up in terms of whether, and how, baseline assessments can pursue these ends, valid though they are.
The noble Baroness also asked about parliamentary scrutiny of such schemes. My understanding is that, as the noble Baroness put it, a statutory instrument will be required and that—again, as the noble Baroness put it, although I shall have to check this—it will not be subject to the negative procedure. However, as the noble Baroness and many noble Lords opposite know well, there are always means by which such instruments
1598
can be made a matter of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the consultation process will allow us to arrive at a consensus on these matters.
Having said all that, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that neither of her amendments is appropriate to be included on the face of the Bill. As always—I cannot repeat this often enough, although I have said it on many occasions—the guidance that we shall be offering on these matters will be subject to thorough consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for that detailed reply, but advise him that I noted his words carefully when he said that there are "means" of ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. I would have been even happier, however, had I heard him say that there are means that the Government will use to ensure that there is detailed and adequate scrutiny of the provisions. Although I did not hear the noble Lord say that, we shall return to the matter later because it is important that this receives proper scrutiny.
We recognise the difficulty of linking baseline assessment to detailed diagnostic testing of an individual pupil's needs, but the problem with the Government's view does not relate to those pupils who have very marked and individual special educational needs, but to those pupils to whom the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred—I am sorry that the noble Lord is no longer in his place—who may have some eyesight or hearing loss but who have neither such a marked eyesight loss nor are so profoundly deaf that that is apparent. I hope that the assessment procedures will recognise the need to remind parents of the importance of having their children checked.
Our other deep and real worry is that it would be tragic if a baseline assessment were not followed up by some assessment of the causes of a child not having achieved the same level of competency as his or her peers. I say that because the last thing that any of us would want to do is to set in place a mechanism that would somehow confirm that some children were not as able as others at the age of five. The important thing to do is to assess what children can do and then to work positively to find a way to help them. Within special educational needs, an average of 18 per cent. of children have non-statemented special needs, often called the "Warnock" children. Indeed, in some schools, it is as many as 40 per cent. of children. It is critically important that we do not allow the mistaken philosophy that a certain school has children of low potential to be developed from the statement, "This school takes in pupils whose level of attainment, as assessed by baseline assessment, is lower than that of the rest of their age cohort or is lower than average". That is our concern—not that baseline assessment is not good, but that it cannot on its own identify what is needed to raise the achievement of children who are not performing at the same level as the rest of their age group at that stage. However, I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to these points. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Assessment of pupils in accordance with scheme]:
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Regulations for purposes of this Chapter]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 145:
Page 31. line 1, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 31, line 21, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a").
Page 31, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 138.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [School performance targets]:
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 31, line 32, at end insert ("in accordance with any education development plan for its area made by the local education authority and approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: It cannot be stressed enough that the White Paper Self-Government for Schools states:
"Each school is responsible for its own performance. It is central to raising standards that the staff and governors of every school should feel that it is directly for them to monitor the quality of the education they provide, to identify ways of improving it, and to take the necessary action".
However, the problem that arises is what should be done if schools set targets that are too low or there is a need to make an overall improvement in the performance of schools in an area. The newspapers continue to publish LEA league tables of performance, and SCAA member John Marks has done the same for 1995 key stage tests. The national education and training targets are addressed to LEAs among other bodies. If an LEA is to be able to raise achievement levels in all its schools it will require a development plan that, among other things, will have to set targets for schools. In these circumstances it is right that schools should have targets set in accordance with the development plan. To safeguard the role of schools the plan provides for LEA development plans to be approved by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 147 and leave Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 to better minds than mine. Amendment No. 147 has as its purpose to improve the effectiveness of performance targets by introducing consultation with the local education authority before the governing body sets them. The Bill as currently drafted requires school governing bodies to set performance targets annually for the performance of
1600
pupils in national curriculum assessments at Key Stages 1 to 3 and in GCSE, GCE and GNVQ. Presumably, regulations will enable the Secretary of State to specify which schools have to produce targets. For example, do we know yet whether all special schools must have targets? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. Regulations can also specify how the targets must be published. They may require information about how the past performance of pupils relates to their targets. As far as I know, draft regulations have not yet been produced.
Coupled with the duty to set targets, the DtEE has commissioned SCAA to do work on the introduction of benchmarking information. Benchmarking information is not a term of art. One would like to have greater assurance as to exactly what it means. The intention appears to be that schools will be provided with an annual analysis of the most recent national curriculum assessment and examination data in the form of benchmarks. One paper produced at a high profile DfEE conference in November stated that the benchmarks would show what the best schools with similar characteristics across the whole country were already achieving. One's understanding is that "similar characteristics" means that information will be produced to indicate that, for instance, schools with a specified range of pupils having free school meals have achieved a given range in GCSE passes. For example, schools that have 25 to 30 per cent. of pupils with free school meals will be told that in the 1995 Key Stage 1 test the median school had 73 per cent. of pupils achieving level two in the reading test and that the upper quartile was 82. A school with FSM in this range might then choose the upper quartile as its target. That seems to me—I speak subject to the Ministers's correction—what that is all about.
The DfEE paper stated that SCAA would carry out consultation early in the new year. Well, we are getting a little past early in the new year now, and, so far as I know, no consultation paper has been produced.
If I were to dream and speculate upon rumours that flitter towards my ears from all sorts of unauthorised sources, I would believe, or might believe, what is widely believed—that that consultation paper has been held up by the No. 10 Policy Unit because of the use of free school meals in defining benchmarks. Free school meals are not things that the Government like to have bandied about too much too close to an election.
Mr. Forth, the Minister of State, in Committee stated that in respect of regulations:
"We are now consulting on such matters".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 14/1/97; Co1.573.]
Perhaps—dare I speculate?—Mr Forth was confusing consultation with No. 10 with public consultation.
The White Paper, Self-Government for Schools, stated the Government's view of the role of the LEA in "quality assurance". It noted:
"Each school is responsible for its own performance. It is central to raising standards that the staff and governors of every school should feel that it is directly for them to monitor the quality of the education they provide",
as my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has already reminded us.

1601
Within that context the Government set out three main functions for LEAs which would complement the work of schools in promoting higher standards—first, direct intervention by a LEA where a school has major failings which it is unlikely to resolve by itself; secondly, working with schools in setting targets for improvement; and, thirdly, providing services to help schools carry out their own plans for improvement. The amendment would, therefore, give force to the second of those declared functions.
The White Paper suggest that LEAs can assist each school in determining its targets by analysing and circulating a wide range of information available from the national curriculum assessments and tests, performance tables, Ofsted inspection reports, the inspectorate databases, financial monitoring, and a number of other sources. If they go in for too much of that, I wonder how much time any of the schools will have for the incredible luxury of teaching the children committed to their charge. However, they will go ahead and do it because they have been told to. By that means each school will have a fair basis for assessing its current performance with schools within its own area, and will be able to determine its priorities for improvement. There is no reason why that support should be restricted to county and voluntary schools.
That admirable DfEE publication Settings Targets to Raise Standards: A Survey of Good Practice (November 1996) was an interesting document to read. If I may digress for one moment, I do so to thank the Minister for his great courtesy in sending to me before we began this Committee stage last week, a number of publications which had not come my way before and for which I am extremely grateful. I cannot claim to have given them the total attention that they should have, but I have looked through them all, and I have derived a great deal of help from some of them, and a little rethinking on my part from one or two of the others, which was obviously what the Minister intended me to do.
Setting Targets to Raise Standards describes how many LEAs have promoted school improvements, supported school self-evaluation, and raised governors' and teachers' expectations of pupils, and sometimes themselves, by providing high quality comparative information for their schools. That information helps schools to set short-term targets for improvements in the performance of pupils which are demanding but realistic in relation to their starting point.
So, LEAs are in a unique position to provide data for all the schools in their area. Surely it is one of their functions to spread that information. It takes time for the schools to read it, to assimilate it, to talk about it, to discuss it and to see how in each individual case it will be applied, but I suppose that that is the climate in which Her Majesty's Government have decided that we must all now live, at least until, if it be the right date, 1st May.
For many years most LEAs have been doing excellent work in collaboration with their schools. Amendment No. 147 would simply reinforce that relationship. Where the activity needs to be supported for both schools and
1602
the local education authority, Amendment No. 147 will encourage its further development. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon it.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has introduced Amendment No. 147 most comprehensively. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 148. Its purpose is to ensure that performance targets, once they have been set and achieved or not achieved, are reported upon in the annual report of the school.
The amendment was brought to the Committee stage in the other place but the Minister was not receptive to the idea. Can the noble Lord say what other convenient means there is of letting parents know about the school's targets and its performance against those targets if annual reports are not used?
I turn to Amendments Nos. 215 and 216. They relate to the ability of the LEAs to obtain the information that they need to fulfil their role. In order for the LEAs to help schools to set performance targets, they need information on the performance of individual pupils from which accurate school information can be constructed. Although LEAs collect and process the data for Key Stage 1 assessment for the DfEE and have always had access to GCSE and GCE results, they have not been given a role in Key Stages 2 and 3 tests and therefore have not had access as a result.
The need for LEAs to have access to results is not disputed. The White Paper, Self-Government for Schools, states:
"The LEA can help schools by analysing and circulating the wide range of information available from national curriculum assessments and tests".
LEAs have an unequivocal right to this information, using the powers in Section 165 of the Education Act. Many LEAs use those powers to obtain information on Key Stages 2 and 3 results. However, it means that each school must supply data to both the LEA and a national data collection agency commissioned by the DfEE to collate Key Stage 2 and 3 tests. It would obviously be easier if the education authority could obtain its information from that data collection agency.
The DfEE claims that Sections 408 and 537 of the Education Act 1966 prevent it asking the four GCSE examination boards or any future data collection agency to pass on data to LEAs. Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 will, it is hoped, remove whatever legal impediment exists to the smooth transfer of data to LEAs and prevent schools having to supply data twice. The efficient supply of this data to LEAs could greatly increase the effectiveness of the LEAs in setting performance targets. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister, on this occasion at least, can accept an approach which strengthens the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Henley: We have consistently made it clear that the schools are the main agents for change. In answer to the first question put by the noble Lord. Lord Morris, "schools" includes special schools. I invite him to look at Clause 36(3)(c), which mentions special schools. Responsibility for driving up standards rests with the schools. We believe that self-government in all its

1603
various forms—LMS, GM or whatever—has proved to be a success and that schools are capable of rising to that task.
Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 seek to establish a greater role for the LEAs in respect of school targets. I do not believe that that is necessary. It will be open to LEAs to provide information, support and advice to the schools which they maintain, and good LEAs already do that. However, I do not believe that that needs to be mandatory.
Self-Government for Schools set out the role for LEAs to work with their schools in setting targets for improvement. Targets are most effective when they are developed and owned by those who are responsible for achieving them. As I said earlier, that means that each school should decide what its targets should be and what action is needed to achieve them.
The part that LEAs can play is in analysing and circulating performance data to give those schools a sound evidence base for assessing their current performance by assessing themselves against other schools and deciding priorities for improvement. The LEAs can also work with schools in ensuring that they set suitably stretching targets. They will certainly wish to do that as part of their quality assurance work. They can also monitor the setting and meeting of the performance targets.
But we do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to impose extra stages which would slow down the target-setting process and remove responsibility and ownership from the school. That is exactly what Amendment No. 147 would do by requiring governing bodies to consult their LEAs before setting annual school performance targets. That would apply equally to grant-maintained schools.
Amendment No. 146 refers to the LEA's development plan which has been approved by the Secretary of State. I presume that originally that was meant to tie in with Amendment No. 180F, which is no longer part of this group of amendments. We do not accept that it would be helpful to require such plans to be made on a statutory basis, but perhaps that can be dealt with during our discussions on Amendment No. 180F.
Our priority is to foster the internal will and capacity of schools to generate their own improvement. As I have said already, the LEA has a role, but not an exclusive one, and there will be many partners, including parents, TECs and strategic fora, which have an interest in school targets.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, spoke to Amendment No. 148 which would require school targets to be published in a school's annual report to parents as specified in Section 161 and Schedule 17. The annual report is likely to prove the best vehicle for schools to communicate their annual targets to parents. But the appropriate place to specify detailed requirements is in the regulations and not in the Bill. We have committed ourselves already to wide consultation on the detail of those regulations. That consultation will give schools an opportunity to comment on how targets should be
1604
formulated in parallel with how they and past performance should be published. Other views may come forward. As always, we are reluctant to put on the face of the Bill matters which are dealt with more properly elsewhere.
Amendment No. 149 seeks to give the Secretary of State power in the regulations to require schools to publish a value added indicator of pupils' progress since admission alongside their actual results. Whether or not that is desirable, this proposal is not as yet practicable. Value added comparisons based on progress of pupils against their level of attainment on entry are not yet available at either pupil or school level across the country and across all age groups. But by creating a national framework for assessment, the Government have made it possible for schools to have value added analysis in the future. Obviously, we are not there yet and the data do not yet exist. Therefore, to amend the Bill to require such indicators would delay the establishment of school targets, and I do not believe that the Committee would wish to accept that today.
Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 relate to the collection of school performance data. I accept that that is a complex area. Certain principles are clear, on which, as I understand it, there is a degree of agreement. First, the Secretary of State needs the powers to collect school performance data from governing bodies. That power exists already and I suspect that there is no wish on either side of the Chamber to remove it. The noble Baroness now proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power also to collect individual pupil data and to pass that on as appropriate; for example, to LEAs. That would have a number of important applications in the area of school improvement; for example, in the context of target setting and value added calculations.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness to ensure that LEAs and others have the necessary data to enable them to pursue vigorously school improvements and other policies. At the same time we must ensure that information in respect of individual pupils does not enter the public domain. I feel that the amendments as they stand would not achieve those ends. Obviously that is no criticism of the noble Baroness as we are discussing a very complex area; indeed, I do not know whether she drafted the amendments herself or whether she had some assistance in such matters. However, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments on the understanding that I will reflect, with some degree of speed, between now and Report stage on the issue and possibly consider the matter further.
Finally, I return to the suspicions, if I may put it that way, of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who is not normally a suspicious man—indeed, he is normally the most reasonable of men—that the SCAA consultation paper is being held up. I can assure the noble Lord that his suspicions are completely and utterly unfounded. There are some very difficult issues to be resolved on how we compare schools on a like-for-like basis. There is nothing suspicious in that. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw not only his amendments but also, on this occasion, his suspicions.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I respond to that by saying that, of course, I believe every word the Minister says. However, perhaps I may ask him a few questions which have arisen from what he said so far and which I found to be of great interest. First, am I not correct in thinking that Clause 36 is permissive? The Secretary of State "may" make recommendations requiring targets. Is the Minister now confirming that there will indeed be targets required for all special schools?
Secondly, in response to the Minister's concern about the grouping of the amendments, we ought to put it on the record that the grouping is in fact correct. Indeed, Amendment No. 180F is quite separate. Thirdly, can the Minister say what information or research data have been collected by HMI or Ofsted since 1979 on the correlation between free school meals and test and external examination results in particular schools? Of course, I realise that the Minister is not likely to have the information on figures since 1979 just peeping out of his top pocket. Nevertheless, if that information could be made available, I should be quite happy to receive it by letter. I want to know whether or not poverty is relevant to school achievement. We had given warning that we would raise this issue. My noble friend Lady Farrington said on Second Reading that she would raise the matter, or at least at some other earlier stage of the Bill.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord raised three points. Of course, I recognise the fact that the clause is permissive. It is permissive for all maintained schools in this section, as subsection (3) makes clear that "maintained schools" means those that are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I should point out that paragraph (c) refers to,
"a maintained or grant-maintained special school (other than one established in a hospital)".
As regards the noble Lord's second point, he is quite right. Bulky though all my pockets are—indeed, they are full of information to pull out for the noble Lord and he saw just how many folders that I brought in for this afternoon's, this evening's and tomorrow morning's debate—I am afraid that I do not have details at hand of the research data collected by Ofsted on free school meals and performance. However, I should be more than happy in due course to write to the noble Lord on the matter. Thirdly, I understood that Amendment No. 180F was not included in this group. It just occurred to me that, as other Members of the Committee were referring to it, they might have missed the fact that we shall come to deal with that subject in due course.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may thank him for the way in which he responded to Amendments Nos. 215 and 216. I shall take his advice when we come to consider those amendments in due course.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I found the Minister's reply to my amendment rather disappointing and indeed somewhat unrealistic. It is sad that the Government continually relegate the role of LEAs. Time will prove
1606
that we on this side of the Chamber are right on most occasions. I shall have to read what the Minister said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 150 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [The Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 32, line 12, leave out ("National").
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving Amendment No. 151 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169 to 171 inclusive, 173 to 175 inclusive, 178 and 206 to 214 inclusive.
In spite of that long catalogue of numbers, which I as a mathematician was delighted to enumerate, I begin with a semantic problem. I do so with some trepidation in a debate in which literary scholarship has played a prominent part. My semantic problem is a question. Does the word "national" in the title of the new body, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority, qualify curriculum, so that it is the national curriculum authority by contrast with, shall we say, the basic curriculum authority, or does it qualify authority, so that it is a national authority dealing with the curriculum? That element of doubt raises a problem which I expressed at Second Reading. National curriculum refers only to part of the total curriculum, that part whose content is determined nationally. There are wider curricula delivered in schools and in particular there is the basic curriculum which includes religious education in addition to the national curriculum.
The religious education syllabus is determined locally—as has been made clear already in the Committee discussion—and it is not therefore part of the national curriculum. It is clear that the proposed brief of this new body includes religious education. I welcome that inclusion. The position of religious education was adversely affected for a number of years by the National Curriculum Council's unwillingness to accept responsibility for any curriculum issue beyond the national curriculum. I am glad that this new body will accept such wider responsibilities. It is right that its title should reflect beyond doubt those responsibilities. This amendment therefore proposes to drop the word "national" and to entitle the new body the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
I make no comment about the acronym nor the names by which the acronym might be spoken, which we referred to at Second Reading. I simply make the point that I have spoken to the chief executive designate who has expressed himself fully satisfied with this change. Indeed I understand that members of his staff are now using the title, as amended. I hope that none of us is making a false presumption about the favourable response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Clearly the body will have responsibility for the whole school curriculum including

1607
the national curriculum, religious education and other subjects which form part of the general curriculum. Therefore I have accepted the principle behind the right reverend Prelate's amendment and I am prepared to accept the amendments in their total to show what a reasonable chap I am. I hope that that will receive general support throughout the Chamber.
I am not a mathematician but I did some counting up and I see this strikes out 23 words from the Bill which can be no bad thing. I note what the right reverend Prelate says, that those working in the new authority—as it will be under the chief executive designate—are already using the new title. I note that up to the amendment my briefing referred to QNCA; after the amendment it refers to Q(N)CA. I hope that with the agreement of the Committee I can strike out the letter in parenthesis. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am delighted at the Minster's response. In the light of an earlier exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, perhaps I may declare that it is not my birthday; and that given the gap in age—I believe that it is 10 years—between the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the gap in age between the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself is even larger. Perhaps it is a concession to seniority which has elicited this response.
However, I am delighted. I thank the Minister and his department for the help that they have given in the matter. Indeed, the number of changes to which the Minister referred was due in large part to the help of his department. I am grateful for the response.
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 32, line 23, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this paragraph "education" shall include education provided in maintained schools").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 153A, I wish also to include consideration of Amendments Nos. 154 to 156A and 168F.
Amendment No. 153A requires some experience of maintained education in schools in the profile of experience of members without constraining the overall scope of the education category. I think that we shall have a bit of tugging, and to-ing and fro-ing, during the next, I hope not too many, minutes about the precise qualifications, membership, and areas of expertise and representativeness of the members of what we may now call QCA rather than QNCA—although I hope that we shall be forgiven if, in moving at fair speed, we refer to the old and discarded title by mistake.
Underlying this is a general dissatisfaction with the number of people set down for membership. As soon as the Secretary of State sets down a small number such as that provided, hackles rise. People go into spasm. They say, "There is absolutely no representation for this or that, further education, the maintained sector, the cat or
1608
the dog". Everyone has to be represented. It used to be trade unions which had to have proper representations on this, that or the other. That is one thing with which at present we do not seem to be overly concerned, although that may come.
Clause 37(4) makes provision for the membership of the QCA. Specifically it requires persons,
"to have experience of. and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education, or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of education".
There is no indication that such a person has shown such a capacity in a maintained school, be it LEA maintained or grant maintained. In our view that is casting the net a little too wide. As the Bill stands, Clause 37(4) would accept me as a shiningly well-qualified member of the QCA—so that proves that it must be fatally inadequate.
The Minister will no doubt be able to confirm that there has always been an independent school head teacher in membership of SCAA. Currently it is Dr. Philip Evans, Headmaster, Bedford. There are four from the maintained sector. It is not easy to imagine that this present Government would not appoint someone identified with the independent schools sector to the QCA. Given all the other competing interests, could it be the case that with membership that could be as few as eight there would be no room for somebody from the maintained sector? If that was so, we would consider it to be a very undesirable situation and this amendment would ensure that there would be.
The problem is in the size of the new authority. In the other place the Government were not able to justify why it should be so small. It is worth making some comparisons to see whether there is any logic in the composition of these bodies, or whether some official somewhere simply plucked a number out of the air and said, "Well, give it a run and see who salutes it". We must speculate whether in this case the Government's left hand knew what their right hand was doing.
As I understand it, the Welsh body will be the same size as the SCAA, with 10 to 15 members. There are about 30 people involved at present in the governance of SCAA and NCVQ. Interestingly, the Scottish body, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established under the Education (Scotland) Act 1996 provides for up to 24 members. Now Scotland is a big place, and it is rather difficult to travel around it, especially during the winter months. But I can only imagine that this decision was taken as a precaution against ice and snow. Up to 24 members is rather a lot. The Secretary of State is limited to appointing only 19 members. That was an extremely interesting little discovery. Additional members are appointed by the SQA itself. In my view that improves the chance of achieving a balanced membership representing all the relevant interests. In England, on the other hand, all the members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that is that. The QCA will have no say whatsoever in the matter. It will not be able to appoint anybody that it rather fancies. Why not? What is the difference?
The other problem with small bodies is that they are much more open to political manipulation. Just two political appointments on a small body can be much

1609
more effective than on a larger body. It is to be hoped that the Nolan reforms will put an end to such appointments. However, our discussion on this matter would have been relevant to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, did not move; namely, Amendments Nos. 152 and 153.
The Minister may care to develop to our advantage the basic philosophy behind these appointments. Although there is an issue about how the authority will work with such small membership given the expanded remit of the organisation compared to each of its constituent parts. It is likely that there will be significant areas of the work of the QCA in relation to which there will not be a QCA member with any personal knowledge at all. Can the Minister explain and justify why there has been a reduction in the size of the authority? That is especially the case if there is no one with a maintained school background. As I say, this amendment attempts to rectify that situation.
A frequently made criticism of the SCAA is that it does not achieve a consensus in consultation. Without a sufficiently large authority the debates generated by consultation cannot be repeated in the membership of the authority, which leaves very little room for consensus and compromise in making final decisions. That is not a plea for the 120-plus membership of the good old Schools Council—in the days when life was different and the sun shone every day—on which every body of significance was represented. It is simply a plea for a need to consider the size of the body to do the job. Eight is much too small.
An example of the problem can be seen in last year's presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society by Professor Adrian Smith in his reference to the mathematics curriculum and SCAA's habit of consulting with representative bodies separately. He said:
"a major cause of these problems [in mathematics education] … [is]… the flawed method of planning changes in school mathematics over the past decade … there has been no representative, authoritative, continuing national forum for mathematics in the UK, bringing together mathematicians, scientists, engineers, employers and teachers. Instead, increasing power has been assumed by the bureaucrats of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA), with debate and consultation degenerating into a one-sided dialogue between the SCAA and the individual bodies, with agenda setting and decision-making controlled by a small and necessarily unrepresentative group within the SCAA".
I could not have put it better myself. It takes a good mathematician to produce some good, clear prose. Why are the Government allowing this pattern to continue in the constitution proposed for the QCA? I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 154 and 156, which are included in this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made the point about the importance of including those with experience of the maintained sector. These two amendments make it clear that the maintained sector includes voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools having foundation gofernors. As I said at Second
1610
Reading, about a third of all schools are Church schools. It is a very substantial provision to the maintained sector.
The amendments mirror those for the Funding Agency for Schools. Amendment No. 154 requires the appointment of persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in these areas. Amendment No. 156 requires the Secretary of State to consult particular bodies. In relation to the Funding Agency for Schools, we are glad that the Government have observed the provisions of the earlier Bill. We have indeed been consulted about these matters. In the last round of appointments for the Funding Agency for Schools one of the nominations put forward by the Churches was accepted by the Government.
The argument is that in relation to the new body the same provision should apply. It is not necessarily the case that the Secretary of State would have to accept any outcome of a consultation. His own freedom to appoint whom he wishes would not be constrained by any names put to him, but Amendment No. 154 would require that not only the maintained sector but also the voluntary sector is taken account of.
Lord Burnham: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, whether it is not the case, in the light of Amendment No. 154, that the wording of Clause 37(4)(c)is not so wide that the amendment is quite unnecessary, particularly with reference to the last part of Clause 37(4)(c),
"or the practice of any profession"?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have not the remotest idea. I would need time to have a look at that and I shall, of course, do so. Perhaps the Minister may be able to enlighten me on what I think.
Lord Henley: I doubt it very much indeed. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that we are not debating the size of the authority on this occasion. In the Bill we say that something of the size of between eight and 13 is appropriate. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Butterfield proposed different figures of between 12 and 18. As I think I said to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in relation to other numbers that came up on another occasion on an earlier day, getting these figures right is not a precise science; it has to be a matter of judgment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I would not want to go back to the great Schools Council. The noble Lord tells me that the figure for that was 120; I thought it was around 100. Anyway, it was a big figure and something that would not necessarily be appropriate on these occasions.
What we want is a small strategic body that can make the appropriate decisions, but then, by means of a committee structure, can look at specialist matters—obviously it covers a whole range of different things, covering NCVQ and SCAA—and through its committee structure bring in a great many other people who will cover other matters. All those members of committees can include members who are not members of the authority. It will be up to the authority itself to consider

1611
whom it should bring on to its specialist committees and at that stage it might be more appropriate to go down a different route.
As I said, during the passage of the 1993 Act—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who quoted my words from the 1993 Act; but I shall quote myself on this occasion—when we discussed similar amendments relating to the membership of SCAA:
"If the Secretary of State were to concede on representation in one case, however worthy, it would be very difficult to draw the line on other requests from organisations and groups which have a stake in what happens in our schools".
I do not believe I could have put it better then and I shall repeat it now. Once one concedes one group for the authority, one then has to accept the argument for a great many others. I do not intend to go down the route of reserving places on QCA for any groups other than those set out in the three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 37(4): persons who have experience of education, persons who have experience in the provision of training and persons who have experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters. I believe that is appropriate.
To go further and say, "You have to have teacher trainers, LEAs, teacher unions, parents and pupils", would mean that the small businesses would demand separate representation; so would the professions, universities and trade unions. I could go on and we would have a very long list indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, would be the first to admit that. We do not believe that that would be an appropriate body to deal with these matters. We believe that a body of roughly that size would be more appropriate.
I do not know whether it would be making a political point and it might be that I have picked up things in a newspaper that were not necessarily true. But I noticed a comment to the effect that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, should he get into government, was considering a smaller, inner Cabinet of a smaller and tighter size, on the basis that that was more appropriate to make decisions. We believe that a size of roughly eight to 13 would be more appropriate.
I accept that it is different from the SQA, the Scottish equivalent. But that is a very different body. First and foremost it is an awarding body rather than a regulatory body. It cannot be compared with the QCA. I accept that it is smaller than ACCAC. But then, ACCAC is not a new body. It is a reconstitution of the existing Curriculum and Assessment Authority in Wales. The existing members, chairman and chief executive will continue to serve. Consequently, it was not felt appropriate to reconsider the size of its board. No doubt my right honourable friend, if he wanted to reconstitute it at some point, would consider the advantages or disadvantages of a new body. As I said, we consider that the QCA is a new body. We consulted fairly widely on that, and decided, for the reasons that I have already set down, that a figure of about eight to 13 was about right.
I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to continue further on that question. My understanding was that we had a degree of support from the noble Lord's friends in another place. Perhaps he can tell me if that
1612
is not so. I believe that the appropriate size would be eight to 13. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to start listing certain groups at certain stages. As I said earlier, once one begins to open the door, one opens it for a great many other equally deserving cases, all of whom need representation. If one wants to go down that road, the committee route is appropriate for the authority itself. I believe that what we propose is the better way round. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can raise one point with him. I listened carefully to what he said. Is it his feeling that the sub-committee route would be the best way of bringing on board more specific considerations—for instance, those people with experience and expertise in nursery and special education?
Lord Henley: I do not believe that one should reserve a specific seat on the authority for nursery or special educational needs. I would hope that the authority, which will recognise that it must consider these matters, just as it must consider a whole host of people ranging from teacher trainers, LEAs, teacher unions and so forth—I ran through a long list of them—will be able to ensure that appropriate people with the appropriate expertise deal with the appropriate subjects.
Baroness David: My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 155A and 155B, along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Amendment No. 155B covers both. We want people to be represented on the committee,
"who appear to … have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of special education and nursery education, or to have held, and to have shown capacity in. any position carrying responsibility for the provision of special education and nursery education".
It is wise to remember that the code of practice for special educational needs affects all phases of education and has a direct impact on the national curriculum and its assessment. It is vital therefore that persons with specific special educational experience are represented on the authorities.
I listened to what the Minister said in regard to the size of the authority. But will there be guidance as to the people who should be consulted when the authorities are created? I hope that some of the people who have been discussed in this short debate will necessarily be heard, because it is extremely important.
My name is also attached to Amendment No. 186F because Clause 37 refers to the QNCA—or QCA as it is for England—and Clause 43 refers to the same authority for Wales. The amendment does for Wales that which I have been saying in relation to England. I hope therefore that the Minister can say whether or not there will be guidance as to who should be included on the sub-committees so that the various interests are represented.
Lord Henley: In relation to the membership of the authority, I cannot go any further than I have. It would

1613
not be right to open the stable door for one specific group or another. It will be a matter for the authority itself to consider who to appoint on its committees, the authority having been appointed under the appropriate procedures using all the Nolan rules.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we will be advertising the posts this month, in March, and the appointments will be made some time in May. We have already appointed a chief executive. We have started the process in relation to the chairman and are fully consulting the noble Baroness's honourable friends in another place, as is appropriate for such appointments at this stage in Parliament. Thereafter it is a matter for the authority to consider who it should appoint. Guidance per se would not be appropriate. The Secretary of State will be able to keep a close eye on the appointments and may make appointments to committees in his or her name, if it is felt that representations are not working properly.
The simple point I am making, going back to the authority rather than to its committees, is that it should not be a matter for listing a whole range of people on the authority who have to be represented. As even the noble Lord, Lord Morris, accepts, that might take us back to the good old days of the schools' council.
Baroness Warnock: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can say that I feel sure it is right for the committee to be small in number and not representative. It reminds me of the days of the committee on the education of the handicapped when, looking round on the first day, somebody said, "There is nobody here from the remedial gymnasts". If one starts giving places to the remedial gymnasts, one will have to give places to heaven knows who else.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the names from the people who are consulted—the sub-committee members—will be published. One of the merits of sub-committees is that if the public know who the members are they can lobby them. I would just ask for that assurance when the committee is set up.
Lord Henley: I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I may say I shall always remember the remedial gymnasts, and we might reserve a place for them. But to be serious, it is a perfectly valid point. I will take advice on that, but I presume it will be a matter for the public record. If I am mistaken I will certainly let the noble Baroness know.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I was interested in what the noble Lord had to say. He mentioned that the leader of my party might possibly want a small group around him. I heard that rumour: I read about it somewhere but it did not make much of an impression on me. He will of course make his own dispositions if and when he is in a position to do so. I do not suppose that any of us will be considered for high office in that particular small kitchen cabinet.
I must say that I was not particularly satisfied with the answers given by the noble Lord the Minister on this occasion. I would have awarded no more than a grudging Beta plus. He relied too much on the
1614
floodgate argument: if we allow one in, the rest would be wanting one too. That argument, in a situation of this kind, is not a very convincing one. The underlying question, which has not been properly addressed by the Government in my view, is: what is the optimum, the best size for this body, given what it has to do?
If it has been decided that it will work through a whole raft of committees and there will be a committee on maintained schools, another on SEN and another on further education, that will be an easy solution and a bureaucrat's paradise. However, I do not think it is the kind of thing that will lead to efficient activity on the part of an organisation like the QCA. That authority is going to have to cover a vast range, and to work through committees seems too bureaucratic and detailed, as far as I am concerned. I would think it would make much better sense to work through an authority itself, which could take its own decisions at its own meetings without having to bounce things back and forth, to get minutes and reports and have referrals back from one committee to another.
It will still have to deal with maintained schools, with SEN and further qualifications—that huge area about which there will be so much detailed discussion. I feel still that it is going to be too small with its present number of eight to 13 to work effectively. On the other hand, I do not like the proliferation of committees, because the line management structure will be massive and slow. That having been said, I do not want to press this to a Division at the moment but I may very well wish to come back to the matter in greater detail at Report stage.
Finally, the Minister said something, if I understood him correctly, about the discussion in another place. He claimed that he had the support of some of my honourable friends. I have taken great care on this occasion to become acquainted with all the stages of the work of Standing Committee D on this Bill. At a quick glance and on searching my memory, I cannot remember any occasion during the Committee stage when the size of the QCA was debated. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can put me right on that, but I do not think it was at Committee stage. It may have been elsewhere. If the Minister would care to intervene, he may do so right now—
Lord Henley: I cannot assist the noble Lord, but I had got the impression—perhaps unjustly—that his honourable friends supported QCA as we propose to set it up.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord although I cannot find evidence of that, but de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles—and we need not take that any further now. And so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 154:
Page 32, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors;").
The right reverend Prelate said: I spoke to this amendment a moment ago but, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I found the Minister's reply a little unsatisfying. A distinction ought to be made between what might be termed "minority interests"—important and significant as they are—and the substantial interests which are represented in both the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and, I would argue, in that to which I spoke earlier. Nevertheless, as we shall make no impression on the Minister at this hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 156A not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 158A:
Page 69, line 35. at end insert
("( ) the Chief Inspector of the Further Education Funding Council,").
The noble Lord said: I am in a bit of quandary about this grouping. We have found Amendment No. 158A grouped with Amendment No. 168C. We are told that the groupings are,
"informal and not binding. It is therefore open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
After consideration, I do not wish to move Amendment No. 158A, but I shall wish to speak to Amendment No. 168C and, if it is in order, I shall do so in its proper place in the Marshalled List.
[Amendment No. 158A not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 38 [General function of Authority to advance education and training]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 32, line 33, leave out ("National").
The right reverend Prelate said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 159A:
Page 32, line 38, after ("quality") insert (", accessibility").
The noble Lord said: Clause 38(2) states:
The Authority shall exercise their functions under this Part with a view to promoting quality and coherence in education and training".
Those are clearly both important matters and are rightly included in the Bill, but the issue raised in this amendment is the need to ensure that the qualifications
1616
available are not only coherent and of high quality, but also accessible. Most adults study part-time. Many need to interrupt their studies. They experience a range of barriers to access, not least financial. They need access to flexible modes of study. They need to be able to acquire qualifications in small units over time. They need effective progression routes and they need qualifications that can take account of their experience of prior learning.
The amendment seeks to ensure that those issues are all within the remit of the authority. Therefore, this amendment, together with Amendment No. 162C with which it is grouped, refers to "accessibility" and requires that the authority should also exercise its functions with a view to promoting accessibility as well as quality and coherence. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: I agree that it is vital for the new authority to build on the excellent work of both SCAA and NCVQ in promoting access and equal opportunities. We believe that SCAA has an explicit commitment to equal opportunities and that NCVQ has done much valuable work in this area, not least through its Access and Fair Assessment Advisory Forum. The establishment of a coherent, high quality framework of qualifications in itself encourages accessibility. The development of a new entry level for the framework in response to Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations will also do much in this area. I shall consider this amendment further and undertake to return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to reflect the concerns felt by noble Lords for those who face difficulties in achieving qualifications.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the Minister can explain a little more clearly exactly how the Government believe that they are meeting the accessibility criteria?
Lord Henley: I believe I said that both SCAA and NCVQ had an excellent record in this matter, but I accepted the concerns voiced by the noble Lord. For that reason I agreed to table appropriate amendments at Report stage to take this matter further.
Lord Tope: For a moment I thought that my birthday had already arrived but it is at least a week nearer than it was when the Minister drew the attention of the Committee to my great age compared with his. I am grateful to the Minister for considering the matter in this way. I look forward very much to seeing what he tables at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Functions of the Authority in relation to curriculum and assessment]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 33, line 1, leave out ("National").
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 33, line 21, at end insert ("; and
( ) to take into account the interests of children with special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to add to the list of functions of the QCA a specific requirement to take into account the interests of children with special educational needs. The Minister may argue when he replies that this facet is implicit in Clause 39, but it needs to be explicit in establishing a new curriculum authority to reflect advances in the legal and educational framework of special needs of recent years. Clause 39(2)(b) and (c) deal with advice on the curriculum and research to develop it. This amendment is a crucial litmus test of how far special needs will be an integral factor in these areas of the QCA's work. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am totally sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I undertake to consider it further and to return at Report stage with appropriate amendments to take account of all learners with special needs, learning difficulties and disabilities in schools, colleges, and publicly funded training.
Baroness David: I am very grateful for that response. In the light of it, I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 33, line 31, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Functions of the Authority in relation to external vocational and academic qualifications]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 33, line 40, leave out ("National").
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 162A:
Page 33, line 42, leave out ("external qualifications") and insert ("National Vocational Qualifications").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 162A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 162B, 162D, 162E and 162F. The problem here relates to the undefined and very broad nature of the powers offered to the qualifications authority in the lifelong learning area. By limiting the power to NVQs, current work can be maintained, but time would be allowed to clarify a wide array of qualifications which will be affected, and to take account of the issues which will inevitably arise in the report which we await, many of us with bated breath, of Sir Ron Dearing's committee on higher education. That will impinge upon what we have before us.
On Amendments Nos. 162B and 162F the issue is whether the QCA should approve individual courses, or whether it focuses on awarding bodies. It surely cannot be charged with deciding on the minutiae of a national curriculum for lifelong learning, which is the implication of the clause unamended. The FEFC's experience has been that three times as many vocational course units have been approved for community-based open college network qualifications than for general non-vocational qualification credits. That reflects the diversity of adult qualifications and the diversity of adults' starting points in pursuing lifelong learning.
Amendment No. 162B requires the QCA to develop criteria for approval, and Amendment No. 162F requires it to approve awarding bodies; that is, the examinations boards such as the AEB. It is not clear who would accredit qualifications. The amendments do not specifically suggest that the awarding bodies should do so, and neither are the functions of awarding bodies defined.
Amendments Nos. 162D and 162E both delete Clause 40(2)(g), which Amendment No. 162F tries to amend. Amendment No. 162D requires the QCA to establish procedures for the accreditation of qualifications submitted to the QCA, which does not seem very different from the Clause 40(2)(g), for which it is substituted. How the procedures relate to the criteria in the previous subsection is not clear—at least not to me.
Amendment No. 162E requires the QCA to set criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. The previous subsection will however require the QCA to develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. It is likely, as far as I can see, that the amendments are aimed at reducing the centralist structure of the QCA and allowing examining bodies, rather than the QCA, to accredit qualifications. If I am correct in that, the Minister can no doubt answer. If I am incorrect, he will no doubt tell me. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I was somewhat baffled by the amendments when I first saw them. I have to say that I am now completely and utterly baffled, following the noble Lord's explanation. It might be that I shall have to look carefully at what he said when I read the Official Report tomorrow. It seems rather odd, when one looks at Amendment No. 162A, after all the pronouncements from the noble Lord and others about the importance of standards, to find what appears to be rather cavalier treatment of standards in GCSEs, A-levels and GNVQs. All we are left with are NVQs, as I understand the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 162B and 162F are somewhat more comprehensive, but again I have to confess to being not absolutely clear whether the noble Lord intends the accreditation of awarding bodies to be as well as or instead of the accreditation of qualifications. The noble Lord's speech has not enlightened me much further. I will, if I may, look at what the noble Lord said, but neither the amendments nor his explanation of them has left me much wiser. As they stand, they seem to do something that would be distinctly undesirable.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It may be that the reason for that lies in the grouping, which puts together

1619
a number of things which, although superficially similar, are perhaps rather different, on the grounds merely that they are related to one authority.
As I was going through the groupings I found that I might be offering the Minister a little more heat than light. I believe that we would do well to reflect upon them. It is important that we get them right. As regards Amendment No. 162A, we were concerned centrally to limit the powers of the NVQs in order that what is currently being done can be maintained before we suddenly leap off into doing something else. That was in aid of the approaching difficulties that we shall have into slotting the report from Sir Ron Dearing into everything which we are currently undertaking and which seems to be perpetually on the move.
Let us by all means read what has been said tonight and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162B to 162F not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 162G:
Page 34, leave out lines 13 to 18.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to probe the meaning and difference of functions between the terms "accreditation" and "approval" used in the Bill and the likely effect of such powers. It is important that the use of those terms is perfectly transparent within the wording of the Bill to ensure that there is clarity of meaning in the Bill and that there is no conflict of interest between the functions to be carried out by the authority.
The amendment seeks to remove two subsections from the Bill which appear to give the new authority power directly to approve qualifications in addition to power to accredit qualifications. Commonly, the power of accreditation in relation to qualifications is taken to mean the recognition of a qualification designed by another organisation by the designated regulatory body. "Approval" tends to be used to describe the approval of a course or syllabus by the body which designed the course or syllabus. On other occasions, those descriptions are used interchangeably.
The particular use of those terms within the Bill is crucial because of the scope of the powers which would be held by the new authority and the possible conflict of interests which could arise from the exercise of such powers. The current regulatory bodies, the SCAA and the NCVQ, have rather different remits. Broadly, the SCAA accredits GCSEs, which awarding bodies have designed, sets parameters for GCSEs and has responsibility for quality assuring the relevant awarding body processes. The NCVQ is responsible for overseeing the quality assurance process of vocational awarding bodies. It has also been involved in the design of particular types of qualification; the NVQ and the GNVQ.
The new authority may be expected to take on all those roles, but it may be more appropriate and effective for a clear separation of function to be agreed between
1620
the regulatory body, the QCA, and the awarding bodies. It must be appropriate for the new authority to have the power to specify criteria and to accredit courses or syllabuses designed by awarding bodies. It is less clear that the QCA should take on the role of designing a series of qualifications within the authority.
We have only to look at the recent history and development of NVQs and GNVQs to see that the process of devising qualifications and approving them within the same organisation is open to real difficulty. GNVQs, although taken by a growing number of students, have been revised annually since their introduction, have been the subject of a major review and assessment and are still undergoing changes. Staff in colleges and schools have had to work within a system which required massive amounts of record keeping and the arrival of new sets of course specifications, often just prior to enrolment of the next intake of students.
The NVQ, although growing, is still a qualification which only 3 per cent. of the workforce holds and which has itself been subject to a major review—the Beaumont report—and is the subject of reworking in order to be relaunched in 1988. Throughout the 10 years of NCVQ's life, other vocational qualifications, such as those provided by the three major vocational-awarding bodies—BTech, now EDEXCEL, City and Guilds and RSA—have continued to be requested by employers, often because qualifications like the National Diploma contain broad educational knowledge and understanding in addition to specific occupational competence.
NCVQ continues to receive a levy of £10 from each NCVQ qualification. A similar levy on GNVQs has now been dropped. It is difficult to see how an authority, given the role of designing and approving its own qualifications, can act as an honest broker between different valid qualification types, as the body has a vested interest in the success of some qualifications at the possible expense of others. Therefore, it is essential that there is clarity about the use of language within the Bill and the purposes and powers which will be available to the new authority. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: From these Benches, we support the amendment.
Lord Henley: I found the amendment rather peculiar because I was at a loss to understand the sudden opposition to a clause which has received a high degree of support. But I now understand that it is a probing amendment. In effect, the noble Lord would like to know what is the difference between accreditation and approval.
Accreditation is what the authority will do. It will accredit a qualification such as a GCSE, A-level, GNVQ, NVQ or whatever. In passing, I assure the noble Lord that NVQs have been a great success. It was a little over a year ago that we saw the award of the millionth NVQ. I imagine that the figure is much higher now. There is an increasing recognition of the NVQ in the workplace. If the noble Lord would care to talk to

1621
employers, he would find that they speak in glowing terms about the motivational effect that that qualification has on their workforce.
In this context, approval is what the Secretary of State will do in saying which qualifications may be provided with the use of specified public funding or for pupils of compulsory school age. Obviously, we anticipate different lists for different purposes; for example, for pre-16 schooling or for TEC-funded training. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I did not intend to cast aspersions on NVQs and I hope it was not taken in that way. As the Minister identified correctly, this is a probing amendment to seek clarification. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said and consider the matter further if appropriate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 162H:
Page 34, line 18. at end insert ("; and
( ) to secure adequate qualification mechanisms for individuals seeking qualifications.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 164A and Amendment No. 164B will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
Amendment No. 162H raises the issue of the availability of mechanisms for individual people to acquire qualifications. A wide variety of ways of gaining credit are needed like those mapped in the Further Education Development Agency's work on a credit framework. People need to have ways of getting previous experience and achievement recognised for credit. That is an enormously important incentive in attracting people to particular forms of qualification. As I found so often in university work, they placed a great deal of stress on the credit that they were given or not given for what in many cases might have been half a lifetime of previous, relevant experience.
People need to be able to carry credit with them between institutions, not necessarily in the very mechanistic way of the American university credit-transfer system but in something approaching that; in other words, they need learning on the job to be recognised as having a worth and a value towards further studying. Part-time students may need to take qualifications a little at a time.
Amendment No. 164A has been tabled simply to test whether a loophole exists in Clause 40(5). That subsection disapplies the first five functions listed earlier in Clause 40 from qualifications awarded or authenticated by institutions within the higher education sector, except where those qualifications have gone through the accreditation process which QCA will establish. So, in that sense, it is a probing amendment.
Observers have pointed to a potential loophole in the regulatory framework. The intention to ring-fence degree work within universities and the higher education
1622
sector generally is understood. However, it is possible that the wording of that provision might permit any university to authenticate any course or qualification offered in the sixth-form or further education college. That qualification would then not be subject to the QCA's quality assurance process and would lie outside the national framework.
The point of Amendment No. 164A is, therefore, to establish whether or not the fear which some observers have that a university would be able to authenticate a course offered by another institution, such as the sixth-form college, is well founded. It is an important amendment because I can assure Members of the Committee that universities are now in such a hard-pressed position for resources of any kind that they are grasping for almost anything legal which will allow them to bring in a certain amount of money. They are looking for every possible means of accreditation and validation of courses almost anywhere. I do not say—because I do not believe it—that standards are, therefore, dropped; they are not, except in one or two doubtful cases which have already been dealt with. However, because of that pressure the amendment becomes particularly relevant to the work of the QCA and the accreditation of qualifications. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall speak to Amendment No. 164B, which forms part of this grouping. The intention behind the amendment is to draw to the Minister's attention one aspect of the Bill which was not debated in another place and which has not, so far, been debated in this Committee. Tucked away in Clause 40 of the Bill is something which may adversely affect the way in which chartered professional bodies discharge their responsibilities.
The amendment is a short one and would add the words,
"or by professional bodies established by Charter",
after the words "higher education sector". To illustrate the case for the amendment, I shall use such prominent examples as the Royal Society of Chemistry or the Institution of Mining & Metallurgy (of which I am a Fellow).
Both of those bodies award and authenticate their qualifications. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry validates courses in a number of universities and colleges throughout the country, which lead directly to admission to the society as either a licentiate member or a graduate member. These are both processional categories of membership of the society. The licentiate membership is equivalent to a pass degree in chemistry, and the graduate membership is equivalent to an honours degree in chemistry.
The main point is that, in the case of the Royal Society of Chemistry, this is something that it has been entrusted to do for over 100 years. It has been authenticating such courses and awarding these qualifications in one form or another since the 19th century under the terms of its charter.
I understand that the Government are now proposing, in Clause 37 of the Bill, to establish the QCA, whose job it will be, inter alia, to review and accredit certain

1623
qualifications awarded, following study within the higher education sector, including the universities. It is not clear, however, from the Bill how the QCA's powers will affect the existing rights of chartered professional bodies.
Chartered professional bodies have some points of similarity with the position of universities. The Royal Society of Chemistry's role is a good example. Like many universities which were established by charter (including most of the older universities in the United Kingdom), the Royal Society of Chemistry was also established by charter almost 150 years ago; in fact, its first charter dates from 1848. Like most of the older universities, the society (together with my own professional body and several others) has long operated under chartered status approved by the Privy Council. Under the terms of its Royal Charter the society is required,
"to establish, uphold and advance the standards of qualification, competence and conduct of those who practise chemistry as a profession".
To help it fulfil its charter obligations the society is authorised to,
"cause examinations to be held",
and,
"issue formal documents certifying competency in chemistry".
The Royal Society of Chemistry, together with the other chartered professional bodies, has therefore been accorded exactly the same authority to award and authenticate its qualifications as have the universities. This amendment would clarify their position and safeguard that role.
Lord Henley: These are interesting and, I think, finely balanced amendments. I shall, if I may, speak to each in turn.
Amendment No. 162H is intended to impose a duty on the QCA to secure a sufficient supply of qualifications for individuals seeking them. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but I think it could create substantial practical difficulties. First, there would be a clear tension between this provision and the responsibilities of the various funding authorities to secure adequate or sufficient facilities for education. Secondly, it might well result in the QCA requiring awarding bodies to provide qualifications tailored to single individuals, without regard to there being a "best fit" alternative qualification available, to costs or to the desirability of there being a transparent, easily understood framework.
Amendment No. 164A would bring every sub-degree qualification offered by an HE institution within the QCA's remit. The existence of such qualifications is a growing feature of HE, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made clear. One has only to think of the Open University to be aware of the growing importance and value of such provision. And while all bets are off on the future direction of HE provision until Sir Ron Dearing reports, I think we could hazard a guess that any solutions he and his committee come up with might well involve an increased focus on such provision as an
1624
integral part of HE. We have been accused before of creating in QCA an authority with an excessive remit. However, I think I am fairly clear this is one area where it would not be appropriate for its remit to run.
Finally, Amendment No. 164B to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke is designed to put qualifications offered by professional bodies on the same footing as qualifications offered by HE institutions. Again, I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord. The professional bodies are valued upholders of standards and an important safeguard of professional integrity. They have not, however, been treated in the same way as HE institutions because of the overarching requirement for the QCA to promote coherence. Many lower level NVQs feed into higher level professional qualifications. We want the articulation to be as clear as possible—hence the requirement, in particular, to keep such qualifications under review.
I hope that with these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: If I may say so, the noble Lord the Minister has made a much better fist of trying to get rid of our amendments on this occasion than he did on the last.
I am not entirely satisfied, but I take some of the points he made. Without forfeiting my right to come back to this on Report after I have seen in print what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162J not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164:
Page 34, line 23, leave out ("National").
Page 34, line 30, leave out ("National").
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 165 not moved.]
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford moved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 34, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall establish a Board, to be known as the National Vocational Qualifications Board ("the Board") to which it shall delegate the functions falling within subsection (2) above where these relate specifically to National Vocational Qualifications.
( ) The Board shall have responsibility for the marketing of National Vocational Qualifications for such period as the Secretary of State shall direct but in no event for less than three years.
( ) The Board shall include a majority of members who have experience of, and have shown capacity in. industrial, commercial or financial matters.").
The noble Viscount said: I believe that there is a need for balance between those in training who have to do written examinations and those involved in NVQs. There is a fragile balance at this time. It is in the latter area that anxieties are being expressed currently.
I recollect that a year or two ago my own discipline, the insurance industry, was greatly alarmed when suggestions were made that qualifications could be

1625
achieved without any written examinations. I do not think that there is any doubt that insurance standards would have dropped had written examinations been overset, but happily common sense prevailed and a series of exemptions were agreed both ways, based on the levels of competence obtained in NVQs where written examinations were concerned and vice versa.
I am advised that the insurance industry training council and the Chartered Insurance Institute fully support the "employment" rather than the "academic" focus of career related qualifications. Also they have been pleased to see a growing recognition in the DfEE of the need for some sectors to have a heavier bias towards examined knowledge than others in the context of vocational qualifications.
So perhaps we can say that proponents of qualifications by written examinations are currently relaxed, but not so the proponents of competence based qualifications through NVQs. The CBI points out that NVQs are a much younger and less well established qualification: that they are a fundamental tool for the promotion of adult learning; and that they have not yet reached a critical mass and thus need a strong voice in order to remain closely related to employment needs. My own institute—I am president of IDPM, the institute for the management of information systems—supports this. So also, I am told, does the pharmaceutical and allied industries awarding body.
The first paragraph of my amendment calls for the establishment of an NVQ board to work within the framework of the new QCA to ensure that critical mass in adult learning through NVQs does in fact take place. When the discipline has matured, I suggest that such a board would no longer be necessary.
I am aware that Schedule 6 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to direct the QCA to establish committees for specific purposes. I hope very much that he agrees with the current need to ensure NVQ maturity by retaining those best qualified to do so, as per the third paragraph of my amendment, and will be able to confirm that such a direction will be made.
My second paragraph responds to the fact that the Bill limits the activities of the QCA to the provision and dissemination of information. However, the role of the NCVQ included the requirement to market NVQs as per its 95/96 annual guidance document where it was emphasised that effective marketing was critical to take up. In effect this is also transitional but necessary in order to ensure NVQ maturity. I appreciate that the Minister may not think that the QCA or even a board set up below the QCA is the right place for marketing. But it is a job that needs to be done, and the Bill does not seem to cover it. If it is not to be covered here, who will have this responsibility once the NCVQ is no more? This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I appreciate my noble friend's strong commitment to NVQ. It is a commitment that I share,
1626
as, I understand, does the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I retract if there was an implied criticism, in anything I said earlier.
Sir Ron's vision, when he recommended setting up a single authority responsible for all qualifications, was to bring together the academic and vocational, and to tackle the divisions between education and training—rather along the lines of the spirit behind the merger that formed the Department for Education and Employment. I am therefore anxious not to enshrine that vision in a statutory constitution of the QCA by delegating the majority of the QCA's functions in respect of NVQs to some autonomous board that would be almost separate from the QCA. That would in effect mean that the QCA was responsible for academic matters with a separate body being responsible for NVQs. I hope my noble friend will accept that.
As to marketing, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for the QCA, or even one of its committees, to be involved in promoting one of the qualifications that it regulates. That could give rise to suspicions of conflict of interest. The QCA's function of publishing and disseminating information relating to external qualifications will help schools, colleges and employers to become aware of all the qualifications in the framework. That will include information on NVQs, including the advantages they can offer for individuals and companies.
My noble friend is right to point to the importance of promoting and marketing NVQs. One principal role should lie with the Government on the one hand, and with the industry representative bodies responsible for the development of qualifications on the other. However, I give my noble friend an assurance that, even if the Government play the lead role, there are many others involved in these matters—the CBI, the IoD, the Careers Service, further education colleges, the TEC network and individual firms, which have found NVQs such a powerful tool for improving skills and the motivation of their workforce. I hope that with those explanations my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Chelmsford: I thank the Minister for his response. I do not intend to suggest that there should be an autonomous board, merely that I hope that he or his department might make a direction that a committee should, at least for a transitory period, give some protection to the NVQ side of training. I shall need to read the Minister's comments on marketing; however, I am grateful for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The Committee will recall that the merging of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) was recommended by Sir Ron Dearing in his recent review of qualifications for the education of 14 to 19 year-olds. That proposal has been generally welcomed in relation to this age group and discussion of the Bill as a whole has concentrated on schooling and the education of young people. However, as the Bill is now drafted the functions of the proposed agency go far wider than this, and they will impact on the education and training of adults and their opportunities for lifelong learning. It is a matter which has barely been discussed.
Clause 40 of the Bill gives the new body functions in respect of "external qualifications", both academic and vocational. That is a very broad and very general description. Only exempted, as I said, are academic qualifications at first degree level or any comparable higher level. Clause 40 suggests that the agency will not only develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of vocational qualifications, of which there are thousands, but actually accredit them. There are already a large number—I think it is over 100 now—of independent awarding bodies, often charitable in structure, involved in this work.
Nowhere does the Bill take account of the differing needs of adults in respect of these qualifications. I think it is true to say that most adults study part time. Most adults fund their own studies; it is not easy for an adult to get himself or herself funded by some other body.
Increasingly, studies are modular. That is necessary. Many of us, especially people in higher education, have fought against this and regretted it because it imprisons the free spirit. One of the great virtues of the British university three-year undergraduate degree is that, on the whole, it does not work in these ridiculous modular structures which tell people what they have to do in sickening detail, following which they tick off the various answers to the questions produced when they take some sort of examination at the end of a term.
As I know from my work in my own subject, English literature, it is perfectly possible to have a module called "18th Century English Literature" which one can get through by reading three novels and six poems and knowing nothing whatever about anything else. But in this new form of higher and further education that we are moving into and shall have presumably throughout the next millennium, modular structures are the fashion—the norm—and we have to find ways of working with them.
Increasingly, studies are modular. Individual credits are accumulated over time to gain certification. Adults also have need of different types of certification mechanisms, such as the accreditation of prior learning, on which I place such a premium. Seventy per cent. of further education students, mostly studying vocational courses, are adults. Costs to learners are already high as few grants are available for part-time
1628
study. The power to be given to the agency to raise a levy on awarding bodies is likely to prove an additional barrier to access for part-time learners.
For these reasons, among others which I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will illustrate, we are not content that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Tope: There is now widespread agreement on the importance of lifelong learning and the achievement of the national training and education targets for adults, as well as for young people, but there has been little discussion on the implications of the Bill for adult learners, further education or awarding bodies.
We believe that Clause 40 is also premature since Sir Ron Dearing is engaged in yet another review, this time of higher education. While the Bill exempts academic qualifications at degree level and higher levels, the move of the NCVQ into higher level NVQs is bound to lead to overlap with universities, especially in areas of applied study and professional qualifications. It is surely better to wait for Dearing to report before hastening to hand over these extensive powers to a new agency, particularly one whose original focus is rooted in schooling and not in post-school education and training.
For these reasons, we consider that Clause 40 should not stand part of the Bill, since all these matters require further discussion and clarification with the wide array of bodies involved, and particularly in the light of the awaited Dearing report.
Lord Henley: I find the noble Lord's behaviour quite extraordinary when it seems to be part of the policy of the party opposite to support these clauses of the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord wishes to have his amendment; possibly he wishes to have an ambush and strike the clause out.
We entirely accept the need to promote lifetime learning. That is one of the reasons why we have brought together SCAA and NCVQ. There is no reason why this clause should undermine modularity at A-levels, GNVQs or whatever in the way that the noble Lord suggested. As it is, I could not quite follow the drift of the noble Lord's argument as to whether or not he seemed to be in favour of modularity. But there it is.
Perhaps I may set out what the clause seeks to do. It sets out the authority's functions, which we have been through in some detail, in relation to external qualifications. As with the school curriculum assessment, the QCA will have full functions of review, advice, research and development and information-giving. New to this Bill is a power for the QCA to accredit qualifications against criteria which it has developed. That will give the new authority the statutory backing to build on the valuable work done by both staff and NCVQ to assure A-levels, GCSEs, NVQs and GNVQs. It will be a vital tool in implementing Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for a coherent and rigorous national framework of

1629
qualifications. In that respect it is fully within the recommendations of Sir Ron's review in his report on 16-to-19 qualifications.
I fail to understand at this late hour just why noble Lords opposite wish to oppose the inclusion of this clause, having understood that in another place it had general support from both parties opposite. Perhaps at this time of night I am naive but I shall certainly recommend those on my side of the House, those on the Cross-Benches and even, dare I say it, those on the Benches opposite to support me in accepting that Clause 40 should stand part of the Bill.
11.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 14.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 40, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
11.10 p.m.
Clause 41 [Other functions of the Authority]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 35, line 1. leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167A not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 167B:
Page 35, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 167C and 168A. The purpose of this amendment is to seek recognition of the need to include skill and knowledge as important considerations for the authority when seeking to meet the educational and training requirements of industry, commerce, finance and the professions—
Lord Henley: Would the noble Lord give way? Is he speaking to Amendment No. 167A or 167C?
Lord Tope: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, did not move Amendment No. 167A. I am therefore moving No. 167B, which is simply to leave out "and", and I do not have a great deal to say on that. Therefore I am speaking to the next amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 167C. I hope that now the Minister has recovered from his recent great victory he has managed to catch up with us.
The National Curriculum Authority, as it was called, is charged with a range of publicly funded qualifications. This function should include recognition and cognisance of the role and importance of the development of skills and specific knowledge in addition to the attainment of the required standards of practical competence. Much of the recent and current work on the development and possible revision of NBQS, for example, has been based around an acknowledgment of this need. Developments have included building to NBQ specifications and opportunities to develop key skills such as communication and working with others. New unit specifications now include information on those areas underpinning subject knowledge which it is essential for a candidate to understand. This ensures that competence is supported by a sound knowledge and rationale for the activity undertaken. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I totally agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 167C. I apologise for having interrupted the noble Lord earlier, but I have now caught up with myself, as he put it. Although I agree with the

1631
noble Lord's intention, I would argue that the amendment is totally unnecessary. Practical competence encompasses the necessary skill and knowledge that he asks for. People at work will simply not be able to demonstrate competence without skill and knowledge. The clause as it stands reflects the very strong views that were put forward forcefully and often by employers. They want trainees who can do things, and that is exactly what competence is about. They want training to be practical and they want competent employees. They do not want people with a head full of theory; they want people who can get the job done, and knowledge is an essential part of that. There is increased emphasis on that, in NVQs, as the noble Lord knows. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I press him to be a little more explicit in particular on Amendment No. 167A, and on No. 167B as well? Part of the purpose of this group of amendments is to insert accessibility to qualifications as a factor which the QNCA should take into consideration when carrying out its functions.
The issues which these amendments address include how easily or realistically individuals may gain access to courses and qualifications which QNCA will oversee. Other amendments deal with the scope and level of the qualifications, but the amendments include a requirement that QNCA considers the accessibility of the courses that it supervises—in other words, it should take an active and informative view of the education provision presented under its aegis and should consider geography, the range and level of courses and the suitability of qualifications for the educational needs of individuals. It should be proactive—consulting, researching, advising and planning—rather than a passive filter for the bids of institutions. It should not only raise standards, but should fit what is available to the needs and aspirations of students.
All our experience of working with individuals throughout their lives and of encouraging people to stay in, and to return to, training is predicated on the notion of it being readily available. Sadly, some institutions have failed to understand that if people have to attend after work in order to complete their qualifications and training, they must take account of the geography of the locality and the availability of transport when planning their provision.
These are not minor but major issues if we are to address something about which I understood the Government to be concerned. I refer to the huge shortfall in the level of access to, and the quality and range of, opportunities for people at what is called "technician level". This is a very serious subject in a country which based its educational system for far too long on educating well a small minority—it still does—but which failed to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of the average. Unlike many of our competitor countries, we have succeeded in producing among people who are deemed to be average a feeling that that
1632
will not do and that they are somehow incompetent. But they are the people whose hopes and aspirations we need to raise. They are the people we need to encourage. For them, geography, range and level of courses, and their suitability for individuals are particularly important. Could the Minister address those issues in his reply?
Lord Henley: I addressed those issues somewhat earlier, but it depends on what the noble Baroness means by "accessibility". I suspect that she has taken its definition somewhat further than matters relating purely to what might be termed equal opportunities and disability matters. I have said that I shall consider those matters and that I might have to return to them on Report. Although the noble Baroness is now taking the definition of accessibility somewhat further, I assure her that I shall look carefully at what she has said.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister. As far as I can understand it, he now agrees with me so much that he cannot agree with my amendment! I suppose that that is progress of a sort. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167C to 168A not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 168B:
Page 35, line 24, at end insert ("and
( ) the requirement for adults seeking access to education, training and work to have access to accreditation mechanisms that take account of their prior experience, and of learners undertaking part-time study.").
The noble Lord said: We have looked at this issue slightly previously and now we are going to look at it again. The amendment seeks to draw attention to the needs of adults who will be affected by the work of the authority by charging it specifically with responsibility to have regard to their needs. First, it must have proper arrangements for their prior experience to be assessed and accredited—and it needs to be both assessed and accredited. Perhaps I may give just one example. This is the kind of provision which will benefit women returners. It will show that skills developed in even something so humdrum and mundane—dare I say it?—as household management can be transferred to small business management.
Even at this late hour, perhaps I may lighten the technical detail of the discussion by giving one example from university experience over the past five or six years. When I had the honour to be the principal of St. David's University College, Lampeter, as it then was (now the University of Wales, Lampeter), I became aware of the needs of a large number of women in that rural area for computer expertise in order to do such tasks as run farm accounts, assist in small business work and matters of that kind. A course was introduced which originally bore the title "Business Information Technology Course for Housewives". When we realised what the initials spelt we changed it to "Women Into New Technology". That was a roaring success.
It allowed women, who perhaps had seen their families grow up, to return to a university atmosphere and learn the information technology skills which were then remarkably marketable in that rural area for small businesses, shops and farm accounts.
That is a perfect example of the kind of people who can benefit in their further lifelong learning from having their prior experience assessed and accredited and being allowed to go on to other activities. First, it ensures that the authority considers the needs of adults with professional qualifications outside the European Union who cannot currently secure assessment and accreditation of such qualifications. That is a difficult and darkened area which in the past has been shunned by almost everyone but must now be addressed.
Secondly, it allows us to have in place the proper arrangements for people who study part-time. The bulk of post-compulsory students now study part-time. Many interrupt their studies and carry on later. Currently, open college networks accredit much of their vocational learning and access courses for higher education. Thirdly, it ensures that fees and possible levies do not act as a barrier to access, particularly as courses are taken in smaller modules, with smaller units of accreditation. Large numbers of adults now pay for their own studies. That is now very much the rule. The FEFC funded three times as many vocational qualifications leading to OCN credits as GNVQ units in 1995–96, largely because they were flexible and in small sized units. For example, all TUC shop steward courses now attract OCN credits. The National Open College Network is now the fourth largest vocational awarding body measured by FEFC funding. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: In supporting the amendment, I should like to point out the difficulties that one particular group of returning employees face in the labour market. I refer specifically to people who have trained as teachers, have had experience of teaching and have left the profession to raise a family. They may be out of the profession for perhaps five, 10 or 15 years and then return to teaching. I speak to this amendment because of my experience as the governor of a school. When governors determine salary levels they have to bear in mind the person's experience in the labour market. We will all be familiar with the progression of teachers' salaries through a salary scale. Over a 10 to 15-year period teachers can expect to see an increase year on year based on their experience and expertise.
If a member of the teaching profession leaves it and does something else, his or her experience outside teaching may be counted in different ways. If they have been a manager in business, the years they spend outside teaching may count on a one-to-one basis. They return to teaching at a higher salary on the basis of their previous progression.
My experience is that a teacher who had left the profession and raised a family, and had effectively been what one might describe as a housewife, had that experience discounted. It counted as half a year only. So they lost a number of years in terms of progression through the profession. The vast majority of people who became housewives did not just learn managerial skills;
1634
they learnt people skills. They gained a whole range of experience while they were housewives and mothers. A board of school governors may not recognise the experience and expertise that a housewife develops in, dare I say it, the delivery of her profession.
I am speaking in favour of the amendment because it talks in terms of access to accreditation mechanisms. If people in that position have access to an independent assessment of their abilities and the expertise they have gained, they will be recognised for what they are. It is important to establish proper accreditation mechanisms to assess the experience and expertise people gain, perhaps not just as housewives but in other areas of human activity which are of benefit to the profession. Unless we have those mechanisms, we will lose the expertise and benefits such people can provide to the wider society and we will not satisfactorily reflect their ability to contribute.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may tell him that I admire, respect and support almost all that he said. But perhaps I may place on record the fact that he should not use synonymously the terms "housewife" and "caring parent" or for that matter "carer of another person". Many women do many hours of unpaid work as carers of children, people with disabilities or elderly relatives. I hope that he will forgive me for that minor correction.
Lord Monkswell: I welcome that admonition if I did not get the nomenclature right. However, I am sure that my noble friend appreciates what I am trying to say.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I agree that it will be important for the QCA to ensure that as wide as possible a range of learners have access to qualifications, whether they be part-time learners or the women returners referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. The accreditation of prior learning is a keystone of the NVQ principle and, again, it is one that I support fully.
However, the issue must be how many of the entirely worthy and right things we would expect the QCA to do should be enshrined on the face of the Bill. I believe that, as always, there is a balance to be struck between making sure the authority does what we want it to do and allowing it the freedom to be responsive and make its own decisions.
Clause 42(1)(c)(i) refers the authority to the statutory requirements for a balanced and broadly based curriculum. Clause 42(1)(c)(ii) responds to the widespread concerns expressed in our consultation by employers that their needs, and particularly the principle of occupational competence, might be marginalised under the QCA. We thought it proper in those circumstances to impose a statutory requirement.
Consequently, I do not believe that the interests canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in this amendment should be put on the face of the Bill in the same way. However, I should like to place on record that the more detailed remit letter the Secretary of State will send to the QCA, which will govern the work of

1635
the new authority, will particularly require it to have regard to the needs of part-time and late learners and to encourage appropriate forms of accreditation of prior learning. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: That reply is moderately encouraging. It was nicer than the replies which we have received to a number of amendments tonight. Mind you, as soon as we hear the words "enshrined on the face of the Bill" we know exactly which way the rest of the argument will go. Therefore, I was not unduly surprised by the Minister's closing remarks. Cherishing his earlier words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168C to 168E not moved.]
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 168F and 168G not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 171:
Page 71, line 7, leave out ("National"). Page 73. line 18, leave out ("National").
Page 73, line 24. leave out ("National").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Functions of the Authority in relation to curriculum and assessment]:
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 37, line 18. leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Functions of the Authority in relation to external vocational and academic qualifications]:
[Amendment No. 172A not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 37, line 33, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Transfer of property]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 39, line 14, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Transfer of staff]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 40, line 16, leave out ("the terms and conditions of his employment") and insert ("his working conditions").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 177. I am tabling these amendments on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. Their purpose is simply better to reflect the statutory protection afforded to employees of SCAA and NCVQ by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which will apply when those employees transfer to QCA or ACCAC, as the case may be. The amendments will bring this clause into line with those regulations and with the comparable provision made under the Education Act 1993 for the transfer of employees to SCAA from the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We are well content with these amendments but there is just one question I should like to ask the Minister. Do any staff of NCVQ or SCAA not have a contract of employment but only working conditions? Does the term "working conditions" encompass more than terms and conditions of employment?
Lord Henley: I do not have the first idea but I shall write to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 40, line 20, leave out ("the terms and conditions of a person's contract of employment") and insert ("an employee's working conditions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Levy on bodies awarding qualifications accredited by relevant Authority]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 40, line 38, leave out ("vocational").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, I wish formally to move this amendment.
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness is formally moving this amendment, which has not been spoken to at any time, I should like to object to that formally.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Touché. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 177B not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("National").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Requirement for approval of certain publicly funded and school courses leading to external qualifications]:
[Amendments Nos. 178A to 179 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Inspection of LEAs]:
[Amendments Nos. 180A to 180E not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 180F:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
(" .—(1) Each local education authority shall prepare a three-year strategic education development plan to be updated annually and submitted to the Secretary of State.
(2) An education development plan to which subsection (1) refers shall include details of how the local education authority proposes to raise standards in its area and may include other matters pertinent to the powers and duties of the authority.
(3) Each local education authority shall make arrangements to review its performance annually against the development plan, and the conclusions of such review shall be published, reported to the council and submitted to the Secretary of State with the following year's development plan.
(4) Each local education authority shall every five years commission an independent review of the discharge of its functions according to a framework established by persons representative of such authorities.
(5) Where requested to do so by the relevant chief education officer, the Chief Inspector and the Audit Commission may assist with any review carried out by a local education authority under subsection (4).
(6) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the process of review and report put in place by a local education authority is sufficiently rigorous and independent, he may either—
(a) notify the Chief Inspector that no arrangements in respect of that authority are likely to be requested for the time being under section 54(1), or withdraw any such request; or
(b) request the Chief Inspector to make arrangements for any inspection carried out under section 54 in respect of that authority to be conducted as a periodic inspection following the carrying out on behalf of the authority of any such independent local review.").
The noble Baroness said: During the debate on an earlier amendment, I noted that the Minister referred to the above amendment. At that stage, my understanding was that he would not accept it. It is important for us to probe and explore what reluctance the Government could have about the alternative local model for the inspection of LEAs. The proposed model, as set out in
1638
the amendment, would review the performance of local education authorities and each LEA would prepare a three-year strategic education development plan to be updated annually and submitted to the Secretary of State.
Subsection (2) of the amendment says:
"An education development plan to which subsection (1) refers shall include details of how the local education authority proposes to raise standards in its area and may include other matters pertinent to the powers and duties of the authority".
Under subsection (3) of the amendment,
"Each local education authority shall make arrangements to review its performance annually against the development plan. and the conclusions of such review shall be published. reported to the council and submitted to the Secretary of State with the following year's development plan".
Then, subsection (4) says:
"Each local education authority shall every five years commission an independent review of the discharge of its functions according to a framework established by persons representative of such authorities".
While subsection (5) states:
"Where requested to so by the relevant chief education officer, the Chief Inspector and the Audit Commission may assist with any review carried out by a local education authority under subsection (4)".
Finally, subsection (6) of the amendment says:
"Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the process of review and report put in place by a local education authority is sufficiently rigorous and independent",
she or he may either:
"(a) notify the Chief Inspector that no arrangements in respect of that authority are likely to be requested for the time being under section 54(1), or withdraw any such request; or
(b) request the Chief Inspector to make arrangements for any inspection carried out under section 54 in respect of that authority to be conducted as a periodic inspection following the carrying out on behalf of the authority of any such independent local review".
All those terms are part of the process of the amendment which requires development plans from LEAs. It will, of course, take Ofsted several years to inspect all local education authorities and the Bill implicitly acknowledges that fact by making the process permissive and controlled by the Secretary of State. As a back-up, inspection under an independent person—for example, as in the model employed by Staffordshire county council—offers a way of involving local expertise more rapidly without losing the benefit of what one might term "heavyweight" periodic inspection by Ofsted.
The proposed new clause leaves it to the Secretary of State to determine whether local reviews have any place within the structure. This is intended to be a constructive amendment to the Bill. It does not seek in any way to remove anything that is proposed in the legislation but it opens up the possibility for constructive developments in an important, and developmental way.
The White Paper Self-Government for Schools which preceded this Bill included a section headed, "Assessing the Effectiveness of LEAs" (paragraphs 38 to 41 in chapter five, pages 56 and 57). That section noted moves by local authorities and professional associations representing education officers to set up frameworks for the use of LEAs in self-review activities.
The final paragraph (chapter five, page 57, paragraph 41) states:
"The Government will keep the process of these initiatives under careful review, with a view to promoting over time the development of robust mechanisms for assessing and improving LEAs' performance".
This amendment provides the vehicle for the Government to do precisely that. One of its clear advantages is that it does not undermine the existing power of the Secretary of State to use the Audit Commission and HMCI to carry out a completely external inspection of LEAs. However, it allows and encourages LEAs to take the initiative for self-review which can, and on present experience would, be more extensive and far-reaching than what the Bill currently provides. The idea of development planning is already well established for schools and is built into the inspection framework that operates for them. This would make a more explicit connection between the nationally prescribed inspection process and LEAs' own initiatives for development and improvement.
Other advantages are that it is likely that LEAs with a certain amount of resource input from HMCI and the Audit Commission would be able to carry out their inspections on a three or five year cycle rather than the 12 to 15 year cycle that is currently being envisaged for the Ofsted driven process. This would deliver much more information about the performance of LEAs to the public but would not give rise to additional expenditure. Indeed, the development of an approach based on local self-review could lead to resource savings at the centre.
However, power will remain with the Secretary of State to ensure that whatever is put in place is both adequate and sufficiently rigorous to meet the purposes of the Bill. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Government. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking to this amendment I hope that the Government will not come forward with the idea that the problems in our education system are so immense that a three year development plan is hopelessly unrealistic and that what we need is a 10 year development plan. I support my noble friend who moved this amendment because I think at this stage in the development of our education system it is entirely realistic.
We can recognise that there are two major significant problems that our education system is beset with. The first is the physical state of the educational establishment; the fact that so many of our schools require major investment that will require five or 10 year programmes to resolve. The other major problem is the fact that we are totally incapacitated in our relationships with the rest of the world, and in particular the Continent of Europe, as regards our inability in foreign languages. I think it is well understood that we shall not resolve that problem with a three or even a five year development programme; it requires a 10 or 15 year development programme.
1640
Given the resources that we have at our disposal nationally, it is quite realistic for my noble friends on the Front Bench to propose a three year development programme at this stage. While we recognise the immense problems our education system is faced with, and the need for a 10 or 15 year development programme, it is quite reasonable that we should present at this stage a three year development programme.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I associate these Benches with the amendment. It seems to me a sensible way at least possible cost of bringing the maximum amount of pressure on LEAs to improve their performance. In the self assessment process even good LEAs have proved that they are capable of improvement. It encourages LEAs to know whether they are doing well or badly, and where to target their resources and efforts. I hope that the Minister will be inclined to accept the spirit of the amendment, even if he does not like every word of it.
Lord Henley: I have a sneaking suspicion that the proposed clause is unnecessary. In part, its provisions duplicate what is already in the Bill; and in part they would simply lead to more bureaucracy. I do not believe that they improve on the simple notion that LEAs should be inspected. I hoped that we would discuss that on an earlier clause but for some reason both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, chose not to move the amendments which were originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but later in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I suspect that they discovered that that was not official party policy. The amendments merely complicate and confuse.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the Minister asking us to move every single amendment on the Marshalled List? If so, I suspect that we should be ordering breakfast.
We seek to bring together certain issues in Committee. We shall come back on Report to many of the issues that are not moved tonight. It is a little unreasonable to challenge us as to why we do not move amendments when it is ten minutes to twelve and we still have many amendments to discuss. If the Minister wishes, we can ungroup—
Lord Henley: I was not referring to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, but to an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. What was intriguing was that it was originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and related to the dropping of "Chief Inspector" and inserting "Audit Commission". For some reason—I think the noble Baroness suddenly discovered the policy of the party opposite—she decided to withdraw the amendment. I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also looks at her own party's policy and she will discover that it too is in favour of inspection by the chief inspector and not the Audit Commission. But that is in passing. I believe that the amendment simply complicates and confuses the issue.

1641
Let me take the first part of the new clause, the preparation of three-year strategic education development plans. I do not believe that this would be a suitable matter for the Bill. Our purpose here is to facilitate the inspection of a stratified sample of LEAs, so that the quality of support provided by different LEAs can be compared. That does not require the submission of LEA development plans from each and every LEA. Such plans are a matter for the LEA itself in the first instance. Ofsted will of course take into account an LEA's intentions as set out in its plans, but above all it will be interested in what an LEA does, not what it said it would do.
Similarly, I fail to see the purpose of subsection (3), which would require LEAs to publish an annual review of their performance against the proposed three-year strategic education development plan. There are already provisions requiring action plans of LEAs following inspection. And under Clause 54(6) LEAs will supply HMCI with information to underpin inspection.
The framework on which LEA inspection will be based has been the subject of substantial consultation and will form the basis of the independent Ofsted-led inspections as set out in the Bill. Why, therefore, spend scarce public resources on a further pattern of five-yearly or three-yearly reviews against yet another framework?
Moreover, it is a recipe for increased bureaucracy at every level: the LEA will be devising frameworks and contracting inspectors; Ofsted and the Audit Commission may be involved in the LEA reviews as well as the Ofsted inspections. And the Secretary of State will need to decide whether the LEA reviews are sufficient to supersede Ofsted inspections. What possible contribution can this duplication of effort make to improving the standards of education in our schools? I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government's response on this issue is a disappointment. I hope that, notwithstanding the Minister's rejection at this stage, he will take time to consider the matter between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Reports of inspections under s.54 and action plan by LEA]:
[Amendment No. 180G not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Inspections involving collaboration of Audit Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 180H to 180S not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [School inspections]:
Lord Henley moved Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 74, line 14, at end insert—
("Rights of entry etc. for Chief Inspectors
For subsections (8) and (9) of section 2 of the 1996 Act (functions of Chief Inspector for England) there shall be substituted—
"(8) For the purposes of the exercise of any function conferred by or under this section the Chief Inspector for England shall have at all reasonable times, in relation to any school in England—

(a) a right of entry to the premises of the school; and

(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for those purposes.

(9) It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct the Chief Inspector for England—

(a) in the exercise of his functions in relation to the inspection of a school for the purposes of subsection (2)(b); or

(b) in the exercise of any right under subsection (8) for the purposes of the exercise of any other function."

. For subsections (8) and (9) of section 5 of the 1996 Act (functions of Chief Inspector for Wales) there shall be substituted
"(8) For the purposes of the exercise of any function conferred by or under this section the Chief Inspector for Wales shall have at all reasonable times, in relation to any school in Wales—

(a) a right of entry to the premises of the school; and

(b) a right to inspect, and take copies of, any records kept by the school, and any other documents containing information relating to the school, which he requires for those purposes.

(9) It shall be an offence wilfully to obstruct the Chief Inspector for Wales—

(a) in the exercise of his functions in relation to the inspection of a school for the purposes of subsection (2)(b); or

(b) in the exercise of any right under subsection (8) for the purposes of the exercise of any other function.".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 182. These are straightforward amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales will each have the right of access to schools premises and records.
The two amendments would allow the chief inspectors to authorise Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools additional inspectors or other members of their staff to exercise wider rights of access on their behalf. This would be to collect evidence about aspects of educational standards and quality above and beyond that collected in the course of inspections carried out under other provisions of the Schools Inspections Act. This allows them, for example, to gather information from schools on issues such as exclusions and reading ability.
Other reports published by the chief inspectors—most notably their annual reports—have contributed significantly to public knowledge of standards in schools in England and Wales. Visits to schools under the extended right of access would normally involve looking at lessons and pupils' work, examining documentation and holding discussions with staff, pupils and others.
Although most schools are happy to co-operate on a voluntary basis with informal visits by inspectors gathering evidence for report or survey, the Government consider it important that the chief inspectors' rights of access are set out clearly in statute. I commend the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: These amendments seem to us not so much drafting amendments, which most of the previous ones have been, but considerable small additions to, and improvements upon, current legislation.
Nevertheless, there are some questions that we would like the Minister to address before we are completely satisfied. It is quite true that the majority of schools, if approached by HMCI and others with a request for entry for one purpose or another, are not going to stand on the letter of the law and look up the relevant statute before giving permission. That is not the relationship that exists between the inspectors and the schools, for good reasons and bad.
However, it appears that we have here a clarification of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors' statutory powers of entry to schools, which includes HMI and, by virtue of Amendment No. 182, additional inspectors. So it is a not inconsiderable addition.
At present, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has the right to enter the premises of a school and take copies, etc., of records only when formally inspecting a school under Section 2(2) of the School Inspections Act 1996. That is quite clearly laid down; and obstruction of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in that respect is a criminal offence.
This amendment broadens that right of entry to cover any of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors' functions so that there does not have to be a formal inspection of the school for that right of entry to be exercised. We must be quite clear about that. For instance, it could be pursued in order to give advice to the Secretary of State about the quality of education in any named school without having to launch a formal inspection. At least, that is the way it seems to us. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us a definitive answer to the question of whether it is or is not. I hope he may be able to use the immortal phrase used by so many of his colleagues on the Front Bench, "My Lords, it has just come to me that … "
Amendment No. 182, on the other hand, appears to us to clarify the law on the rights of entry for additional inspectors. Let us be quite clear as to who they are. They are individuals appointed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors to do inspection work who are not themselves made HMI, and additional inspectors will have the right to enter schools and still have the protection that an offence is committed if they are obstructed.
I think that even at this witching hour we need the Minister to say one or two things: first, to justify this new power a little more and to give examples of why Her Majesty's Chief Inspector might need this power outside a formal inspection. Secondly, since the matter
1644
has been raised by the Government, one might ask why it is an offence to prevent HMI from going into a school but not a chief education officer.
Midnight
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is right to say that these amendments are not merely drafting amendments and that they go wider than that. That is why I wrote to the noble Lord in some detail on these amendments and I hope it is why—but no doubt there are others who advise him—he was able to set out clearly our current position with regard to rights of access. We considered that it was necessary but that there were certain matters that needed a degree of elucidation and clarification and the Bill provided an appropriate opportunity for that.
The noble Lord asked about Amendment No. 182. I can assure him that he was right that it allows the delegation of the functions to those who are not chief inspectors, but obviously those will be people appointed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors under the other statutory powers.
He also asked why the Chief Inspector was able to go beyond a formal inspection of a school and why he needs to have these wider powers. To put it very simply, it is to carry out the range of functions laid down in the School Inspections Act, which unfortunately I do not have before me. I think it is Section 2(1) and 2(2) that I should refer the noble Lord to but I shall have to take advice on that because, though it did suddenly come to me, I might not be as clear as I could be. I had better write to the noble Lord about that in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 182.
Page 75, line 24, at end insert—
("Delegation of functions of Chief Inspectors
.In paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 1 to the 1996 Act (performance of functions of Chief Inspectors), for "in conducting an inspection under section 2(2)(b) or section 5(2)(b)" there shall be substituted "under sub-paragraph (1) or (2)".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 182, it has now come to me. I was being somewhat incompetent. Somehow a copy of the School Inspections Act 1996 did come to me. If the noble Lord looks at Section 2(1) he will see the functions set out in some detail for the Chief Inspector and similarly in Section 2(2). I believe that the noble Lord would find a study of those subsections of some use and I hope it would answer the point he raised about the need for the clarifications as set out in these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. He has been alone at that Dispatch Box since three o'clock. I appreciate that at the hour of five minutes past midnight he might not be in total command of every last jot or tittle of his briefing. Still, if he will permit me, I shall brutally press him on the last question that I asked him. Why should

1645
it be an offence to prevent an HMI—we are not talking about the HMCI—from going into a school but that does not apply to a chief education officer?
Lord Henley: An HMI will need access to all those schools in the maintained sector that he will be inspecting, whether grant-maintained, county, voluntary or whatever. Obviously, that will not be the case with the chief education officer whose writ will run only in relation to his own schools. It is obviously a matter of the arrangements that the LEA and the chief education officer make about access that he should have to his own schools.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am not convinced about that. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Provision of careers education in schools':
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 44, line 35, after ("of") insert ("personal development and guidance including").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to change the limited definition of "careers advice and guidance" within the Bill and to broaden the focus explicitly to embrace a wider range, for example, by placing careers education in its proper context of personal development and guidance.
The intention behind the amendment is to recognise the need for a broader approach to the content of a truly effective programme of careers education which recognises the proper context of the individual's personal development. Careers Service professionals recognise that a key ingredient of a successful programme of careers education and guidance must include an element of personal development and education for the individual concerned. That is especially important for young people, whose needs and individual level of maturity in terms of self-awareness and understanding will vary and change substantially between the ages of 14 to 16, the age range at which the Bill envisages that the programme of careers education will be targeted initially in schools.
The amendment simply aims to secure on the face of the Bill a recognition of that important distinction. To clarify beyond doubt the holistic approach to successful careers education and guidance is what this Bill endorses, thereby strengthening the statutory basis for careers education and guidance in schools and colleges. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord made clear, the amendment extends the duty to provide curriculum coverage beyond careers education also to cover the more general needs relating to personal development. It would place a somewhat wider duty on schools and dilute the careers focus of this part of the Bill. As the noble Lord is aware, Clause 59 is specifically focused on careers education in recognition of the need for schools to devise an education programme which relates
1646
to preparing pupils for careers decisions and their implementation. Pupils need to understand the careers choices and opportunities available to them.
The amendment attempts to place a duty on schools which in practice would not add much at all. I also believe that to bring in an amendment of this kind would lose focus through adding a somewhat vague requirement. That is an important point to consider. That point—the vagueness of what "personal development and guidance" in fact mean—is an important one, since it will prevent enforcement and will therefore, I suspect, weaken rather than strengthen the provision.
Lord Tope: I do not agree with the Minister on this matter, but I am grateful for his reply, which I shall look at carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Schools and other institutions to co-operate with careers advisers]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert ("and
(c) institutions outside the further education sector attended by persons whose education is secured by a further education funding council.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 183 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 185 to 188. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that disabled students at independent specialist colleges receive adequate careers advice and guidance. SKILL, which is the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities—here I declare an interest in that I am president of SKILL—is concerned that under the Bill as it stands these students are not covered by Clauses 60 and 61.
I should like to make it clear straightaway that these amendments are probing by nature and will, I hope, provide the Minister with an opportunity to give an assurance that the interests of those students will be safeguarded. I am grateful to the Minister for making time last week to meet and discuss this and other matters relating to students with disabilities with me and members of staff from SKILL and MENCAP. I also thank his department for a lot of hard work and co-operation on these matters.
Amendment No. 183 is to Clause 60, which allows the careers advisers from the career companies to gain access to students in schools and colleges. Amendments Nos. 185 to 188 are to Clause 61 which requires schools and colleges to ensure that appropriate careers materials are available to students. The clauses apply to maintained schools, including maintained special schools and colleges in the FE sector; but they do not cover independent specialist schools or colleges which fall outside the FE sector and which are attended by publicly-funded students. Those students obviously have just as much need and indeed the right to careers advice and materials.
The existing voluntary arrangements between the independent specialist schools and colleges and the careers services seem to work satisfactorily at present. But that is not a guarantee that that co-operation will continue in the future. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to give some sort of reassurance that that can be safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I take it that the noble Baroness was speaking to Amendment No. 183 followed by Amendments Nos. 185 to 188.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): That is correct. I was not speaking to Amendment No. 184.
Lord Henley: I was grateful for the opportunity to see the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and those advising her. We had some useful discussions. It is quite deliberate that the scope of the careers education and guidance clauses does not extend to independent institutions in either the schools or colleges sectors—except for city technology colleges, which receive all of their running costs from public funds.
There is an important point of principle behind this decision. In general, education legislation places requirements on schools and colleges within the publicly-funded state education service, but not on independent institutions. The Government believe that, in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary, the state should not seek to regulate independent institutions in the way that it regulates the publicly-funded sector.
In this instance, there are no strong reasons for departing from that line, particularly as existing legislation relating to the provision of careers services already ensures that young people in independent institutions are entitled to the provision of information, advice and guidance by those careers services. My understanding is that the present arrangements under which independent colleges work with careers services are satisfactory.
Therefore, though I see no grounds for imposing a legal requirement, I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and others who promote the cause of students with learning difficulties and disabilities who attend such institutions. We are keen to respond positively. Accordingly, officials in my department and in the Welsh Office have discussed this matter with the further education funding councils and we believe there is scope for adding an appropriate form of words to the contract documents under which students are supported in independent colleges. That change would be underpinned by other measures to promote good practice.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be content with that response and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. That is a satisfactory assurance
1648
that the careers guidance of individual students will be looked after. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope moved Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 183A:
Page 47, line 6, leave out from ("education") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 183A is to ensure that all part-time students have an entitlement to careers guidance. We have discussed a number of times this evening the importance of part-time education. The effect of this amendment would be to delete from the Bill the words,
"of a description commonly undergone by persons in order to tit them for employment",
which we feel is a little restrictive. Some 80 per cent. of students in the further education sector study part time. They include not only those who study for vocational qualifications but a large number who are studying part time for A levels or other general qualifications. All students should be entitled to at least initial support to help them to make career choices or to move from one occupation to another. The current wording of the Bill is unnecessarily restrictive, in our view, and will not meet the needs of a large number of learners. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: If I may rise briefly in support of this amendment, it is simply to ask a few questions. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that the current wording of the Bill was unnecessarily restrictive. May I ask the Minister why that is so? What perils and dangers are anticipated? Would it be vastly costly and, if so, how costly, to extend this guidance to all part-time students?
Lord Henley: Obviously there would be cost implications but I could not be specific about them without notice, if at all. Those putting forward amendments with cost implications ought to be prepared to consider the implications themselves. I think we should be very wary of taking forward amendments that have further cost implications.
Obviously the amendment would require FE colleges to provide access to the careers services by a much wider category than is currently set out. Since the purpose of the clause is to allow careers services access only for the purpose of carrying out the Secretary of State's statutory duties under Section 8 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, the amendment would clearly be out of step with that intention. What that Act recognises is that careers education and guidance services should be targeted on a specified group of further education students. The aim is to offer information and advice to those on courses from which they are likely to go on to employment. That is achieved by including all those students on full-time courses and those on part-time courses commonly undergone by persons just to fit them for employment. To remove the words suggested by the amendment would take the provision out of line with the earlier Act and give careers services access to students for whom they are not contracted to provide such services. That would be

1649
an anomaly and there would be a cost. I therefore have to say to the noble Lord that I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, responds in terms of how he intends to proceed, I wonder whether I may put just two points to the Minister. The first is that surely the very process of having to distinguish between the vocational and the non-vocational students in a particular college is likely to lead to bureaucracy, cost and time-consuming activity. It would therefore be a costly activity in itself. The proposal to extend this advice to what I might describe as the non-vocational students will in fact be an on-cost, according to the Minister. I would argue that it may actually reduce costs because one would not have to make the distinction.
The second point concerns the argument that we had last year or the year before about the difference between vocational and non-vocational courses. The Minister will be very clear about the example of the student who was engaged in a "non-vocational" course in flower arranging and went on to found quite a significant medium-sized business on the basis of the skills he had learned as a "non-vocational" student. I hope that the Minister and the Government will learn the lesson that it is nonsense to make a distinction between vocational and non-vocational students.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord's point is a red herring. We are not distinguishing between vocational and non-vocational courses. We are simply doing something that we have done since the 1993 Act and that is distinguishing between those who are on courses from which they are likely to go on to employment and those who are not.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is it the case that students who are in receipt of income support are deliberately prohibited by the Government from studying for more than a very limited time and must restrict their study to part-time or lose their benefit, yet they are the very people who would benefit most from careers advice that may enable them to find employment?
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness takes me on to something akin to the Schleswig-Holstein question. I used to know the answer to the difficult rules relating to how long one can study while claiming benefit. There have been a number of changes to the various rules relating to studying while on income support, but I think that those who are on income support who are actively seeking work should be actively seeking work. Other openings might be available to them. As I have said, I am somewhat out of touch with the rather complex rules relating to income support. It has been some years since I served in the Department of Social Security, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness with more details of the complexities of the matter.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has not entirely convinced this side of the Committee, but this is not the time to press the matter, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Provision of careers information at educational institutions]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 47, line 22, at end insert ("in appropriate accessible formats.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that careers guidance and reference materials are made available to students in formats such as braille or large print where appropriate. It is again a probing amendment, hoping for an assurance from the Minister.
Clause 61 requires schools and FE colleges to provide students with access to guidance and reference materials on careers education and opportunities. SKILL is aware that few careers materials are presented in formats accessible to students unable to read standard print and that materials accessible in other formats are not widely available. Advice to schools and colleges may encourage institutions to consider alternative formats, but the costs of brailling or of specialised materials can be a deterrent. What is needed is a requirement on institutions to make such provision a priority. I very much hope to hear from the Minister that, if he cannot accept the amendment, he will be able and willing to achieve the same aim by different means, perhaps by mention in a circular. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I did not have a chance to say that I supported the last amendment because the Minister was so quick on his feet, but I did support it strongly and I also support this one strongly. Materials must be in a form that students can understand and follow, preferably without having to have an interpreter. I hope that the Minister will have a sympathetic response to this amendment.
Lord Addington: Very briefly, I support the amendment. It is utterly absurd to provide information that somebody cannot understand. It might as well not be there at all.
Lord Henley: I very much agree with that latter point about providing information that one cannot understand. It happens to us all on many occasions—and on all sides of your Lordships' House.
I sympathise with the amendment. I am sure that, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, will agree that such matters of detail are not appropriate for the Bill and are better provided in the guidance that will be issued to supplement and explain the legislation to those who have to implement it.
I believe that much of what is wanted is already provided for. Careers services are required, through their contract with the Secretary of State, to provide material which should be presented in such a way as to enable persons with learning difficulties or sensory impairments to make use of and understand it. Thus, the

1651
way is clear for each institution in working up its partnership with the Careers Service to explain the needs of its pupils or students and agree how information can be most helpfully presented. I will ensure that institutions are reminded of this in circulars that emanate from my department and are sent to both schools and colleges to explain the legislation. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the as ever down-to-earth and sensible noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support. I also thank the Minister and his department who were very helpful beforehand in this matter. I appreciate the Minister's comment about this matter not being in primary legislation. A circular would be extremely satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 185 to 188 not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 188A:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
CAREERS ADVICE: PUPILS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(" A careers adviser shall, in making available careers education to a registered pupil who has special educational needs, have regard to any Code of Practice issued under section 313 of the Education Act 1996.").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to probe, and secure clarification from, the Government on an issue debated in the other place in Standing Committee D on 16th January. The question was whether it was adequate simply to rely on guidance which the DfEE intended to issue to careers advisers that they should take account of the code of practice on SEN, or whether there was a need to insert the new clause, which forms this amendment, on to the face of the Bill to secure that widely shared objective. In a debate on an identical amendment moved at the final sitting of Standing Committee D, the Minister of State, Mr. Eric Forth, initially gave assurances he was confident that,
"the statutory duty to ensure [that] the code (of practice on SEN) takes account of that is already in place".—[Official Report, Commons. 16/1/97; co1.618.]
However, in his subsequent remarks the Minister appeared to equivocate on his opening position and acknowledged that he would be prepared to consider the matter further. He gave a commitment to see whether there would be any need to remedy the situation in practice. The Minister stated his intention to secure for himself further advice on this issue.
This new clause is intended merely to establish whether the Government consider that there is any need to make additional references to the SEN code of practice in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I can give an assurance that the appropriate legal duty to take account of the code in
1652
careers education provision already exists. There is already a mechanism for bringing the Careers Service into the good practice promulgated by it. Therefore, the noble Lord's new clause is unnecessary and his concerns about careers advisers having regard to the code of practice are already dealt with.
Lord Tope: I am not convinced that that deals with the issue that I raised, but given the time of night I will wait to study it until a little later this morning. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 190:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
(" . In section 316(1) of the Education Act 1996 (Children with special educational needs normally to be educated in mainstream schools), after the word "needs" there shall be inserted the words "who does not have a statement to the effect that he is mentally handicapped or that he suffers from learning disabilities and".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 190 I should declare an interest as the father of a 16 year-old mentally handicapped child. Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on LEAs and others to educate all special educational needs children in mainstream schools. That duty is qualified by the following four provisos. First, such mainstream education should not be incompatible with the wishes of the child's parents. Secondly, the mainstream school must be able to provide the special education that the child's learning difficulty calls for. Thirdly, the child's presence must not compromise the education of the other normal children. Fourthly, resources must be used efficiently. This amendment would remove mentally handicapped children from the scope of Section 316 and thus from the present presumption that they should be educated in a normal school. The amendment would do nothing to suggest that they would instead have to be educated in a special school. It would merely help to remove the very considerable difficulties that parents face when they want a special school for their child. Nor would the amendment do anything to frustrate the reasonable wishes of parents who want their mentally handicapped children to go to an ordinary school, which can work well for appropriate children in an adequate special unit. Of course, much may depend upon the degree of handicap of the child. By mentally handicapped children, I mean those who have a statement to the effect that they suffer from what are known in the jargon as learning disabilities.
The amendment would not affect other categories of SEN children who, as the Committee will be aware, amount to a very broad range of difficulty, disability and handicap. It refers only to mentally handicapped

1653
children who, I submit, are uniquely disadvantaged in the learning process which should take place in a normal school.
I moved a similar amendment on 29th April 1993 (Official Report, cols. 516 to 533) nearly four years ago, when we debated the Bill which introduced Section 316, as it now is. The Committee may recall that there was widespread sympathy for this amendment from all sides of the Chamber, but, to my regret, I did not ask for the opinion of noble Lords then. I say this because in the intervening four years it has become clear that the amendment was necessary then, and that none of the four provisos in Section 316 is working as the Government hoped that they would. The amendment is therefore even more urgent today.
At this late hour I shall not weary the Committee with too much detailed evidence, but as to the first proviso, the wishes of parents who want their mentally handicapped children to go to a special school are often being frustrated. As to the second proviso, those children are therefore often being forced into ordinary schools where adequate special provision is not genuinely available; and for the third proviso, this situation must clearly have a disruptive effect on the education of the other children in the schools in question.
Finally, the fourth proviso does not appear to be working either, because it is not necessarily proving cheaper to educate mentally handicapped children in mainstream schools. For example, I hear that one of the three special schools for children with severe learning disabilities in Doncaster is to close, although demands for its service remain as high as ever. It is not being closed because it is too expensive, but because some 960 non-teaching assistants are being employed in mainstream schools in the area to help in looking after those most unfortunate children, and those assistants' costs have to be met from the general SEN budget. I cast no aspersion upon Doncaster which is doubtless doing its best as a victim of the mainstream-at-any-price ideology which now so regrettably grips our education system.
But I cannot help wondering how those 960 non-teaching assistants are really helping the education of the special children in their care. Would the budget not be better directed towards special schooling with all the economies of scale and availability of special teaching which that would surely bring?
I hope that the Committee can accept that, as the father of a mentally handicapped child, I am not basing my case on saving money; I merely point out that even the fourth proviso of Section 316 is not working as perhaps it was hoped that it might. The other three provisos have proved to be the failure which nearly all noble Lords who spoke in our debate four years ago forecast they would be. Section 316 is therefore very frustrating and unfair to parents who wish to escape its effects. It is often damaging to their children, and it is then damaging to normal children in mainstream schools with whom they have to share
1654
education. The amendment would do much to alleviate this unfortunate state of affairs when it occurs and so I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Rix: I read the amendment with incredulity. It seems to me to cast children with learning disabilities back into the dark ages before the Education Act 1970 to a time when we parents had to raise the money to build a school into which to put our children and partially trained teachers so that they might learn a few rudimentary facts of life. How far we have come since then can be judged by the fact that our children with special educational needs can now go to mainstream schools with appropriate support. Some do very well with GCSEs, jobs and even driving licences. Of course, parents, being naturally protective, wish to be able to choose between a special school and a mainstream school, but with the right support in the latter the choice is made easier. To bar them or their child from the possibility of that child entering a mainstream school seems to me both punitive and discriminatory.
The Committee may be interested to hear a few statistics about special needs education which I obtained today from the Library. In January 1996 there were 1,084,126 children with general special educational needs, of which 126,813 are in primary and secondary maintained mainstream schools in England with a statement. Amendment No. 190 would cut a swathe through those figures. It must be clear to the Committee that I hope that it and the Government will reject the amendment with little further ado.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may briefly speak against the amendment, which worries me greatly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not press it now or at any stage as I would have to vote against it. The noble Lord speaks from direct personal experience and I acknowledge the depth of his feeling, but so does the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who I believe spoke very compellingly. MENCAP also believes that children with special needs should receive the education that is appropriate to those needs in whatever educational setting suits them best.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that he is trying to redress the balance which in the Act is tilted in favour of mainstream education, but I know that a high proportion of parents who fought very hard to achieve a mainstream education for their children are the parents of children with learning disabilities. I urge the noble Lord to consider carefully the effect that the amendment would have by way of further tilting the scales against them.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may put briefly to my noble friend what his amendment seems to achieve. I do not know whether it is the intention, but it would remove the presumption of a mainstream school placement for parents of children who have a mental handicap or learning difficulties and also have a statement.

1655
It is important to bear in mind that the amendment would deny such parents a very important choice. I see no reason for doing so. Under Section 316 there is a presumption of going to mainstream schools and many parents believe that that is entirely appropriate for certain children in this form of special educational needs. For others it may not be, and one always hopes that the decision will be made as appropriate in line with the best interests of the parents and children.
In the view of the Government, the right course is to allow parents the opportunity to ask for a place at a mainstream school, if they wish, and for the LEA to consider whether a mainstream placement would be suitable for the child; then obviously to give the parents the right to appeal to the SEN tribunal in the event that the LEA refuses to accede to the parents' wish for a mainstream place.
I do not believe that it would be right to remove the entitlement from the parents of children with certain types of special educational needs. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I obviously do not wish to press the amendment this evening, but I shall certainly return to it at the next stage with more support. Unfortunately, given the lateness of the hour, that is not here.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), that I do not think they listened to what I said. My amendment does not produce—and I merely ask them to read in Hansard and perhaps we can discuss it at the next stage—the effect which they say it would produce.
As I say, I do not want to delay the Committee but my noble friend on the Front Bench says that my amendment would deny parents the very choice which I am seeking to grant them. But the fact is that Section 316 as worded says that the child has to be educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents. That is the hurdle which these parents have to jump. The tribunal is not solving the issue. Therefore, I do not agree, I am afraid, with anything that has been said by the three previous speakers. I will be returning, as I say, to the matter at Report stage with the support of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Renton and others and I suggest that we leave the matter until then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 193:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
REDUCTION IN CLASS SIZES
(" . After section 355 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
1656
"Reduction in class sizes.
355A.—(1) Each local education authority shall determine, and notify the Secretary of State as to, targets for the maximum number of pupils in classes in maintained schools in its area with respect to such years and year groups as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local education authorities, or to governing bodies or headteachers of maintained schools, for the purposes of this section.".").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require local education authorities to set targets for reductions in class sizes.
The arguments for the amendment are simple. All other things being equal, teachers teach better and children learn more easily if teachers have to work with fewer children at a time. Of course, all other things are not equal. An excellent teacher will do well with a class of 40 even if that teacher is acutely aware that those children could have done so much better with a class of 20. A poor teacher will fail to communicate and engage with a class of 15, although it is likely that confrontation with 35 or 40 pupils may lead to total failure.
What is raised repeatedly by the Government is the argument that because they claim that there is no measurable improvement until class sizes are below 20, there is little point in setting targets for maximum class sizes for children in England and Wales.
In Scotland, there is a nationally agreed maximum class size. I understand that as a result of negotiations between the teachers and their employers, it is the practice in Scotland to agree to maximum class sizes.
The Government can say for as long as they wish that children are as well educated in a group of 35 as to 25 or 40 as to 30. We have just been discussing the issue of special educational needs. Statemented pupils take additional staffing with them; non-statemented pupils do not. Many larger classes are in areas and localities where there is a problem with large numbers of children with moderate special educational needs and learning difficulties.
Money should not be being used to buy for the most able children, chosen by selection, at the expense of resources for children in classes which are growing larger and larger.
We hear much in your Lordships' Chamber about the need to inculcate in our young children a sense of moral values, worth, understanding and genuine social development. Any good teacher will tell you that that involves the teacher, particularly with young children, having an opportunity to talk to and listen to individual children. Money is a scarce resource and that resource ought to be available for all the nation's young children. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Henley: I have to say, again, that I believe that such an amendment is over-prescriptive and

1657
would not actually be helpful to schools. Under local management of schools, decisions about class sizes in individual schools are taken, quite rightly, by head teachers—dedicated professionals who know their own pupils' needs. Decisions which many have taken show that they do not believe that class size is the key issue. Indeed, some have chosen to group more than 30 children in—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but can he give Members of the Committee an example of a head teacher in any infant or primary school in England or Wales who has had to increase class sizes and who has stated publicly that he or she regards this as somehow not important?
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to develop my argument. I was about to make a very crucial point. Obviously I cannot give an example from 24,000 schools of the sort that the noble Baroness demands. However, some head teachers have chosen to group children in larger groups so that they can focus greater support in smaller groups on those who might have extra needs.
It is important to remember the very dramatic growth in the number of support staff over the past few years; for example, the number of support staff in primary schools has grown by some 50 per cent. in the past four years. That seems to suggest that many heads feel that it is more effective to take on support staff to give teachers flexible assistance when and where it is needed, rather than try to keep class sizes at some arbitrary maximum. I believe that those decisions are ones which, quite rightly, ought to be taken by the teachers and not by either LEAs or Ministers. An amendment of this sort would take such decisions out of the hands of the head teachers. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on the matter. Through my interest, which I declare, as a member of a local education authority—though not an abiding interest because I do not intend to stand for re-election on 1st May—I am aware that the Government have repeatedly put pressure on LEAs to reduce the actual level of their spending on education. My understanding is that the average over-spend, the money spent in excess of that which the Government consider to be necessary, provided by LEAs to schools is in the order of £80 per pupil and that, in some cases, the difference between the Government's proposal for the local authority's expenditure in the schools and its actual expenditure is as high as £200 per pupil.
I also understand that many head teachers and governing bodies, faced with scarce resources, have had to make judgments about who they can and cannot afford to employ. But, from a wide range of colleagues covering LEAs in Wales, in the counties of England, in the unitary authorities and, indeed, in the metropolitan districts, I have absolutely no
1658
experience of any head teacher who would view replacing a teacher appointment with a non-teaching member of staff as anything other than an essential expedient when faced with such pressures.
Let us consider, for example, the past three years. If we take away the increase in pupil numbers in this sector of the primary education field and take away the additional legislative costs imposed on the education service—for example, for seat belts—together with the government-determined levels of teachers' pay, the Government have reduced the money available. I think the Minister may well live to regret having implied in his reply to the amendment that head teachers in England and Wales are happily increasing class sizes and regard non-teaching support staff as an adequate replacement for the qualified teaching staff that in their professional opinion they believe would be of benefit to children.
Lord Henley: It was not my intention to respond but I cannot allow the noble Baroness to get away with putting words into my mouth in the way that she did. First, I did not say in any way whatsoever that I thought teachers were being replaced by assistants. What I made quite clear was that teachers were being assisted by a greater number of classroom assistants. I think even the noble Baroness would recognise that many people and many heads recognise there is considerable value in having classroom assistants who can assist the properly qualified, and therefore more expensive, teachers to go about their job.
Secondly, I totally and utterly reject her allegation that we have made cuts in public expenditure. If she makes those remarks from the Opposition Front Bench, she is in effect saying that we are underfunding education and that if her party were in government it would provide more money. That is something it has refused to do. What we have made available to education, as provided by the local education authorities, is something of the order of £1.4 billion extra over the past two years. We have increased spending on pupils since 1979 by some 50 per cent.
It is no use the noble Baroness taking just the past three years. She said the number of pupils had gone up in those years. I never heard those remarks from the noble Baroness and her colleagues when numbers were going down, implying that meant that we could, as it were, reduce funds. The simple fact is we have increased funds per pupil by something of the order of 50 per cent. since 1979 and we have increased funding available to local authorities for schools—not cut it—by some £1.4 billion over the past two years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: First, I ask the Minister to confirm whether the £1.4 billion increase to which he referred is a £1.4 billion increase on the actual amount of money spent on education by LEAs year on year, or whether it is an increase in the standard spending assessment figure which is the Government's notional figure as to what ought to be spent by LEAs, which they have increased, and which is still below the amount actually spent?

1659
Secondly, I say to the Minister that, of course, it is relevant to take the past three or four years. During the past three or four years pupil numbers in the primary schools have been increasing and government expenditure per pupil in real terms has been falling. Thirdly, where class sizes of young children have been increasing there has been an increase in the use of classroom assistants, but head teachers would want to supplement that by also having the necessary number of fully qualified teachers. My experience of the professional judgment of head teachers is that they do not view it as an either/or situation but regard it as essential to have the right level of both.
The Government ought to consider carefully their record in terms of education. We have heard tonight that the Government are not prepared to rule out selection at primary level in hard, clear, legal terms in this Bill that is before us. By the Government's and Prime Minister's own admission we are failing the average and the majority in this country. What are the Government proposing to do to take the small amount of additional resource that they are able to make available and to give it to those who are succeeding well now?
The time is late. I shall not press the amendment at this stage.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness asks me a question. Therefore I should respond, should I not? That would be fair, would it not?
I begin by apologising to the noble Baroness and to the Committee. I misled her. The figure is not £1.4 billion; it is £1.7 billion. That is the education standard spending assessment. Yes, it is permissible for the authorities to spend more should they so wish.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Will the Minister please tell us how the Government's standard spending assessment for the current financial year compares with what is actually spent by local education authorities?
Lord Henley: I do not have the figures in front of me. As I said, it is open to the authorities to spend more should they so wish. We have made available to the local authorities £1.7 billion more than last year.
Lord Tope: I have some sympathy for the Minister. At this hour of the morning he is having to deal with two members of local education authorities who have some knowledge of the facts. I understand that his briefing for this amendment could not have included the facts.
The Minister keeps telling us that the standard spending assessment has been increased. Apparently it has increased during the course of this debate from £1.4 billion to £1.7 billion. If we carry on at this speed we might get somewhere. Those are notional figures. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked him the actual figure.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord give way? I do not consider figures to be notional which are taken out
1660
of my pocket or other taxpayers' pockets. Those are funds transferred from central government, from the taxpayer, to local authorities. As I said, local authorities can spend more, and many do.
Lord Tope: I am sorry to upset the Minister, but the fact remains that when one is in a school with a budget, or running a local education authority, it is not the Minister's back pocket, or whatever, that we are interested in. It is the actual amount of spending. The fact remains that the actual spending on education has not been increased as a result of the Government's measures, especially when taking into account all the additional costs to which the noble Baroness referred—teachers' pay, and so on. The fact is that local education authorities en masse are still spending more than the Government are putting into education funding.
I can understanding that the Minister is getting tired and a little irritated at this time of night. But he is not getting away with it. The Government have not increased funding. This debate is about class sizes. It remains a fact on the Government's own figures that in the last year alone primary school class sizes over 36 increased by 20 per cent. No head teacher does that from choice but because of the Government's funding restrictions.
The Government may well say that it is open to education authorities to increase spending as they may wish. I wonder whether the Minister has heard of something called capping? The Government impose a total spending limit on all local authorities. For those local authorities which are also LEAs that is a major part of their funding. Local authorities may be notionally free to increase spending on education. In actuality they are not because they are capped by this Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That was an interesting exchange. It would be helpful to have some of the figures which the Minister does not have at his fingertips relating to actual expenditure and the comparison with the Government's target spend. I am sure that they will be handy because I think that the issue will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 194:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
VIEWS OF PUPILS
(" . The governing bodies of schools and local education authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that

(a) due consideration is given to the views of pupils on any matter which affects them, having regard to the pupils' age and understanding; and

(b) where reasonable, steps are taken to ascertain these views.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a new clause to place schools and LEAs under a duty to listen to the views of pupils on matters affecting them and, where reasonable, to ascertain these views.
What the amendment does not do—I hope that the Government will not imply that it does—is this. It does not require teachers to ask the pupils' opinions on every aspect of schooling. It requires only that pupils' views be ascertained where reasonable. It does not give pupils any powers to make decisions about their education. Having given the pupils' view "due consideration", the teacher is still quite free to do the opposite. It does not mean that pupils' views on matters outside the powers of the school or LEA (e.g. the national curriculum or the state of the road outside the school) have to be considered at all by school or LEA staff, since consideration would not be "due".
What the amendment does is common practice in most good schools and by most good teachers—and increasingly by most good LEAs. It is, at bottom, simple wisdom to take into account any views expressed by those receiving a service (the "customer view" to use government imagery) and, where practicable, to discover those views when they have not been expressed. The resources needed to implement this amendment are negligible. The benefits are very great.
As well as creating more effective schools, the amendment also reflects the provisions of Article 12(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, voluntarily ratified by this Government in 1991. I quote Article 12(1):
"States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the views of the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
In addition, it brings education legislation into line with the Children Act provisions requiring courts and social services to consider children's views when making decisions about them.
Versions of this amendment were pressed during the passage of the Education Act 1993. They were rather contemptuously rejected by the responsible Minister, Eric Forth. He argued that education was quite a different matter from Children Act issues. He said:
"It is at least arguable that there is a difference between taking full account of a young person's attitudes and responses in a social and welfare context and asking the child to make a judgment, utter an opinion or give a view on his or her educational requirements".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/93; col. 1108.]
He called the amendment if not "dotty" then "politically correct", and said it would be absurd and unworkable, particularly in regard to primary school pupils Official Report, Commons, 9/2/93; col. 1515.
The Government were challenged over the failure to implement Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The persistent reply was that the Children Act covered the UK's responsibilities under Article 12, despite the fact that the Children Act does not cover schools' or LEAs' functions. At the House of Lords' stage, Allan Levy QC provided an opinion to this effect, but to no avail. The Government continued to say that the Children Act met its duties under Article 12. It was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Minister today, who said on that occasion:
1662
"My advice is that there is no conflict between the Education Bill and the UN convention. Article 12 of the convention states that the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to he heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child. We believe that the provisions of the Children Act should cater for that. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary to bring us within the ambit of Article l2".—f [Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1548.]
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], who was the noble friend referred to by the noble Lord.
As regards Eric Forth's remarks, it is true that there is a difference between children's views about the "social and welfare context" of Children Act decisions and those in the education sphere. The decisions courts and social workers make under the Children Act are some of the most difficult and complex decisions that can be made—education matters are in fact much easier! Secondly, the amendment does not force children to express a view, any more than it forces schools or LEAs to accept those views—it is just about the adults listening and being better informed. Certainly the amendment is neither absurd nor unworkable. Even young children or children with severe learning difficulties should be encouraged to express views and should be listened to when they do.
As regards the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I find them incomprehensible. First, Article 12 covers the views of the child "in all matters affecting the child", not just judicial or administrative proceedings. Secondly, how does the Children Act cater for educational matters or school proceedings? It does not. It has taken four years for these matters to be pursued today. I hope that the Minister will follow my arguments and decide that perhaps he could take a different view today from the one he took four years ago. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this amendment. It seems to me an idea whose time has come. I ask the Minister to consider whether, for example, in all the new clauses which this Bill introduces with regard to discipline in schools, it is not of immense importance to ensure that the pupils understand what is going on, make their contribution and feel that it is received, understood and taken account of by the teachers in the school. Secondary schools are very large now. Such huge institutions cannot be managed unless there is a general feeling that such things as disciplinary procedures are—to use a term which I do not like very much—"owned" by both the pupils and the teachers.
Lord Henley: This not being another place, I will take a slightly more measured line than my right honourable friend took in Committee in another place. I believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is over-prescriptive. It is not necessary to have this on the face of the Bill.
We have already exhorted schools and LEAs to take account of the views of the individual child when carrying out their duties, particularly in relation to special educational needs. In addition, our circular on pupil behaviour and discipline pointed out the benefits of encouraging pupils to discuss the aims and rules of the school.

1663
In other areas consultation often happens in practice. I believe that the circumstances in which pupils' views are invited should remain a matter for local judgment. Schools and local education authorities are best placed to decide where consultation with pupils is appropriate and how that consultation should take place, bearing in mind the different ages of the children that we might be talking about. The most sensible course of action would be to maintain that discretion.
The noble Baroness again raised the question of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which confers on an individual child the right to be consulted on matters affecting him or her. I do not believe that failure to accept the noble Baroness's amendment would render the United Kingdom Government in breach of the convention. As I have already pointed out, the amendment is about collective rather than individual rights, which is what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child relates to. I regret to say that I cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment and I hope that she will consider withdrawing it.
Baroness David: I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply and very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for the amendment. I thought that there had been a shift in opinion in the last few years; I thought we had moved nearer to accepting that the views of the child should be considered. It would be very helpful to have it written into the legislation. However, I see that I shall not shift the Minister at this time of night. He shakes his head so it is quite clear that I shall not. I shall consider what I do next but for tonight—or rather this morning—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 195:
Before Clause 63, insert the following new clause
PROVISION FOR NEW DENOMINATIONAL FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGES
(" .—(1) After section 22 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 there shall be inserted
"Provision for new denominational further education colleges.
22A. Notwithstanding anything in sections 18 to 22 of this Act, the instrument of government of a further education corporation which was established to be an institution with a denominational character must provide—

(a) for the governing body of the institution to include persons appointed for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the denominational character of the institution is preserved and developed and, in particular, that the institution is conducted in accordance with any trust deed relating to it; and

(b) for the majority of members of the governing body to be such governors,

and in this Part of this Act "voluntary college" means such an institution".
(2) In section 44 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Collective worship), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) In this section "institution of voluntary origin" means a further education institution which—
1664

(a) when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained, or

(b) is a voluntary college.".

(3) In section 45 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Religious education), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) In this section "institution of voluntary origin" means a further education institution which—

(a) when it became a further education institution, was a voluntary school or a grant-maintained school which was a voluntary school before it became grant-maintained, or

(b) is a voluntary college.".

(4) Section 27 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Dissolution of further education corporations) shall he amended as follows—

(a) at the end of subsection (2)(b) there shall be inserted "or

(c) any trustees of the corporation,";

(b) at the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted "save where the corporation holds property on trusts which are for charitable purposes which are not exclusively educational purposes in which case any property transferred must be transferred on like trusts to those upon which the corporation holds such property."; and

(c) at the end of subsection (7)(b) there shall be inserted ", and

(c) any trustees of the corporation.".").

The right reverend Prelate said: This is a substantial amendment in terms of both the number of words which it would add to the Bill and the issues which lie behind it. It refers to a number of issues, the major one of which is the provision for new denominational further education colleges.
The bulk of denominational education is provided by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church in particular has chosen to deliver much of its sixth-form education through sixth-form colleges, which are in the further education sector and not the secondary sector. The present statutory framework does not provide for the establishment of new denominational colleges in the further education sector, including sixth-form colleges. These amendments provide a means of enabling such a provision to be made. They provide for a further education corporation established to be an institution with a denominational character. That is to be called a voluntary college. It would share the following characteristics with the existing denominational designated institutions: a majority of foundation governors; provisions for collective worship in accordance with the trust deed; and provisions for religious education in accordance with the trust deed.
That is provided for by inserting a new Section 22A into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which defines the new type of college and provides for foundation governors. This provision mirrors that applying to the existing denominational sixth-form colleges under Section 30. The provisions for collective worship and religious education are provided for by

1665
amending Sections 44(1) and 45(1) respectively to include voluntary colleges in the definition of institutions of voluntary origin in each of those sections.
The other matter dealt within this amendment is the dissolution of a voluntary college. There are three matters which are dealt with by way of amendment to Section 27.
The first is that an addition to Section 27(2) allows the Secretary of State, if it is appropriate, to transfer property to any trustees of the corporation, even if the trustees are not a body corporate. That meets a particular issue which is of concern to the Roman Catholic Church, not least in the matter of transferring property from a religious order to a diocese.
The amendment to Section 27(4) deals with the possibility that a voluntary college may hold property on charitable trusts which are not exclusively for educational purposes. If that is the case, the property must be transferred to the new owner on similar trusts.
The other amendment is an addition to Section 27(7), requiring the Secretary of State to consult any trustees of a further education corporation before making a transfer order under the section.
There has been considerable consultation between officials of the Catholic Education Service, the Department for Education and Employment and the Further Education Funding Council. These proposals have arisen out of those consultations. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to recognise the seriousness of the issue which lies behind them. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We read in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis:
"Let there he light and there was light".
Perhaps the right reverend Prelate can enlighten me. The insertion of new Clause 22A into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 appears to me to require that a further education college established as:
"an institution with a denominational character",
should have a governing body, a majority of whose members have been appointed to preserve the denominational character of the institution.
The right reverend Prelate no doubt will be able to make clear to me—I myself cannot see it—what that has to do with "new denominational further education colleges", as it appears at the side of Amendment No. 195, which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is of considerable length and some complexity. So, perhaps I may say to him:
"Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee … and … defend us from all perils and dangers of this night".
Lord Henley: In due course I shall leave the right reverend Prelate to respond to those points. But it may assist the Committee if I summarise the current arrangements.
Section 30 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ensures that the majority of the governing body of a former voluntary aided school is appointed by the relevant trustees. That protection of the religious
1666
interests of the trustees only applies to institutions which were former voluntary-aided schools. What then if there were a need for a new denominational institution which does not have that heritage? In such circumstances, I fully appreciate the concerns of trustees that their interests should be properly protected and that steps should be taken to safeguard those interests.
While I appreciate the concerns that lie behind the amendment, its effect would be to hand over effective control of an institution established by a denomination and conducted by a further education corporation to that denomination. The contribution made by the denomination—if any—to the setting up and running costs of the college would be irrelevant.
That is not the way that the Government have done business with the Churches in the past. The Government would normally expect a significant financial contribution to the costs of the institution to justify an arrangement of that nature. Clearly the implications of this extend not only to the school sector, but also to the higher education sector, which has similar arrangements to the further education sector.
It is also worth considering what "denominational character" is supposed to mean. It would appear to exclude institutions with a Christian ethos but which are not affiliated to a specific denomination. But, equally, it could include non-Christian religions. I am unsure if that was the intention of the amendment.
The Government have sympathy with the aim behind the amendment, but it will not do in its present form. The Government would be willing to consider this matter further, but in view of the very substantial issues that it raises I cannot give any undertaking to come back while the current Bill is before us. However, I would be happy, as would my right honourable friends, to discuss this matter with the right reverend Prelate and those advising him.
1.15 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: At this hour of the night, when darkness is upon us, I am not sure what light I can shed to help the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
The intention of the new section is that an institution may be established which has a denominational character. I take the Minister's points in relation to whether that might exclude Christian colleges or those which have a general Christian intent. But, clearly, the vast bulk of the provision is by denominations, as they are termed in statute. The amendment would enable a further education institution to be established. The term "voluntary college" is used in order to provide a title for this new kind of institution.
Nevertheless, I accept the points which the Minister made, particularly about the arrangements that need to be made with the Churches on this matter. I hope we can return to it, in particular in discussion with the Minister and his right honourable friend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 200A not moved.]
Clause 63 [Management committees for pupil referral units]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 200B:
Page 48, line 22, at beginning insert—
("( ) At the beginning of Schedule I to the Education Act 1996 (pupil referral units) there shall be inserted—
" Al. A pupil referral unit shall have as its principal objective the satisfactory reintegration into school after a limited period of pupils referred to it".").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require pupil referral units to have as their main objective the satisfactory reintegration of pupils into mainstream schools. The organisation of LEA off-site provision for pupils out of school was created under the Education Act 1993 and institutions were so designated from September 1994. In January 1995 there were 286 pupil referral units with 5,043 pupils and a staffing of 1,446 full-time equivalent teachers.
Concern has been expressed about the quality of education at PRUs following an Ofsted inspection report in 1995. Local education authorities have been making progress towards defining the place of their PRUs in the range of provision for pupils in difficulties. Clause 26 requiring LEAs to prepare a plan for children with behavioural difficulties is welcome. The development by Ofsted of an agreed framework for inspection is also welcome.
Current DfEE guidance in Circular 1194—The education by LEAs of children otherwise than at School—notes that for children out of mainstream school,
"the prime aim in respect of all children who are away from school should be to secure their return to mainstream education, including special schools, as soon as practicable".
That advice flows through to all the arrangements for PRUs, including the need not to provide the national curriculum, though there is still a need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
The need to get young people who have been excluded from school back into education is paramount. PRUs can provide an effective means of achieving that end through their specialised teaching staff and generous teacher-pupil ratio. The purpose of this amendment is to write into primary legislation a policy objective which is supported by the Government and all other interested bodies. An amendment with the same wording was debated in Standing Committee D in another place on 16th January 1997. The Minister of State, Mr. Forth, was not convinced that there was a need to include in the Bill:
"a form of words which states that reintegration is the principal objective".
He believed that guidelines and the need for flexibility were sufficient. He said that the Government might reconsider the matter if it was found that PRUs were failing to give priority to return pupils to mainstream education. Why wait? Rather than wait and see how
1668
PRUs develop, it would be sensible to see this declaratory amendment put into law now, and I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I understand the intention behind this amendment and I would agree in general that most PRUs should act, as has been put on another occasion, as a revolving door. However, what the noble Baroness's amendment fails to take into account is the sheer variety of the PRUs and the variety of pupils within them. There are currently 328 PRUs. Their intakes vary considerably. Pupils may, for example, have been excluded; they may be persistent non-attenders, suffering from neurotic disorders, including school phobia; they may be pregnant or young mothers and unable to attend ordinary school; or they may have other characteristics.
I would accept that in general most younger pupils excluded from school who have not yet embarked on their GCSE courses should be returned to school—and this might sometimes be a special school—as soon as possible. However, I do not think I could accept the noble Baroness's point that it would always be appropriate, or the primary function of a PRU, automatically to aim at reintegrating all the older disaffected pupils when they might be better integrated into another setting. Similarly, I do not think it would be right to require the return to a mainstream school of, say, an 11 year-old mother who was successfully pursuing her studies in a PRU.
What matters in these cases is that a judgment has to be made of what would be the most suitable educational progression for the individual pupil. While I am sympathetic to the wording of this amendment and its declaratory tone, I have to say that one could not put in declaratory words of that sort if it was only in certain circumstances that that was going to be the prime object or the principal objective of the PRU, because many of them will have other objectives for other pupils.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether I could press the Minister to see whether there might possibly on Report be a form of wording that would satisfy my noble friend Lady David and overcome the difficulties to which the Minister referred. Such a form of words could refer to, "unless quite clearly not in the interests of the pupil through, for example, age, pregnancy or a severe medical problem". I do not mean that a comprehensive list should be given, but perhaps it could be made absolutely clear that in the case of 10 or 11 year-olds the prime objective was to achieve a return to mainstream education. It ought to be possible for us to achieve what is wanted and to overcome the quite legitimate objections and the valid points raised by the Minister.
Lord Henley: On Report I shall obviously be prepared to consider amendments tabled by either noble Baroness should they wish to do so. However, I believe that they would find it difficult to draft provisions in the manner they have suggested. That is often one of the dangers of having declaratory principles in Bills—

1669
although they are sometimes desirable, as we all accept. I leave it entirely to either or to both noble Baronesses to do their best.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for her support and advice. I also thank the Minister because that was not a wholly unsympathetic reply. I should like to read in Hansard what he has said. It may be that we can cook up another amendment, but with slightly different words, for the next stage of the Bill, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 200C:
Page 48, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Baroness said: As I did not think that this amendment quite fitted with Amendment No. 200B, I thought that it might be better if I spoke to it separately. The amendment seeks to find out why the consent of the Secretary of State is required before a joint committee is established for two or more PRUs.
Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, which includes provision for the establishment of pupil referral units, defines PRUs as a school established and maintained by a local education authority. Quite rightly, there is no role for the Secretary of State in the establishment, change or closure of PRUs. It would clearly be ridiculous for the Secretary of State to be involved in the approval or otherwise of decisions to establish PRUs. It would reduce the flexibility of PRUs to be organised to meet the continuing development of need in an area. This is not to say that under other powers the Secretary of State should not collect information on LEA practice on the establishment of PRUs, which is a proper exercise of her role and provides valuable feedback to LEAs on the development of this new type of school. What we want to know is why the Secretary of State's consent is required before a joint committee is established. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Intervening in such situations seems a curious use of the Secretary of State's power, particularly when the Government's mood is what one might call "deregulatory".
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may respond briefly. The Government believe that in most cases there should be a separate management committee for each unit. We believe that that is the best way to ensure proper management and oversight of most units. The Secretary of State will be setting out in guidance the factors that she will take into account in deciding whether to approve any particular arrangement of LEAs coming together, but her principal or long-stop role will be to provide that necessary safeguard against joint committees being established solely for the administrative convenience of the LEAs and not leaving it as we think it normally—I stress "normally"—ought to be, which is that there should be a separate management committee for each unit.
Baroness David: I cannot say that I am convinced by the Minister's answer. It seems to me that this is not a
1670
role for the Secretary of State, but at this hour of the morning, I shall not continue with that argument and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 49, line 1, after ("(including") insert ("voluntary and").
The right reverend Prelate said: In contrast to the last amendment that I moved, this is brief and, I hope, crystal clear. It refers to the joint management committees which we have just discussed and in particular to the requirement for such committees to include persons representing schools, including grant-maintained schools. This amendment would add voluntary schools to the grant-maintained group. Clearly, voluntary schools are greater in number than grant-maintained schools and if there is an argument for including grant-maintained schools in such a committee, that argument must surely extend to the voluntary sector also. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I do not know how far the right reverend Prelate wished to go in his amendment, but it would mean only that the Secretary of State in making regulations may include a specific requirement about representatives from voluntary schools, not that she must. That is no substantive advance on the provisions already in paragraph 15(2)(c) inserted by Clause 63. That already allows for the regulations to make provision for the composition of a management committee, including representatives of local schools.
It might be useful if I explain why there is a reference on the face of the Bill to grant-maintained schools and not to voluntary schools or indeed any other category of school. This was necessary to remove any doubts about the vires of regulations that would require local education authorities which maintained PRUs to include on their units' management committees representatives of schools not maintained by the LEA. The same considerations do not apply to voluntary schools. I hope that that satisfies the right reverend Prelate.
1.30 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall read his reply carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 201A:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales.
(2) A body established under this section shall have the functions of advising the Secretary of State as to the following—

(a) rules and guidance as to the professional conduct and discipline of teachers;

(b) the qualifications to be required of persons seeking to become or remain teachers;

1671

(c) the professional development and appraisal of teachers;

(d) such matters, including matters relating to education or the employment of teachers or other persons connected with education, as the Council may consider relevant to the promotion of good teaching in England and Wales; and

(e) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.").

The noble Lord said: We have today discussed many important issues. The establishment of a general teaching council is probably one of the most important issues that we shall discuss today, at least for the teaching profession. Late though the hour is, I believe that we must spend a little time on it to do it justice. It was discussed at considerable length in the other place at various stages. In the other place the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, said in Committee:
"The time for a GTC may have come".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/97; co1.653.]
If I correctly recall, in the Second Reading debate in this Chamber the Minister was not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of a general teaching council and felt that the time might well have come for it. This is the opportunity. The purpose of this amendment is to require the establishment of a general teaching council.
There is a strong body of professional opinion that supports the notion that something must be done to raise the morale and status of the teaching profession. I now meet a large number of teachers both at home and by virtue of my duties in your Lordships' House. I am constantly struck by just how low morale is in the teaching profession. It is too late—and perhaps this is not the time—to discuss why that is so but that it is is beyond doubt. A front page story in The Times Educational Supplement on 10th January of this year reported a survey that had been carried out by that newspaper which showed that morale was at an all-time low. Teachers felt oppressed by perpetual public criticism and believed that their professionalism was undermined by government interference, constant change and not knowing where they were. More teachers are retiring early through stress-related illness and other reasons than ever before.
No one defends poor teachers or poor performance. That applies most of all to teachers themselves, who in my experience are generally most critical of bad teachers. No one argues that incompetence should be condoned. But generalised abuse of an entire profession, as is practised in some parts of the press, fails to address the shortcomings of the small minority of poor teachers. Instead, it depresses and casts down the great majority of good and competent professionals. Commercial management practice and educational theory agree that praise for good work and encouragement for individuals to take responsibility for their own development raise morale and performance at the same time. I contrast that with the words, too often repeated, of the chief inspector, who seems to believe that thousands of teachers should be sacked. I do not believe that that does anything for the morale of a profession that already feels deeply under-appreciated.
The creation of a GTC will empower teachers themselves to take charge of raising the quality and standards of the profession. There is every reason to expect that that will do more to raise professional standards and boost the quality of recruits to the profession than any amount of hectoring from the Government and the tabloid press. This development is urgently needed not only because standards of teaching need to be improved but because there is a danger of a teacher shortage developing.
As the economy picks up—we are constantly assured that it will—disaffected and demoralised teachers will leave the profession in even greater numbers for areas of employment where their skills are appreciated, while teacher training institutes will fail in the competition with other employers for good graduates to replace them.
During debate in another place there was general agreement of the need to raise educational standards by improving the quality of the work of individual classroom teachers. The Minister in the other place conceded that a GTC could make a contribution towards raising the morale and status of the teaching profession. Objections raised by Ministers included whether the body need to be statutory, the possibility of public subsidy, and how it might relate to existing statutory bodies with responsibilities in the same field.
The first query was whether, given the widespread support for the idea, such a body needed to be set up by statute. The answer is clearly in the affirmative for reasons that flow from the nature of the organisation and its necessary status and functions. To begin with, if it is to police professional conduct and discipline it must be universal in its coverage, and it must be able to apply sanctions. For such a duty to be discharged effectively, there cannot be an opportunity for the small number of teachers who may need to be subject to discipline to avoid it merely by opting out of the organisation.
On Report in the other place, it was argued that the amendment would require only that the GTC advise the Secretary of State, and therefore would not have such executive functions. The normal approach for a professional body is that being struck off the register effectively prevents that individual from being allowed to practise the profession. Given that control of access to the teaching profession is currently in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that there is no immediate proposal to change that, the amendment is phrased in the way that it is. However, it is easy to see how the internal process of a GTC to register or deregister an individual could be linked administratively with the award or removal of qualified teacher status by the DfEE. Thus, although for legal purposes the GTC would be advising the Secretary of State, it would in practice be the gatekeeper of the professional status of teachers.
There exists already a number of professional associations for teachers to join on a voluntary basis. While those bodies do much good work to promote better professional standards, they are in business primarily to protect the interests of their members. Significantly, the teacher associations are strong supporters of the establishment of a statutory GTC.
They recognise that it must be a fundamentally different organisation from themselves. Significantly, there is already a voluntary organisation called the General Teaching Council which exists to promote the creation of a statutory GTC. It is widely supported by organisations representing teachers, their employers, and the wider community. It recognises that its objectives cannot be achieved by an expansion of voluntary activity.
All of us say that education is our top priority. If that is the case, then the people who deliver education must be among our top professionals. It is long past the time that we need to recognise and value them as professionals, treat them as professionals, and to give them their own proper professional body in a general teaching council. Although it is late, I end where I started by saying that I believe that this is one of the most important amendments we are discussing today. A favourable wind today, even at this late hour, will send a message to the teaching profession, which will probably do more than anything else we have said tonight, important though that has been, to lift morale and start them on the road back to the proper professional status that they should enjoy. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I rise, inspired by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He is absolutely right in saying that although this is a late hour this issue is so important that it cannot be given short time. I am delighted that he has mentioned the question of the minority of poor teachers—we have read enough about them in the press—but nothing in the Bill deals with that. It appears to be in no one's sphere of responsibility; all cases are individual. The famous 15,000 dud teachers immortalised by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector are, as we have heard, neither sacked nor succoured. If one thing is worse than being either sacked or succoured it is being ignored. To that extent, the minority of poor teachers—and there is always a minority or poor teachers—are getting away with murder while the Government shilly-shally and do nothing at all about it.
The noble Lord drew attention to the words of Mr. Forth in Standing Committee D on 16th January 1997 and quoted a short phrase. Perhaps I may quote rather more. Mr. Forth said:
"The time for a general teaching council may have come and such a body may make the contribution that the honourable Member for Walton described. However, several fundamental questions would need an answer before we could progress on the lines set out in the new clause. For example, if there is such a groundswell of demand among teachers for a council, does it need to be created by statute?".
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, dealt with that simply; the answer is yes. Mr. Forth continued:
"Could it not be created by popular support among teachers? Related to that point is the issue of funding, which is not covered in the new clause. The honourable gentleman might say that it does not need to be at this stage. Would the body have to he funded by taxpayers' money or could it be funded by teachers' subscription?".
Note the grim and grinding reference to the taxpayers' pocket being introduced into this stage.
1674
The Minister inquired about funding, asking whether the GTC would require public subsidy. The answer is emphatically no. It would not only be unnecessary, it would be undesirable. Independent funding for a GTC would be one guarantee of the independence of the body. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord how it would work. There are approximately half a million teachers in this country. If they were all required to pay a registration fee of just a few pounds per year the GTC would very quickly achieve an adequate budget for its relatively modest costs.
The universal requirement for teachers to register would simultaneously keep the fee to a low level and ensure that the organisation was independent of government without becoming a creature of a mass voluntary membership. It could thereby be both professionally independent and rigorous on standards. This is another reason why the idea requires a statutory basis to work. Teachers have made it abundantly clear that they would subscribe willingly the small registration fee necessary for the benefits that would accrue, as they do in Scotland.
It was pointed out on Report in another place that there may be a need for a one-off grant to enable the GTC to get off the ground before the subscription income can be collected, and that this would have to come out of the taxpayers' back pocket. I hold up my hands and say that that is true. I cannot deny it; I concede it. But the sums would be so insignificant as not to matter and they would represent no permanent drain on public funds.
The Minister in another place also questioned how the GTC would relate to the Teacher Training Agency. It is true that a GTC would be operating in the territory now occupied by the TTA, but it would perform a complementary role. They would not be in opposition. The TEA. is charged with spending public money on the recruitment, initial training and continuing professional development of teachers. That is fine; that is clear. It is a vitally important function. Since its inception it has, quite properly, conducted wide consultation on the discharge of its functions. The GTC is emphatically not a creature of government and would not be concerned with spending decisions. But it would be an extremely useful source of consultation and provide a mechanism for the dissemination of ideas and good practice. It would also have a breadth and legitimacy, through its broad representation, to gain respect for its work on upholding professional standards that a small appointed body, however well managed, would be jolly hard-pressed to emulate.
The question of the composition of the body was also raised as a conceivable possible theoretical objection by the Minister in another place. The Minister in another place asked how and by whom representatives on the council would be elected or appointed. It is true that that is not specified in the amendment, which in practice leaves the matter for the Secretary of State to decide. The shadow GTC, the unofficial body which has given itself that name, has a number of proposals on that point.

1675
There are also a range of existing bodies which could provide a model on which the GTC could be based and there would be scope for the Secretary of State to consult with interested parties before setting up a GTC to comply with this clause.
Finally, the Minister in another place accepted that the idea had merit, but he was worried about the various difficulties which he outlined and he felt that they needed to be resolved before the matter could progress. There may well be questions of detail to be resolved. There must be; there always are. But this new clause deals only in the broad principle which the Minister, Mr. Forth, said that he accepts. The detail would be for the Secretary of State to determine in implementation, if there is the political will to do it.
There are no serious obstacles that could not easily be overcome. The proposal has greater support and fewer intrinsic problems than almost any of the educational innovations forced through by this Government in the recent past. There cannot be any serious objection to the inclusion of this sensible reform in the Bill. The extent to which those speaking on behalf of the Government at earlier stages of this Bill have made heavy weather of trivial objections suggests that there must be reasons why the Government are hostile to this proposal. If so, we should like to know what they are. But if the Government accept the principle, will the Minister agree to bring back his own amendments, with the technical issues discussed and resolved, so that we can all go ahead with what everybody in the profession seems to think is a vitally important innovation which will do more than anything else, except money, to raise morale?
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Warnock: Having campaigned for 12 years for a general teaching council—and this is an idea that has been tried over and over again—I must rise to support the amendment.
I make just two points. At present the recruitment of teachers is falling to a new low. It is not just that the numbers are small but the quality of people coming forward to teach is dropping. Many people who go to even the best teacher training colleges, such as Homerton in Cambridge, which is part of the university, up to a point, go there against the wishes of their parents and the advice of their teachers. When they get there, they really prove themselves not to be of the quality in many cases that one would want of members of a profession on whom so much depends. It is not possible to raise the standard of recruits to the teaching profession without a change in the status in society of teachers.
My second point is simply to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said which I believe to be absolutely true. When a government or, indeed, all of us in this country genuinely want to raise the standards of education, how can it be right that we should not manifestly show that we respect, value and trust the people who deliver education? Unless we have a statutory body which is self-regulating in the profession,
1676
we will not be showing that we trust its membership. I strongly support the amendment and only wish that it had not come up the day after it should have done.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like briefly to support the amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made out a compelling case which has been made even stronger by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. There is low morale and a perception that status is not what it should be. There is also a very wide recognition that the establishment of a general teaching council would do a great deal to put matters right. The Churches have been glad to be involved in consultations about its structure.
Lord Henley: I accept, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that there has been some agreement throughout the profession that a professional body, which would allow the teaching profession to speak with one voice on key issues, could play a useful role. I thought that we were speaking to both amendments which reflect that but, as we are really debating general principles, I need not focus on one or the other. Nevertheless, they reflect to some extent the fact that there is not, as yet, total agreement on what form such a body should take even if, as I said, the debate in the other place showed that there is broad support for the principle across all parties.
As has been quoted on a number of occasions, my right honourable friend did not rule out the establishment of a statutory body, but stressed that whether or not such a statutory body is required would depend on the answers to a number of key questions. Those key questions have been repeated several times in the course of this debate. However, what I found rather interesting in the TES last Friday or Saturday was that even Mr. Doug McAvoy of the NUT, in an article entitled, "Beware Ministers Bearing Promises", repeated those questions, expressing doubts about the creation of such a body and saying that those questions have to be answered before one can progress down such a route.
I shall repeat those questions again. For example, what functions would the body have? That is very important. How would its members be elected or chosen? It is no good the noble Lord saying that I must accept the amendments or accept them in principle and then come back in two weeks with agreement across the entire profession as to exactly how these matters could be dealt with. What would its relation be with other bodies such as the teacher unions? We have all agreed that we can only do this if we have the general support of teacher unions. I certainly gain the impression from Mr. McAvoy's article that we do not have his support for what has been proposed. What would that body's relations be with the TTA?
Those are very important questions and ones which will have to be asked in due course. As I said, my right honourable friend did not rule out the establishment of such a statutory body, but I do not think that now is the time to address such matters. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot provide the comfort that either noble Lord wanted between now and the Report stage. I leave the

1677
noble Lord with the questions which he can contemplate in due course as he further considers the setting up of such a body.
Lord Tope: I said at the beginning that this was arguably one of the most important issues to be debated tonight and I am delighted that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has chosen to join us thus indicating, somewhat to my surprise, its importance. Nevertheless, it is a very welcome surprise. I suspect that the noble Viscount was as surprised as I was to hear that the Minister is unwilling to go ahead with the proposal because there is not "total agreement" upon it. I was not aware that the Government were ever inhibited in going ahead with what they wanted to do because there was not total agreement among those who will be affected. However, if that is the principle that the Minister is now establishing then that at least is welcome even at this late hour.
Another first has also been established. Certainly in the time that I have taken part in education debates in this Chamber, I cannot ever remember the Minister quoting the NUT in his support. I tend to think that it is perhaps a measure of desperation that the Minister quotes Mr McAvoy's views and says that because Mr McAvoy feels as he does, then he must be right and the Minister must agree. I rather feel that tonight we have won the argument but perhaps for the time being lost the battle. I think we all acknowledge it is an important issue; it will not go away and it will be brought back. However, in view of the late hour, I shall not press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Power to make regulations: teachers not under contract of employment and persons having access to those under 19]:
[Amendment No. 201B not moved.]
Clause 64 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201C not moved.]
Clause 65 [Recoupment by local education authority of costs of teachers' premature retirement]:
[Amendments Nos. 201D to 201F not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Lord Butterfield Lord Butterfield moved Amendment No. 202:
After Clause 65. insert the following new clause—
PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTION OF TEACHERS
(". The Secretary of State may, by order, make provision for the establishment of an independent Professional Institution of Teachers, including a contribution to the costs of setting up such an institution.").
The noble Lord said: I am anxious to bring this matter forward as an idea in parallel to the question of the establishment of a general teaching council. This institution would encourage teachers to progress intellectually. It is an idea which has been in the air for some time. I remember discussing it with the right honourable John Patten when he was Secretary of State for Education some five or six years ago when we were wrestling with the question of the establishment of a
1678
general teaching council. Even then it was clear to many of us that such a body was needed in parallel with a general teaching council. In many ways such a body seems comparable to the General Medical Council in my profession. We realised that, just as the medical and other professions needed, in parallel with the General Medical Council, the Royal Colleges to ensure the proper monitoring of standards, so there would be a need for some kind of institution in the teaching profession which would provide a stimulus for teachers to improve their knowledge and have a way of recording it and having it recognised.
There has been much discussion of the need for an organisation for teachers to associate themselves with to gain status with the public for their abilities in their subject, be it mathematics or geography. I should tell the Committee that the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who was unfortunately out of the country and so not able to add his name to this amendment, and perhaps even lead the discussion, has been calling meetings of a small group—not a conspiratorial group—which has been frank and open in its views and which has consulted many bodies about the possibility of establishing the institution mentioned in the amendment.
Of course it should be recognised by all of us that there has been for many years—nigh on a century—the College of Preceptors. That organisation has provided teachers who wanted to show their ability in their subject with some kind of recognition or certification of their ability to meet certain standards. This was particularly useful to those teachers who were going to Commonwealth countries such as India or Australia, or wherever else it might be. They could add this certification to their general qualifications in the teaching profession. In a way, the College of Preceptors is a role model for those of us who have joined the discussions of the group of my noble friend Lord Caldecote about the future for the teaching profession in this matter. It is important that I convey to the Committee that all the eight to 10 people in the group are absolutely convinced that it is vital for teachers to have better recognition. All the remarks made about the need for a general teaching council to improve teachers' morale are equally applicable to the establishment of an institution which will give recognition to the teachers' ability in their subjects.
I cannot understand how we as a nation have allowed ourselves to get into such a state of criticism, harassing the teaching profession as we do. We must all appreciate that unless teachers have our confidence and our recognition for their abilities, it is highly unlikely that the children they are trying to teach will have the right attitude towards them as individuals and as leaders of morality, ethics and learning in our society. It is for that reason that I am keen that we establish an institution such as that referred to in the amendment.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that it is inevitable that I should feel this way as a member of the medical profession. If I were a nurse, the same would be true. In both those professions there are organisations comparable with the general teaching council for the control of the profession. Sadly, we have to register. Sadly, we have to have ways of disciplining ourselves

1679
when there is bad behaviour or bad practice. But in addition, there have to be ways in which people who have joined the profession can push ahead and climb a ladder of achievement to gain recognition that they are striving for quality in their teaching and knowledge of their subject. I hope that the Committee will find the amendment reasonable and support it.
Many people inside and outside the teaching profession recognise and support the idea of an institution such as that referred to in the amendment and supported by my noble friend Lord Caldecote and his group. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Viscount Caldecote: I strongly support the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Butterfield for his remarks.
There is no doubt that we all agree that teaching is an important profession. It is arguable that it is the most important profession because it affects every aspect of our lives, whether at work or play. The highest achievable standards are vital to the well-being of the whole community. Like my noble friend Lord Butterfield, I find it amazing, and a matter of serious concern, that alone among important professions there is no independent professional institution of teachers, run by teachers, such as exists in other important professions like medicine, to which my noble friend referred, engineering and accountancy. In Australia, there is the example of the Australian College of Education. It is just that: a professional institution of teachers.
A similar professional institution for teachers would provide a focus for excellence in every sense for maintaining the highest standards in training, in the classroom and in professional conduct. As it developed, teachers would come to aspire to membership of it. I hope that eventually it would become a "Royal College of Teachers". But in any case such an institution would generate a greater feeling of unity and comradeship within the profession of teaching and it would contribute to higher morale, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I entirely and very strongly agree with him on the importance of that. It would contribute to higher morale and a better public recognition of this most important profession.
When this institution is fully established it must be self-financing, as are similar institutions in other professions. But substantial expenditure would be required in the first few years of its formative stages before it became self-supporting. I hope that the Government will show support for such an independent professional institution. I hope the amendment will also enable the Secretary of State to contribute to the initial setting-up costs.
I therefore most warmly commend Amendment No. 202 to the Committee. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel able to reply sympathetically to this proposal. I am given extra hope that he might be able to do so as a result of his
1680
comments during our debate on Amendment No. 164B. He emphasised the importance of the role played by professional chartered bodies in maintaining standards.
There is element of "chicken and egg" in this situation. Such an institution must have the full support of teachers. But Her Majesty's Government should give a lead on this important issue. That in itself will help to encourage the support of teachers.
I was not able to speak on Amendment No. 201A. However, as it was grouped with this amendment I hope that the Committee will feel that it is in order for me to say just a few words in connection with that amendment, which was withdrawn. I have no objection whatever to the setting up of a general teaching council for England and Wales similar to, but not the same as, the Scottish General Teaching Council, which has done valuable work. However, I rather doubt the wisdom of setting it up as a statutory body—though I shall not become involved in the detail of that tonight.
We must be clear that the general teaching council would not be a professional institution of teachers, with members elected by teachers on the basis of their academic qualifications and experience as teachers, as happens in other professions. As my noble friend Lord Butterfield emphasised, councils similar to the proposed GTC exist in medicine (the General Medical Council) and in engineering (the Engineering Council). But the valuable contribution which both those bodies and similar ones make would not be possible without the support of the professional institutions such as the Royal Colleges in medicine and the engineering institutions.
The establishment of a professional institution of teachers and a general teaching council should be urgently progressed side by side, with the highest priority given to the professional institution simply because of its essential supporting role for a GTC and the fact that it would be more difficult to form.
Perhaps the best outcome of this debate would be for Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench to accept the principle of both these amendments. We have not the time to go into all the details tonight. I should be very happy to discuss them with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that he will accept the principle of both these amendments and perhaps bring forward at Report stage an appropriate amendment to promote the formation of both these bodies, the GTC and the professional institution for teachers.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may speak very briefly in support of this amendment without repeating any of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, have said except that the importance of the teaching profession in our society can hardly be over-rated.
I have some experience, as a former member of a hospital trust board, of appointing senior medical professional people, with the assistance of representatives from the relevant Royal College, and know the kind of activity of which the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, spoke. I should like to make one additional point. One of the things which is not quite right in the

1681
teaching profession at present is the fact that the teacher who remains in the classroom as a highly qualified teacher somehow has less prestige than the teacher who moves towards the more administrative side. I believe that the suggestions put forward tonight would reverse that position and give greater prestige and authority to the really outstanding classroom teacher. There is almost no one more important in any school.
Baroness Warnock: I believe that the present time would be very good for the setting up of such an institution as has been discussed. A great deal of energy goes into professional development, to which all employers of teachers are committed. This goes together with the assessment of teachers inside the schools which is now highly professional and efficient. A great deal of time and money is spent on this development and on INSET courses, either long courses or day courses. However, teachers themselves complain that INSET courses are by and large unfocused and do not lead to anything. They may generate a few bright ideas which come back into the school but nothing very much happens with them after a few months or a year or so.
If there were an institution for whose awards teachers could systematically work while teaching and attending courses, it would make an enormous difference to the development of teachers' professional status, as well as giving them motivation to get more out of their courses and for the courses themselves to be better focused and directed from above by an institution of the kind we have heard of. I believe that the time is very good for the setting up of such an institution.
2.15 a.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have been wondering all day why the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, was not moving any of the interesting amendments in his name in the Marshalled List. I wondered too at the absence of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, whom I have known and worked with since we were both humble lecturers in the University of Sheffield. All I can say now is that what we have heard was well worth waiting for. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said. I did not know what he was going to say; we on these Benches had a little thought as to what it was he was putting forward and whether it was a rival body to the one that we were talking about, the general teaching council, or not. Clearly he has made a powerful case for a parallel body.
I listened with great interest to what has developed into an important debate and with deep regret and sadness that we are reduced to debating this important issue at this ridiculous hour, with so few Members of the Committee present to hear what we have to say. If the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, in a fit of pique, should decide to call a Division on this issue tonight, I wonder whether sufficient noble Lords would muster. It must be almost tempting. This situation has arisen because we were denied a fourth Committee day for this Bill. We fought for it, argued for it and negotiated for it. In the end we pleaded for it. But we did not obtain it.
1682
All day we have not moved dozens of important amendments. But we have still ended up with this great issue at a quarter past two in the morning, with a virtually empty Chamber. The amendment should have been given a fairer hearing.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene at this time. If the noble Lord wishes to come in later, he can certainly do so. I just want to respond briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I appreciate that the hour is late and the noble Lord has been very forbearing. But noble Lords will also appreciate that he has taken somewhat excessive time over just one or two amendments on earlier occasions on other days.
I shall deal with the amendment briefly. I appreciate the concerns of my noble friends and that my noble friend Lord Renfrew also wished to speak but was unable to be present. I addressed the points earlier on Amendment No. 201A and exactly the same questions have to be put as would be asked if one were suggesting setting up a general teaching council.
Having said that, as my right honourable friend said on another occasion, the time might have come for such a body or for such a body as the GTC. The time might also have come for two such parallel bodies. That is another matter, but I do not feel that it is a matter that we can address at this stage in the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: As a number of noble Lords have said, we are engaged in a serious and important debate this evening. I was interested by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the other noble Lord who spoke from that side of the Committee. Both of them referred to examples—on one side the General Medical Council and on the other side the Engineering Council—in which bodies were made up of individual Royal Colleges on the one hand and separate engineering institutions on the other.
I wonder whether this amendment is fully adequate to cope with the full range of professional aptitudes and experience within the teaching profession. If the amendment were to read:
"a number of independent professional institutions of teachers",
it might make more logical sense.
Rather differently from the two examples already given, one can see within the teaching profession a number of discrete specialties but constituted in a different way. One can think in terms of the specialty of primary school teachers; the specialty of secondary/high school teachers, maybe in terms of the specialty of a subject; the specialty of teachers in further education; and teachers in universities. Maybe the different professional bodies within the broad context of a general teaching council might be differently constituted. I wonder, in the deliberations that have obviously taken place and will no doubt continue, whether some consideration of the organisations that currently exist within the broad teaching profession might be taken on board.
If one looks at the various trade unions within the broad spectrum of the general teaching professions, one can see that there is a preponderance of membership

1683
within the elements I have already mentioned. That is perhaps one of the ways in which we can develop a consensus for how we can go forward in what is emerging as a need for the ability to bring together the broad spectrum of the teaching professions, encompassing everyone within a general teaching council but incorporating different specialities within specific institutions or colleges. I hope that in the context—admittedly the hour is late—of the seriousness of this debate, Members of the Committee opposite will take these points on board.
Viscount Caldecote: Perhaps I can say briefly that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; but there is a real danger of fragmentation. If we do not have just one body, we lose many of the advantages put forward by my noble friend Lord Butterfield. Many professional institutions deal with the problem of different specialities by having different divisions or different sections. That is a much better way of dealing with the situation than having a greater fragmentation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for introducing this enormously important amendment. The interest it has generated in your Lordships' Chamber is an indication of the importance of the issue.
For some years I have been involved in the formulation of a proposal for a general teaching council. But this suggestion came as a new idea to me, as I suspect it did to others in your Lordships' Chamber and I am wrestling with the implications of it.
I should like to make just one observation. I hope that any professional institution would not simply be concerned with academic qualifications. We can take the parallel made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, of royal societies. They are in the primary business of healing and academic qualifications are in order to further that aim. A professional institution of teachers would surely be stimulating teachers to be recognised in the chief thrust of what they do; that is, to inspire, to excite, as well as to impart knowledge and to lead people on. I hope that the aims of such an institution would not only be a greater head knowledge, but also a greater sense of wisdom and of the way in which young people can be encouraged to learn and be drawn onwards through education.
Lord Butterfield: We heard a very important contribution from the right reverend Prelate. I am extremely grateful to him. I should like to make clear that it is important to both my noble friend Lord Caldecote and myself that features other than just the brain are incorporated in what we hope will evolve into people's appreciation that we have a wonderful lot of people in our teaching professions and they should not be kicked around any more.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will not be surprised if I say that I am very piqued. I would put this whole matter to a Division except that I feel that, as a relatively new Member of this Chamber, I would rather curry
1684
favour with the Minister in the hope that I can make some progress with the general idea, than irritate him with a Division. I hope the Minister will take that as a genuine compliment in our belief in his ability to lead us through the present waters into smoother waters and better times for the teaching profession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 202A:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
STAFFING OF SCHOOLS WHERE DELEGATION HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
(" —(1) In section 133 of the Education Act 1996, at the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted "except that, where delegation has been suspended under section 117, the local education authority may also suspend the provisions of the Articles of Government specified in Schedule 13.".").
The noble Baroness said: We move almost from the sublime, but not to the ridiculous. Amendment No. 202A is about giving power to local authorities to enable them to make staffing changes in schools when delegation has been suspended. There is no current power for that to happen.
When the issue was debated in Standing Committee D at its final sitting, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, in responding to the proposal for the new clause, gave two reasons for resisting a change to the law. She cited the Government's review of local management of schools, which she stated she did not want to pre-empt. She offered the view that there might be a better way of changing the present law than that proposed in the new clause. Again, she stated that the Government did not wish to pre-empt the review the Government were undertaking.
It is quite a serious situation, when a school is in difficulties and delegation has been suspended, that the educational authority cannot go into the school and make what may be considered to be essential staffing changes as a first step in getting the school back on to the right road. It appears that the Government are not prepared to make provision now to avoid the risk of an LEA being unable to make these essential staffing changes in a school which has fallen into difficulty. I should like to ask the Minister how the review of the local management of schools is going and whether, either now or at Report, he will be in a position either to support the principle of this amendment or to produce a Government amendment to respond to the point I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I think my honourable friend Mrs. Gillan, during Committee proceedings in another place, expressed some sympathy for the clause when it was considered. The pre-LMS staffing provisions of Schedule 13 of the 1936 Act clearly were not originally designed for a school where delegation had been suspended but, as my honourable friend made clear when this was considered, we are inclined on balance to resist this sort of new clause for the following reasons. First, as she said on that occasion, we are undertaking a review of LMS and would prefer to consider this measure as part of that review. I would say to the noble

1685
Baroness that does not allow us to come forward with something on Report or Third Reading. We would also want to consult all the relevant interests, having completed that review, rather than rush into legislation. We would also need to think about whether LEAs should remain under some kind of duty to consult governing bodies of schools from which they have suspended delegation.
Perhaps I could make one other point, but I do not know whether it is helpful or not to the noble Baroness. The clause that she is putting forward does not in fact necessarily represent the best way of changing the law. It would be possible to achieve the effect of her proposal by a simplification of the law—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Morris, would prefer a simplification of the law in order to reduce the number of words we have on the statute book—involving the repeal of Schedule 13 and some consequential amendments. Briefly, I say to the noble Baroness that I do not think it is necessary to legislate urgently on this. The suspension of delegation is rare, and LEAs can often find ways of dealing with problem schools, short of suspending delegation. I do not think there is a case for rushing into legislation in advance of the review and the appropriate consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches support this amendment. Could I press the Minister to give us further information about the review of LMS? Ever since the LMS scheme was introduced there have been deep and bitter complaints from schools because one of the central features of the LMS scheme, as introduced by the Government, is that schools must by law be funded at the average cost of teachers' salaries, which is grossly unfair to a school which has a stable and long-standing staff who do not receive in their budget formula the actual cost of employing the teachers who are on that staff. A school which has a large number of younger members of staff, perhaps because it has only recently been established, is in the opposite position of receiving more.
That means that when a school with a larger number of older, more experienced teachers, seeks to appoint a replacement for a teacher who is leaving, it is forced to consider not appointing the best teacher for the job, but the person who will come most cheaply in an attempt to reduce its overall staffing costs, for which, by law, its LEA is not allowed to recompense it. Think of the tragedy for a small primary school where that applies and where the problem could be at its most stark. The person who is leaving may be the one responsible for co-ordinating maths teaching yet the best applicant for the job may exacerbate that government-created problem.
It is my recollection that as long as three years ago—and possibly longer—Mr. Gummer gave an assurance that the review was imminent and that the time was ripe for looking at such problems, which had been forecast. I believe that the Secretary of State at that time was not noted for always being conciliatory when listening to other points of view. I wonder whether we could have the exact details of when the review was established, what its terms of reference are, who is taking part in it and when we can expect the report.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness will remember last June's White Paper in which we put forward a number of proposals, many of which made their way into the Bill in due course. One proposal which did not was that for making alterations to LMS when looking for a greater degree of delegation of money from the local authorities to the schools. We recognised that that was a complex issue. Will the noble Baroness listen to what I have to say before attempting to intervene? We recognised that a number of issues needed discussing and that is why we are discussing with the local authorities all those complex issues. Further proposals will be announced in due course.
Perhaps I may point the noble Baroness to the appropriate paragraph of the White Paper on the future policy of the LMS formulae. Paragraph 34 states:
"The Government has reviewed this issue several times. It is a fundamental principle of LMS that governing bodies should take responsibility for the financial implications of their decisions, including deciding what to spend on teachers' salaries. The problems of schools that inherited high salary costs when LMS was first applied should now have been resolved through the transitional mechanisms built into LMS schemes and normal staff turnover. It remains open to LEAs to adjust the budgets of small schools to reflect their actual salary costs. So the Government does not propose to change existing policy in this area".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The reason that I sought to intervene at the beginning of the Minister's reply was that he was not answering the question, which is: how can the Government possibly say that they are having a review of LMS if they are not setting up a clear and discrete review with people to whom evidence may be given and if they have ruled out the very issue which in my experience and in that of my local authority colleagues has caused the most problems? The Government may say that in the case of small schools it is open to LEAs to vary the formula in order to help them. That is true, but all small schools would then be helped in exactly the same way because the differentials cannot be varied. It must be done objectively. Furthermore, that does not solve the problem of the long-established secondary school which may be quite large but which may have a large number of staff.
Teachers age during that 10-year period, so the school which did not have a problem five or six years ago may now be encountering one. The Government's attitude is cavalier and their refusal to have a thorough root-and-branch review cannot be replaced by detailed discussions with the local authorities, however welcome. If the Government say that they are reviewing the matter, the governors expect them to review it properly.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I hope that he is right in believing that the powers that I propose will not be necessary in the interval between today and the completion of the review. I confess that his responses to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, do not encourage me to believe that that is necessarily the case. However, he advises me to look at a better way of

1687
producing the same effect. It may be that at a later stage I will return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.202B not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No.203:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
COURSES OF FURTHER EDUCATION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
(" . In sub-paragraph (j) of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the words from "which" to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be as brief as possible in view of the hour. This is a very important issue, and one that keeps coming back—always late at night. The amendment would enable FEFCs to fund courses in independent living and communication skills for people with learning disabilities without their having to show that they could progress to other vocational or academic courses. My noble friend Lord Rix spoke eloquently on the problem at Second Reading. He entrusted the amendment to me as he was going on holiday. However, I am delighted to see that he has returned in time to support the amendment.
It is also very cheering to have the unflagging support of the noble Baroness, Lady David. This is the third Bill in respect of which the noble Baroness and I have attempted to do something on this subject more or less at every stage. Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 describes courses for adults over 19 and part-time students for whom FEFCs have a responsibility.
Course 2(j) is a course in independent living and communication skills for people with learning difficulties which prepares them for entry to other courses. This was introduced at the Third Reading of the 1992 Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, in response to considerable badgering and cajoling from the noble Baroness and myself. We were very grateful for that. But at the moment some students, particularly those with most severe disabilities and learning difficulties, miss out on the opportunities for education after 19 simply because of the wording in legislation about progressing to other courses.
The amendment would not alter the existing requirement on LEAs to provide recreation and leisure courses. The Minister will remember that the last time the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I had a go at tabling this amendment during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill—by that time the noble Lord, Lord Rix, had joined us—the Minister tabled at Third Reading an amendment requiring LEAs to publish disability statements. We were also very grateful for that. I believe that the first of those will be published this year. I am sure that they will prove very useful, as
1688
are those that are published by the colleges. They will increase the information on what support is available. But for students with severe learning difficulties life skills are not a recreational option but an essential tool in order to live as effectively and independently as possible in the adult world. They are the equivalent of A-levels for the more academic student. They are, if you like, A-levels in living and survival and are best learned in a college environment and in contact with other students.
Inclusive Learning, a recent report from the FEFC's independent Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities Committee, chaired by Professor John Tomlinson, suggested that the current interpretation of Schedule 2 should be reviewed. It is an extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking report. It has some interesting things to say as to what constitutes progression and how important it is that the right courses are available to offer opportunities to progress.
The FEFC has not yet said what its intentions are towards the report's recommendations. It has sent out a consultation circular and replies to it are to be in by the end of March. The Minister referred to it when he replied at Second Reading. He concluded:
"In those circumstances further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-emptive".—[Official Report, 10/2/97; col. 91.]
I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Minister to say anything too definite in the circumstances, but this is an important and long-running saga which has still to be resolved satisfactorily. I feel strongly about this. Mencap and Skill feel strongly about it, as I am sure do Members of the Committee who have supported it so strongly on many occasions and the previous time around. I see a number of those noble Lords here tonight, for which I am grateful. Of course they may be here for other things as well.
There may well be a need in the future for further clarification about the role of the social services and the FEFC in relation to the opportunities for adults with the most severe disabilities and learning difficulties. But for the moment I believe that the recommendations of Inclusive Learning offer a good next step forward. I therefore greatly hope that the Minister can agree that the problem still exists and can at any rate acknowledge the importance of the work of the Tomlinson Committee and the value of its report. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We have been struggling with this for five years. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her great efforts to get a move on with it. She takes immense trouble with this issue. She deserves the support of the Committee, and, I hope, the Minister. It has been difficult. I know how hard we fought in the 1992 Bill, because we felt that children with learning difficulties, particularly those who were aged 19 and were then unable to stay at school or in that sort of environment, needed to be able to progress to a college. That is what has proved so difficult.
What is such an enormous help to our cause this time is the report Inclusive Learning, chaired by Professor

1689
John Tomlinson. It is a good report and extremely helpful to our cause. It acknowledges that there are problems with the way that the FEFC currently interprets the legislation. It offers a solution that retains the important notion or progress, but broadens out what that word "progress" means.
I shall quote paragraph 9.39 of the report, which states:
"We want to ensure that the Council's—and colleges'—interpretation of schedule 2(j) is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. We recognise that the Act is designed, in part, to ensure that national training and education priorities are met. This places importance on learning programmes that contribute to economic productivity, directly or indirectly. Programmes which contribute to independent adult living should be included because they facilitate economic productivity. It is the committee's view that the Council's present interpretation of Schedule 2(j) and that of some colleges does not take properly into account the value to society of this kind of learning. As we argued in chapter 3, our focus on inclusive learning requires new standards for judging the adequacy of provision".
This is a very important document. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it a warm welcome, and express his enthusiasm for it when he comes to reply.
Lord Rix: I thank my noble friend Lady Darcy for moving this amendment in my supposed absence. I did apologise on Second Reading for the fact that I should be out of the Chamber away on holiday. I had no idea that the length of Committee stage would exceed the "Ring" cycle and Oberammergau combined. Therefore I have found myself back from holiday and able to hear the amendment moved.
I of course support the amendment, but I realise that at this late hour of the morning it is impossible to seek a Division even if we wished to, though I gather that my noble friend Lady Darcy has had meaningful conversations with the Minister in my absence and that some progress may have been made.
In Committee, the Minister said that the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report, including the recommendation that the FEFC should take a wider view of progression in the wording of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, have now gone out to public consultation. In those circumstances, further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-empted. Clearly, that probably still applies.
However, I know that all of us who are interested in the amendment would be grateful if the Minister could comment on some of the following points. I refer to acknowledgment of the issues that the amendment is seeking to raise; an encouragement of the work of the Tomlinson Committee in dealing with the issues of inclusive learning and getting education to the widest range of students with learning disabilities; acknowledging that Tomlinson has made some useful suggestions on how to deal with the Schedule 2(j) issue; encouraging the FEFC to address the issue either by implementing the recommendations or by some equally
1690
effective means; and, finally, requiring the FEFC to report on progress in its next annual report.
If the Minister could give assurances on one or all of those points they will be happily received by those of us moving the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support the amendment and everything that has been said in its favour.
2.45 a.m.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for describing my conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) as being meaningful. I hope that they were on this amendment and others which she came to discuss with me. They are important as regards the provisions for students with severe learning difficulties.
It may assist the Committee if I first clarify some details of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. It sets out the descriptions of courses to which the duty to secure adequate further education relates and which, therefore, the FEFC may fund. Paragraph (i) provides for courses which teach independent living and communication skills for persons with learning difficulties. But the qualifying criterion is that such a course must prepare the student for further progress. All education is, to some degree. preparatory. By definition, learning implies new skills which lead the student on to other things. The concept of progress in education cannot be removed. I am afraid that the amendment would do just that.
There would also be some major practical difficulties if the amendment were to be enacted. It would lead to enormous confusion between the local authorities and the FEFC. At present, local authority social services departments make provision for many severely disabled adults, for example, through day centres. Other provision will, of course, be made by local education authorities which are under a further duty to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties. Local education authorities retain duties to provide full-time and part-time education suitable to the needs of persons over the age of 16 in so far as the FEFC is not already under the duty to provide such education. In the main, this takes the form of courses which do not lead to qualifications and which may be of a more informal kind.
The amendment would blur the responsibilities of local authorities. It would mean that the FEFC's responsibilities would extend to new groups, including all day care clients with learning difficulties currently in social services facilities and people engaged in rehabilitation programmes because of injury or mental illness.
I believe that the resource implications are considerable. The demands on capital to secure adequate facilities would be of a particular concern for the FE sector. The FEFC could be under pressure to secure

1691
placements for individuals in specialist establishments outside the FE sector for a new group of students for whom the local authority currently only has a target duty.
Obviously, those are compelling reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that further consideration is being given to the difficulties faced by students with learning difficulties in the light of the Tomlinson Report, to which reference has been made and which has recently gone out to consultation. We warmly welcome the publication of that report. We believe that it represents the most comprehensive and detailed review of further education provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities that has ever taken place. As has been referred to, one of its key recommendations is,
"to take a wider view of progression within the wording of Schedule 2(i) to enable students to acquire new skills at the same level as their current course or maintain skills learned where this represents an achievement for them".
That recommendation argues for a considerably more liberal interpretation of Schedule 2(i) while still maintaining the principle of progression. Therefore, it is closely related to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord but moved so ably by the noble Baroness.
We should certainly wish to hear whether the further education sector believes that change to be desirable. Obviously we shall consider that recommendation carefully in the light of the whole consultation process. I believe that the noble Baroness understands that, as I said on Second Reading, I cannot give any further commitment before the end of that consultation period, but we shall consider these matters very carefully.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): First, I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady David, highlighted the importance of the Tomlinson report. My noble friend Lord Rix asked some important questions, many of which I believe have been answered by the Minister. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Warnock for her support, which I value a great deal.
The Minister said that he could not shift much from what he said on Second Reading but I am pleasantly surprised by what he said and I rather feel that he has shifted. I understand absolutely his point that the concept of progress in education cannot be removed, and it is important to keep that, and that the amendment would blur the divide between the social services, the LEAs and the FEFC. However, he said that there would be further consideration in the light of Tomlinson and, indeed, that he warmly welcomed the report. I believe that he said that it was the most important review ever of education for pupils with learning difficulties.
In a sense, I am only the surrogate mother of this baby so I seek confirmation from my noble friend Lord Rix that he does not wish to return to this matter at the next stage. I am delighted because I thought that I might have to reserve my position. I thank the Minister very
1692
warmly. I hope that really good things will come from Tomlinson and that there will be a different look at progress and at what courses are on offer to enable people to progress in different ways. I have no hesitation in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Commencement of compulsory school age]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton move Amendment No. 203A:
Page 51, line 15, leave out from ("such") to ("specified") and insert ("a day in the year as is").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is necessary because, during the passage of the nursery education vouchers legislation, the Government failed to have due regard to the points that were raised in the other place and in your Lordships' House in relation to the entitlement to schooling and the start date for children starting their reception class year in primary school.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is a single date from which a child will become of compulsory school age. Although the number does not appear on the face of the Bill, the Government appear to intend to produce three dates. I have two questions for the Minister. First, how can the Government justify children, merely as a result of when they are born, being entitled to less statutory school time? Children will go through their school lives in the same year but the youngest in that class will be doubly disadvantaged because they may be entitled to only one term full-time reception class; they are the youngest in their year; and research shows that summer-born children remain disadvantaged.
Secondly, were the Government to recognise the need for such pupils to have their full year in the reception class, they ought also to recognise that the introduction of very young children should be matched by the proper training and staff resourcing to cope with those very young children at the start of the reception year. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment. I do not know quite why I have put my name to the amendment because I am one of those people who, every year, have to remind themselves what it means to put the clocks forwards and backwards. It is exactly that kind of comparative time-scale, with two time-scales working one against the other, which complicates the issue. However, I am acutely aware of the problems that this age of entry into full-time education gives and I am very well aware of the research which shows that it affects children for the rest of their lives. Therefore, I look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord Henley: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I have much the same problem. I remember the great volume that we all bought, A Brief History of Time, which confused me even more. However, I am not alone in that

1693
respect. I shall have to tell the noble Baroness that I must look at the matter again more closely. When I first saw the amendments, I was somewhat confused, in that she seems to be saying that it is just one day in the year when a child becomes of compulsory school age. It seems to me that that in itself could cause much greater unfairness than having a number of different days in the year.
Perhaps we can work through an example of the practical effects of the noble Baroness's amendment as tabled. If we assume that the prescribed day is 31st August, any child turned five on or before that date would start school in the following autumn term. A child who turns five on the 30th August would start school in early December, whereas one whose birthday fell on the 2nd September would wait nearly a whole year before starting school. I believe that there was rather a bad case the other day of twins born either side of midnight and a rather inflexible local authority. However, the authority saw reason in the end. I just put that forward as an aside that I came across in newspaper reports. I do not know whether it is true.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will realise that that could lead to problems for the child born three days later, in that he would not start school until he was nearly six years of age. I do not believe that the noble Baroness means to advance amendments which would allow quite such a delay in the time at which a child starts school. Having said that, it is very late and I should like to look again carefully at what the noble Baroness said to see whether I can understand the nature of her precise concerns. If necessary, we can have further discussions between now and the Report stage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the Minister for his reply. I should tell him and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I learnt about this subject because one of my children was born on 31st August. I should also tell the Minister that, if I could have my life over again, I think that I would have lied and said that he was born on 1st September.
However, when the Minister considers the implications involved, I would ask him to ignore the red herring as to whether or not a child would have to wait a year. The issue is to look at when children join the year with which they will go through their school lives. Therefore, one looks at when a child would be in that particular year. When one has identified the year cohort, one then seeks to ensure that none of the children in that year is denied the one or two terms that his or her fellow age group receives. Then one considers the appropriate resource and the appropriate provision. Virtually all schools, except the smallest village schools, are divided by year group, so if a group of rising fives is entering school they will all be in the same year in the end. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203B, C and D not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 204:
1694
Page 52, line 2, leave out ("11,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 204, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 205 and 217. These are technical amendments which take on board the recommendations of the delegated powers and deregulation committee. They relate to various order making powers provided for in the Bill. The committee's report was published on 17th February. I imagine it is familiar to all Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: These amendments are technical. Amendment No. 204 requires the order making power in Clause 11(1) to be made by statutory instrument using the negative resolution procedure. That is in accordance with paragraph 11 of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. We think that is good.
Amendment No. 205 introduces the need to make orders by statutory instrument to transfer staff and property from the SCAA and the NCVQ to the QCA. That is in accordance with paragraphs three and four of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. We find that good. Amendment No. 217 is in exactly the same way a matter of negative instrument and is in response to paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report. We welcome these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 52, line 5, leave out ("50(5), 51(9) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendments Nos. 206 to 214:
Page 76, line 21, leave out ("National").
Page 76, line 26, leave out ("National").
Page 76, line 41, leave out ("National").
Page 77, line 10, leave out ("National").
Page 77, line 24, leave out ("National").
Page 77, line 30, leave out ("National").
Page 80, line 11, leave out ("National").
Page 80, line 17, leave out ("National").
Page 80, line 22, leave out ("National").
The right reverend Prelate said: I have already spoken to this group of amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 206 to 214 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 81, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
("46.—(1) Section 568 of that Act (orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (orders required to be made by statutory instrument unless made under excepted provisions), after "excepted provisions" insert "or one falling within subsection (2A)".
(3) In subsection (2) (the excepted provisions)—
(a) after "77(7)," insert "81 A,": and

1695
(b) before "paragraph 5 of Schedule 21" insert "paragraph 7 of Schedule 5A,".
(4) After that subsection insert—
"(2A) An order falls within this subsection if it is made under section 413A(4) or paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 33B and applies only to one or more schools specified in the order.".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 204. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Short title, commencement and extent etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 219 to 222 not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes past three o'clock.