Lords Sitting of 1 June 1998

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

Overseas Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made towards the objective of untying aid in overseas development co-operation programmes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we strongly support multilateral untying of aid. Some progress is being made. There is now agreement in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, which was endorsed by the G8, that we should work towards a recommendation on untying aid to the least developed countries. The intention is to propose a text to the 1999 high level meeting of the Development Assistance Committee.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that we find that reply extremely encouraging? Has he seen the analysis which indicates that if all OECD donors were to untie their aid, that would amount to an increase in value of the total aid programme of some £2.5 billion? Is the Minister aware that there are good indications that if there were a general untying of aid there could be considerable benefits for the British economy and British jobs? Can we perhaps move ahead practically by starting with binding reciprocal agreements with like-minded governments—for example, the Netherlands—to ensure that at least we can start the process of phasing out mixed credits to follow up the move that has already been made on the aid-and-trade provision?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend indicates, the British Government have made some
2
progress in ending the trade-for-aid arrangements. We are seeking as wide agreement as possible through the G8 and our partners in that group. I have seen figures indicating the benefit that would accrue were we to untie substantial amounts of aid. The UK has made more progress in that respect than many other countries. We are below the average for the OECD in terms of tied aid. We hope to make progress in that forum by the time of the 1999 high level meeting.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome the robust defence of the Secretary of State and of the noble Lord of the multilateral approach to untying aid and its repetition in the international development White Paper. This, alongside the eventual elimination of export subsidies, should have been one of the main items on the agenda of the group of industrialised nations when it met in Birmingham this May. I am sorry that greater progress was not possible. Can the Minister say when the Secretary of State will raise these matters with her German and Japanese counterparts, and whether we can expect a statement on tied aid to be included as part of Britain's EU presidency?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these matters are being pursued from time to time in the Development Council of the EU. However, the main forum for reaching agreement is the OECD, which includes the Americans, the Japanese, the Canadians and so forth. As my main Answer indicated, it will be at the high level meeting next year that we expect the most progress to be made rather than through the EU, although we are attempting to get maximum agreement among our EU partners in this respect.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's answers, does he agree that if we are to be true to the commitment which the Secretary of State repeatedly emphasised—that our aid programme must be concentrated on the elimination of poverty—and if we accept that through having tied aid we may be building inconsistencies into the economies of

3
developing countries which are compelled to purchase other than on sound market criteria, we should avoid waiting until everyone has agreed? As I asked in my earlier supplementary question, will he consider the possibility of moving ahead, with reciprocal agreements, with those governments who are prepared to do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that may be an option which we can explore. However, our main effort at the moment is to try to reach agreement at the OECD. The total bilateral aid programme of the United Kingdom now is only 14 per cent., which is substantially ahead of most of the other countries that we hope to persuade to go down the same road. However, we see possibilities of extending the agreement, which has already been made in principle at the G8, to further countries and achieving a major step forward over the next 12 months in that respect.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the Secretary of State's attitude to emergency humanitarian aid? Unfortunate publicity was given to a recent speech which suggested that reaction to a public response to an emergency such as that in the Sudan was not the right approach. Does the Minister agree that for the people and the aid agencies concerned it was an emergency which had to be responded to and which could not to be caught up in longer-term aid planning?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to some extent the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and the response to them, were misrepresented in the press. The department has always supported the efforts made by NGOs in bringing urgently needed humanitarian aid to where it is required. Last week we announced a doubling of our assistance to NGOs working in southern Sudan, so our commitment is clear. The point that the Secretary of State was making was that television seems to show only negative pictures of the developing countries and, distressing though they may be, we ought to focus more on the positive aspects of development aid and the progress that is being made in terms of improving the lot of the people in developing countries, outside the crisis areas, as a result of government aid, private investment and NGOs. Notwithstanding that, we support the humanitarian appeals and should like others to support them also.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House some indication of whether, after due consideration of the G8 proposals, we can expect any detailed proposals from the European Commission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the untying of aid, as my earlier answers indicated, we see the main forum for that as the OECD, which involves a wider range of donor countries. The whole question of the EU's development programme is shortly to be considered in the context of the new Lomé
4
arrangements. Those negotiations will start shortly and there will be announcements on the progress that is made in the coming months.

Power Station Fuel: Short Rotation Coppice
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to promote short rotation coppice as a fuel for power stations.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, short rotation coppice (SRC) is one of the country's key potential sources of renewable energy. Ten contracts have already been awarded under the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) arrangements for renewables to generate power from SRC and forestry residues for a period of 15 years.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware that the general target of achieving 3 per cent. of our total energy requirement from renewables by 2010 is a very tough target to meet? Is the noble Lord also aware that the cost of establishing coppice is very high, at about £500 per acre, and that that is not attractive to farmers who might be attracted instead towards the softer option of set-aside? Is the Minister aware of what happens in Sweden, where there is a generous subsidy, resulting in the cost coming down to about £200 per acre and the planted area being a lot greater? Should we not do as the Swedes do?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may allude generally to the measures which are being taken to give support to the use of traditional coppice in response to the points so reasonably made by the noble Viscount. Generators proposing to use existing coppice have been eligible to bid in the NFFO competitions for biomass (in NFFO 3 and 4) which have been held so far. The Woodland Grant Scheme offers both annual management grants for coppiced woodlands and a one-off woodland improvement grant to bring neglected woodlands back into management as coppiced woodlands. The Forestry Commission also promotes training courses in traditional coppicing skills and supports the publication of the sales magazine, Woodlots, which gives owners the opportunity to offer coppiced timber to potential buyers. In addition, the Woodland Grant Scheme is being reviewed by the umbrella organisation, British Biogen, which is hoping to make an announcement sometime in the summer. So, some considerable support is already being given, although not along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount in relation to Sweden.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister intend to grant biomass power stations extra development time

5
under future NFFO rounds in order to allow the first harvest to coincide with the power plant coming on-line?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that that matter will be dealt with under the review to which I have just alluded.

Directors' Remuneration: Disclosure
2.47 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps have been taken to implement Recommendations 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 of the Greenbury Report on directors' remuneration.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, action has been taken to implement the recommendations made to the Government by the Greenbury Committee. In particular, Schedule 6 to the Companies Act 1985 has been amended so that the legal requirements relating to the disclosure of directors' emoluments are consistent with the disclosure provisions in the Greenbury code of best practice and the Stock Exchange listing rules.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. If I understood him correctly, he seemed to be saying that all three of Greenbury's recommendations have been implemented by successive governments. That prompts one to ask, "What about the 30-odd recommendations of the Greenbury Committee and other similar bodies which were directed at British industry?" Do the Government have any evidence of whether British industry has implemented the other recommendations?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, our information is that generally the recommendations are being applied. If my noble friend wishes to refer any specific cases to me, I hope that he will do so.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent flotation of Computacenter, following which 30 managers who helped their company to grow by taking shares and share options in lieu of salary increases became paper millionaires while about 700 other members of staff received shares with an average value of £314,000? Does the Minister regard those people as stakeholders or as fat cats whose loyalty to their companies will single them out for disadvantageous tax treatment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether they are fat cats, or whatever. The fact is that they were advantaged by what happened. The Government's case in relation to all this is whether the advantage gained by share options or increased pay and remuneration is related to performance. Even if it is related to performance, is it excessive in all the circumstances having regard to the interests of the
6
company concerned, its workforce and so on? Those are the essential criteria that we seek to apply in line with both Greenbury and the subsequent report.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether he regards these individuals as stakeholders because their work benefited the company and they took shares or share options? Their value depended upon the work that they put into the company. Are they stakeholders or just fat cats?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness can have her choice. I shall not go into the specifics of a particular company. I do not believe that that advances the argument other than when applying the criteria to which I have just alluded. It does not help to describe them in any way whatever. I should like to know more about the company, as indeed should the noble Baroness before embarking on this line of questioning.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend support the recommendation of both the Greenbury and Hampel committees that the reports of remuneration committees be voted upon each year by shareholders? Can my noble friend inform the House when the government paper on company law, whether white or green—perhaps my noble friend can clarify that—is to be published? Is there not now a compelling case for its early publication?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Government have just issued a Green Paper on the governance of companies. This matter is to be looked at. Representations will be made to the Government. We shall consider the position very carefully in due course. I regret that I have forgotten my noble friend's question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I asked whether the Government's paper was a Green or White Paper. I hear my noble friend say that it is to be a Green Paper. I am informed that it is the first question that he has forgotten. Do the Government support the recommendation of both the Greenbury and Hampel committees that reports of remuneration committees be voted upon each year by shareholders?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, those recommendations have been noted and there is a great deal of force in them. The Government are considering these matters. The Government prefer this aspect of governance to be dealt with on a voluntary basis rather than by enshrining it in legislation. I refer back to the somewhat confusing situation, for which I am entirely responsible. It was not a Green Paper; it was a consultation document.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the real problem that prompts this continuing debate, as the Minister indicated in his last answer, is that despite the fact that over a year has elapsed since the election and the publication of the Labour Party manifesto, the Government still have not made up their mind whether they wish these matters to be dealt with

7
voluntarily by the Stock Exchange implementing its listing particulars or by the more restrictive legislation enshrined in the manifesto?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have already stated that the Government prefer the matter to be dealt with by way of the application of a voluntary code that is adhered to, not one to which people merely pay lip service, rather than go down the more restrictive route of legislation. We have made that very clear in this House and in the other place on a number of occasions.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the minimum wage will be determined on the basis of a rate per hour, can the Minister inform the House whether the Government have any intention of ensuring that directors' remuneration should also be reported on the basis of a rate per hour?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall not be led down the byways of the national minimum wage because that matter will be debated at Committee stage and perhaps in the course of a Statement to be made in the very near future. I do not believe that it is helpful to judge the matter in the way that my noble friend suggests. I have already set out what I believe to be the critical criteria which essentially are based on performance. That does not excuse totally excessive remuneration which has sometimes been the case.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, can the noble Lord expand slightly on his last answer? Who is to determine what is excessive? Is it the Minister?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, certainly it is not a matter for me. I have no responsibility within the department to do that. Mine is a collective responsibility. I do not decide this matter. We believe that the performance criteria should be judged by the companies themselves in the first place, applying objective standards which measure up to them. I believe that that is the right way to proceed. Companies know instinctively whether what they are doing is in their interests, the interests of the nation as a whole and their workforce. All these matters must be taken into account.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, do the Government agree that the aim of Cadbury, Greenbury and other committees was to try to arrest and control the ever-higher levels of bonuses and salaries and fiddles of various kinds being paid out to top executives? As the Minister accepts, we still do not have any information as to whether the recommendations have been carried out and whether the trend has been reversed. All the signs are that the trend is getting worse year by year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not accept the last assertion. These matters deeply concern the Government, the CBI and others in seeking to apply
8
fairness. This matter is kept very firmly under review. I am perfectly happy to return to the House in due course and report on the matter when the Government have had reasonable time to make a proper assessment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister explain why he and his colleagues in the department are so exercised about the top salaries of business people who after all create economic activity and jobs when, for example, Geri Spice, who left the Spice Girls yesterday, is reputed to have earned £10 million in the past two years?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I think that she has enough problems without my adding to them!

Prisons: Strategy for Tackling Drug Misuse
2.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on drugs following the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison Featherstone.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the Prison Service published its new strategy Tackling Drugs in Prison on 12th May. The strategy has been informed by a full review, including independent research. The strategy builds on a record of success in reducing drug misuse in prison in recent years. It will maintain an appropriate balance between control measures and treatment and rehabilitation and will enable access to voluntary testing for all prisoners who request this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I remind him that my Question is concerned with a report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Her Majesty's Prison Featherstone. Many of us have been reassured by the generally positive message contained in that report. Is the noble Lord aware that 96 per cent. of the staff of Featherstone, according to the Chief Inspector of Prisons, felt that the level of drug misuse in that establishment was either fairly or very high? Does the Minister agree that that is a very disturbing figure? Specifically what can be done to deal with that situation?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the level of drug misuse at Featherstone was higher than at most other establishments. I believe that at Featherstone the figure was 40 per cent. whereas at most establishments the figure was 20 per cent. I thank the noble Lord for referring to the good things that are taking place at Featherstone, for example the efficient running of the prison, the range of training provided, the level of healthcare and the good staff relationships at that establishment.

9
Referring to the noble Lord's comments on the chief inspector's claims, a good number of these are based on anecdotal evidence and not hard evidence. The independent research commissioned by the Prison Service in 1996 does not support the claim that widespread switching between soft drugs and hard drugs is taking place. Many of the recommendations that have been made are being implemented at Featherstone. The problem of drug misuse is being taken very seriously. Extra staff are being trained to deal with it. Special training is being given to staff. Special provision is being made for voluntary testing, including the setting up of a unit. HMP Featherstone and its governor are treating drug misuse very seriously.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in offering congratulations to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on his report. I make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that the report is generally positive about the prison. It says that it is a good Category C establishment, with a sound industrial base and good relations between staff and prisoners. If that is the case, why are the Government cutting funding to that prison by some £600,000?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that may be so, but we have to look at expenditure at all prison establishments. It would not be right to look at Featherstone in isolation. What is more important is what is being done at Featherstone, particularly in relation to the drug problem. As I said, it is setting up a multi-discipline team of officers to look at the problem. It has participated in projects in relation to drug information leaflets. It has issued information to prisoners. It is taking the matter extremely seriously. If there is any cut-back in expenditure in the prison, I do not believe that it will affect the effectiveness of this programme in relation to drug misuse.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what is Home Office policy on the use of sniffer dogs to seek out drugs in prison? Are they not sometimes more successful than people at finding drugs?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, indeed they are. The use of dogs is taken seriously. At present 168 dogs are being used in prisons. In addition to those, as the noble Baroness will be aware, passive dogs are also being used. They are good at indicating whether visitors to prisons have drugs. Prisons, including Featherstone, are co-operating among themselves in the use of those dogs. We find that they are a useful instrument.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the noble Lord please explain what a passive dog is?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is not passive in the sense that it would attack, but in the sense that it is trained to detect whether people visiting the prisons are carrying drugs. That is what they are used for. In
10
other words, they are in the visitors' centre, and if the dog believes that there are people with drugs it draws the attention of its attendant to that.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, do prison governors have discretion about whether or not to invite police to prosecute serious cases of drug misuse? How many successful police prosecutions have been brought, according to the latest available figures?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the evidence in relation to that question. The noble Lord asks a serious question. I hope that I may write to him with that information.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the Minister worried that, despite the evidence of the recent Home Office research study that mandatory drug testing resulted in some reduction in the level of drug misuse at the four prisons where the study was undertaken, nevertheless, the levels were still extraordinarily high? Has the Minister no further advice to give the House on how that is to be tackled, other than by the use of these multi-discipline teams that he mentioned? For example, could not the Government consider having separate drug-free prisons to which inmates could go if they undertook never to use drugs, so that they would be separated from the harmful influence of those who try to persuade them to indulge in those bad habits?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point. If people agree to voluntary testing, it is important that they are placed in units which are, as far as possible, comparatively drug free. Indeed, that is what I said was happening at Featherstone Prison. It is a positive result. One unit is being set up there to which people who declare for voluntary testing can go. Mandatory testing was a great success. It brought down to 20 per cent. the number of prisoners using drugs. Nevertheless we must have these other positive measures alongside it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that on an occasion such of this it is right to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the Chief Inspector of Prisons who has made a major contribution towards improving conditions in Her Majesty's prisons?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in praising what has been done by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and what was done by his predecessor in relation to the Prison Service.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): 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.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before we move into Committee, I wonder whether it would be helpful for the consideration of the Bill in Committee if the Minister were prepared to make a statement to clarify the speech made last week by Mr. Byers at the head teachers' conference in which he said that in future schools were to receive 100 per cent. delegation of their budgets. I ask her that because in Committee we shall be dealing with organisational committees, adjudication, school organisation plans, new schools, special schools, which were mentioned by Mr. Byers in his speech, and the activities of governing bodies.
Clearly Mr. Byers' speech was an important speech which I welcome strongly, because in effect he was saying that in future schools, whether they are called foundation schools or community schools, according to the Bill, will be given control of 100 per cent. of their budgets, and virtually be given the advantages that old grant-maintained schools had. That represents a considerable change of heart by the Government, not since they were in Opposition, but since they were in government, because the Bill is not drafted along those lines. It is drafted on the assumption that LEAs will still have a considerable role to play.
It is clear from Mr. Byers' speech last week that the LEAs' role will be residual. I happen to welcome that strongly. I do not revel in the fact that it is a 100 per cent. change by the Labour Party. It voted against those measures when I introduced them in 1988 and it has been opposed to them consistently. I do not revel in that. I welcome the fact that it has accepted it. It would be immodest of me to suggest that it must have read a speech that I made two years ago, recommending that. I am sure that it never passed over its desk, but, nonetheless, the Government have reached the right conclusion. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to clarify the details: how much will be left to LEAs; and how much will be delegated. I suspect that on this side of the House we shall want as much as possible to be delegated. We want the schools to be in charge of their budgets. Grant-maintained schools have shown that they can produce magnificent results. The Government are almost there. Well done!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is saying that the Government have come to the right conclusion. That being so, could not we discuss this matter when we reach the appropriate amendments?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I strongly support the importance of this speech and the paper to the debate
12
that we are having today. It does not relate just to Clauses 45 to 52 but also to the organisational committees, the work of the adjudicator and the work on standards and improvements in schools. That is all money that will be deducted before the 100 per cent. We are all in favour of 100 per cent. delegation to schools. We should like to see that. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness would explain that the 100 per cent. is 100 per cent. of what is left after the four issues are addressed: access, improvement of schools, strategic management, and all the matters that are listed in the paper.
We are again discussing amendments—it is not the first time—in a vacuum. Nothing in the Bill makes provision for the proposals in the paper that we understand was released on Friday. If 100 per cent. delegation is to be delivered, and schools are to receive that money, there needs to be considerable enabling amendment to Clauses 44 to 52. Have the Government any plans to bring forward amendments; or will they accept amendments from this side of the Committee to ensure that the proposals in the Statement made by the Minister in another place are delivered to schools? Expectations by schools are now very high. However, as one reads the detail of the paper, the scope for withholding money is very considerable indeed.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Before the Minister replies, it would be unfair for the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to receive all the credit. The noble Lord may recall that in the 1970s I had the privilege of chairing a committee which recommended more delegation to managers and governors of schools, and 100 per cent. responsibility. Does the noble Lord, Lord Baker, remember that that was during the time of a Labour Government?
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for my noble friend's interjection. He reminds the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that during the late 1970s and 1980s many people thought about greater delegation to schools.
The Opposition requested that we delay discussion on local management of schools (LMS) until Thursday. The Government have acceded to that request to give the Opposition a little more time to go through the document published on Thursday on local management of schools. It takes further what we had said earlier; and takes further a document that was put into the Library of both Houses when the issue was discussed in another place.
It would be foolish to start a discussion now on the subject before we have reached the right part of the Bill, which must be the right time to discuss it. I am sure that that is what my noble friends, and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, would think was right. It would be wholly in accordance with our procedures to wait until then.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I shall be happy to consider any amendments that the Government may decide to put down on this part of the Bill. Amendments that we are bringing forward are already tabled for Thursday. I do not believe that we

13
should go further on this matter, but should get on with the Committee stage of the Bill and move to the agreed business for this afternoon.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps the noble Baroness will accept a word of congratulation on the calm with which she has just spoken, and on her complete detachment, almost failure to recognise, the marvellous conversion that she and her colleagues have undergone.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [School organisation committees]:
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 22, line 20, at end insert ("to act in an advisory capacity for the local education authority").
The noble Lord said: I forbore to join in the previous exchanges because I agreed with the Minister that this was not the proper time for such discussion. However, I cannot resist saying that I and my colleagues are a little less wholehearted in our congratulations to the Government on their conversion.
The amendment deals with one of the areas about which we are less content: school organisation committees; and, in Clause 24, the issue of adjudicators. It will become clear that we are uneasy about the concept of school organisation committees. They impose another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy with all the cost and administrative complexities of running such a body. The body will be unbelievably cumbersome, comprising of a number of groups. Those groups may comprise of representation of between one and seven. Each group has only one vote. I am unclear—perhaps the Minister will make clear—how that group vote is to be exercised where there is not unanimity in that group, as I fear will be the case on many occasions. The body is cumbersome because even assuming that the group has a unanimously agreed vote, there has to be unanimity within the school organisation committee. The Minister has said elsewhere that he expects that in the majority of cases school organisation committees will be unanimous. I can only think that that Minister has had little to do with education and local education authorities if he believes that all those interested parties in education will be unanimous in the majority of cases. We all hope so, but it may be a triumph of optimism over realism.
The most telling point against the concept of school organisation committees is that it is one further step in undermining the democratic legitimacy of local education authorities. Let me be the first to say that the democratic legitimacy of local government is rightly under question. A few weeks after the turnout at the last local elections, no one can stand here and proclaim that too strongly. The Government are attempting to address that issue in other ways, although we do not believe that they are going far enough.
Nevertheless, the local education authority and its members are the democratically elected representatives of the local communities. They have that responsibility. The appointment of a school organisation committee, composed as it will be, can only be a further nail in the coffin of the local education authority. If that is the Government's ultimate intention, as many of us are coming to believe, I wish that they would now clearly and openly say so.
The Government are missing an opportunity to deal with the many important aspects of school organisation and administration arrangements within the context of a light touch LEA framework. I shall return to that point more strongly in a later amendment. I accept that bringing together partners which will form a school organisation committee can perform a useful role. It is important that it is an advisory role for the LEA, does not supersede the LEA, and is not a statutory role which overrides the LEA.
The amendment suggests that school organisation committees—it is a concept about which I am not keen—should act in an advisory role. In many good local education authorities—dare I include my own?—such bodies exist. They are not usually given the title of school organisation committee; they exist as consultative forums. In many cases they work extremely well, as in my own LEA. The views and representations made are valued. They are listened to and debated, but the accountability is clear. It rests with the democratically elected local education authority which is, and should be, properly accountable for the decisions so reached.
We move the amendment, not out of great enthusiasm for school organisation committees, but recognising that if they are to exist they can have a valuable role. However, that role should be advisory. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I preface my strong support for the amendment with a question in order to make sense of the funding paper. Will the money for this aspect of activity for LEAs, school organisation committees and the adjudicators be deducted from the budget for local education authorities before the 100 per cent. figure is delegated to schools? Is it a matter for deduction? From my brief reading of the paper, I believe that it is.
While I strongly support the amendment, I would rather not have organisation committees or adjudicators. Local authorities are made up of members served by officers. Those members are elected democratically by the local community. If the local community loses its confidence in the work done by those local authority members it can exercise its choice about that at the ballot box.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, speaks of more recent experience than I do, having been a member of a local authority. Before coming here, I spent my formative years as a member of a local authority and as a member of its education authority. I have knowledge of the pain and the anguish that councillors experience when dealing with difficult issues, for example, closing schools. I cannot recall more anxious moments than

15
when we were trying to do our best by the local community, looking that community in the eye, talking with the parents and the grandparents, the friends, the staff and the governors of schools when we were going through the process of closure. It would have been quite wrong for me to pass on responsibility for taking that decision to someone else—the unelected placemen of any government in the future. I believe that having initiated the process and having consulted all the relevant people, it is absolutely incumbent on the elected members to face the responsibility of taking the decision.
I have always thought it right and a good test of whether or not we have done the job properly that there should be a long-stop. In my view, that should be the Secretary of State. At the end of this process with the local communities, after all the work and consultation required by statute, you come to a conclusion. But that conclusion is further tested by an appeal to the Secretary of State. Parents and their supporters can put their case to the Secretary of State who takes into account the objectors' case, the case put by the local authority and the work done by the elected council of that authority. The Secretary of State comes to a view whether the case should be upheld or overruled. I believe that that procedure has worked very well in the past.
To superimpose on the system another body of placemen, the organisation committee, with the absolutist powers given in this Bill to the adjudicator, frankly, I believe, is wholly abhorrent. There is nothing democratic about it at all. It sidelines the responsibility that councillors should have and it passes the buck from the Secretary of State who simply says, "It's not me guv, go through your organisational committee or correspond with your adjudicator." There is not even an appeal on the adjudicator's position.
My preferred position would be not to have an organisation committee at all but as a halfway-house I support very strongly, on democratic grounds alone, that if there has to be this body it should be advisory only. My preferred position is that advisory bodies are different in different circumstances and there are occasions where local authorities should discuss with head teachers, local communities, other minor local authorities and other interest groups, and those will be different on different occasions.
Once this organisation committee is set in tablets of stone, as of course it will be, it is a single body with set representation which may or may not be appropriate. It seems to me wholly inappropriate. I support very strongly what I regard as a halfway-house amendment, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This proposal flies in the face of democratic accountability. It will emasculate local government which, as we know, is the hidden agenda behind much of the Bill. Certainly, more overt statements are being made almost daily by Ministers about the sidelining of local government in these matters. At the end of the day, I believe that the
16
Secretary of State, in addition to local elected councillors, should stand up and be counted. I strongly support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I wonder whether the Minister can help me on this amendment. As I understand it, in relation to voluntary aided schools it is the Secretary of State who at present takes a range of decisions such as, for example, whether a new school should be opened or a school should be closed, whether a school should be significantly enlarged or whether it should have a nursery class added.
It seems to me that what is laid out in the Bill is that that power in relation to voluntary aided schools, which at present lies with the Secretary of State, should pass to the school organisation committee. If I have understood that incorrectly, perhaps the noble Baroness will put me right. However, if that is the case, clearly the advantage of the school organisation committee is that decisions will be made in relation both to voluntary and to county schools by the same body. That seems to me a step forward.
It is clear that Clause 23 mentions only three categories: members of the local education authority, a person nominated by the diocesan board of education for a diocese of the Church of England, and a person nominated by the bishop of any Roman Catholic church. Those are the three parties which have to agree. It seems to me that the question of how many should be in each of those groups is in a sense not germane to the thrust of this intention, which is that representatives of those three bodies should agree policy in relation both to maintained schools and voluntary schools.
The Churches are major providers of schools and have been for nearly two centuries. Twenty five per cent. of primary schools in England have been provided by the Church of England. We have a significant investment in the education service of which the Church is rightly proud. We are particularly aware that many of these schools are popular and over-subscribed schools. What is true for the Church of England is also true for the Roman Catholic Church.
If decisions affecting the future of church provision, whether Church of England or Roman Catholic, are to be taken locally—it seems to me that that is the thrust of the clause—then it is surely right that both Churches locally should have a voice and a decisive voice.
The Church of England and other Churches want to have a positive partnership with local education authorities. It would seem to me that that is exactly what the school organisation committee provides. Far from giving less responsibility to local education authority representatives, in fact, it gives them a say in the future of Church schools. It is surely the case that an effective school organisation committee must depend upon each of the partners having an effective voice. I would be grateful if the Minister, in reply, would indicate whether I have the right understanding and whether my support for school organisation committees is on sound grounds.
Lord Whitty: The Government respect, understand and fully appreciate the role of local education

17
authorities, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, the proposals for a school organisation committee reflect the fact, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, that in each LEA area the provision of school places is a matter of a partnership between different providers, the LEA, the schools and other voluntary and charitable providers and currently grant-maintained schools.
The existing arrangements for deciding proposals for change to school organisation maintain a balance between all the partners. Local education authorities can currently decide any of their own proposals unless they attract objections, in which case, again as the right reverend Prelate said, they are referred to the Secretary of Sate, or the Secretary of State decides to call them in for his own decision. All proposals for change to voluntary and to grant-maintained schools must currently come to the Secretary of State for decision.
The proposal in this clause is to ensure that that decision is kept locally. The noble Baroness, as I understand her position, wishes to maintain the position that all appeals go, in effect, into the stratosphere or at least to the Secretary of State, whereas our proposals keep those decisions local. Changes in school organisation are local. It is the Government's view that the decisions must be taken at local level and we are developing new ways in which that can be achieved. That is the central purpose of the school organisation committee. It will take on, in effect, the role in the process currently taken by the Secretary of State. It will therefore be an element of decentralisation, not of centralisation or bureaucracy in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, claimed.
The school organisation committees give formal effect to the existing partnership which is at the heart of these provisions. A fundamental element of any genuine partnership is that the views of all the partners have force. Therefore, it is not sensible that the local education authority over-rules the views of the other partners. If we are to retain balance, one partner cannot be more equal than the others. The school organisation committees which we propose will consist of representatives from local groups involved in the provision of education in the area. The committees' voting arrangement will mean that no decision can be made on the school organisation committee unless all groups, including the LEA, agree. That reflects the local authority's role as a partner in the process.
In reference to the schools' representation, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether their views would be by unanimity and if not how would the system operate. There is still some element of consultation on that matter, but we assume that we shall reach a consensus in the schools' group which will be reflected in the unanimity of the school organisation committee when it reaches a decision.
In order to reach that decision, all groups, not only the LEA, must make their views count. Those objectives would not be met by giving the LEA the power to take decisions on all statutory proposals. Others have significant parts to play. The amendment would give the final decision-making power to the LEAs. They will
18
continue to have a vital role in maintaining standards in schools, but because they are not the only local providers we must have other representatives within that process. Local decision-making is about partnership and about reaching a consensus whenever possible.
In terms of how the decision will be reached, we propose that each group represented on the committee will have a single vote and that all votes cast on the final decision must be unanimous. If not, and only after exhaustive discussion between all the partners involved, the decision will be passed to an adjudicator. Later today we shall discuss amendments which make that clear.
Local education authorities and the other groups will effectively have the opportunity to secure that any proposals to which they are opposed are considered by the adjudicator. We believe that that is the best way of ensuring a balance of views and of "putting the pressure on" to ensure that in most cases a consensus is reached. A local education authority will remain free to determine most of its own uncontested proposals for changes to individual schools—
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has made some very conflicting statements. He said that local authorities will make the final decision. Nowhere in the consultation papers, the background papers to the debate or in the Bill is it stated that local authorities will make the final decision. The noble Lord will need to read Hansard tomorrow. I believe that he did say that; I was listening carefully to what he said.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that it is a matter of partnership. It is difficult to disagree with that; partnerships at local level are essential. Local authorities are engaged in creating partnerships with their local community in all its forms. We are talking about when things go wrong, when partnerships do not work and when the organisation committee has one dissenting voice. The local authority might agree on something which is then sent to the organisation committee for approval. One dissenting voice on that committee will mean that the matter must go to the adjudicator. The idea that there must be a consensus decision does not hold water. The adjudicator is a single, arm's length, unelected placeman and that person will have the power to make the decision.
The strength of the case being put by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and by Members on these Benches is that the elected people in the group making the decision will be the councillors at local level and the Secretary of State and his Ministers at national level. We say that the people who have been superimposed in between are wholly unaccountable and there is no appeal against their decision. Presumably, if they make a procedural mistake one can take them to court.
The Minister said that the Government wanted the views of all parties. That is good. He also said that they wanted strong partnerships and that has great force. But the views of all parties count for not one fig. If there is a dissenting voice on the organisation committee the matter will go to the adjudicator who has the power to

19
accept or reject the majority view and to modify or overrule the decision. Part of what the noble Lord is saying in response to the amendment is inconsistent and part of it is simply wrong.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may clarify the position. I said that if the amendment were passed the local education authorities would be left to make the final decision. The circumstances on which I touched before the noble Baroness intervened related to unopposed proposals. In that case, the local education authority has the final decision.
The whole purpose of the school organisation committees is to ensure that the partnership which already exists and usually operates well in the area is institutionalised and reaches its own decisions. All partners should engage in negotiation and in a little give and take and reach a decision with which they can live. If in, it is to be hoped, the rare circumstances that that fails to emerge from a school organisation committee, the decision will be referred to the adjudicator. His powers will be discussed at a later stage in the Committee.
The whole intention of establishing school organisation committees is to ensure that there is maximum and institutionalised pressure to ensure that, as far as possible, the partners reach an agreement among themselves and that one partner—if the amendment were followed that would be the LEA—does not have the ability to overrule the others.
Baroness Young: I, too, support the amendment. I take the view that the committee is unnecessary. The proposal raises major constitutional issues about local government. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has ever served in local government. I believe not, but perhaps he will forgive me if I am wrong. We have local education committees and are to establish committees beneath them called school organisation committees. When I was a member of an LEA that is what I thought I was doing. The second committee will incur costs; the cost of meetings, offices, paper and all the work. Those costs will be deducted from money which might go to the schools.
My noble friend Lady Blatch raised an important point. We are told that the committee must reach an unanimous decision. Let us examine a practical example which it will have to face. Let us suppose that the LEA believes that it should close a small school which has only six or twelve pupils. For reasons of costs and so forth, the LEA decides that the school must close. That decision is bound to be very contentious and the idea that it will not is held only by people who have no concept of local government. All the parents will object. The school will probably be in the countryside and everyone living nearby will object. Naturally, someone on the committee will be found to take up the case which will be put very forcefully. There will be petitions; everyone will be visited; and all the members of the committee will be telephoned. Experience in local government shows exactly how it will work.
20
An agreement is supposed to be reached, but that is unlikely in such contentious issues. We are talking about the reality of the situation and not about a theory. There will be endless meetings and huge costs will be incurred. At the end of the day, the matter will go to the adjudicator about whom we know nothing. The appointment is left to regulations. Presumably, he will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be a placeman or woman in the local authority. In making such decisions, he or she will have to have the wisdom of Solomon and will need to be paid well to do the job. That will add more cost to the local authority and will mean more money taken away from the schools.
I shall be interested to hear from some Members of the Labour Benches who have sat on LEAs whether they believe that in a real situation—not a theoretical situation—the proposal will work. Is it in the best interests of the pupils, which is what we are supposed to be discussing? Is it in the best interests of a local authority? I understand that local authorities will receive no extra money but will be capped. So we know perfectly well at the end of the day it will all come off schools.
It will be the pressure from the local education authority, which will say that school X or school Y, for perfectly explicable reasons—financial and educational—should close. I have heard myself argue that the proposition of a school with 12 pupils and only one teacher, who has to do everything, is all right if the teacher is excellent. However, that is not so if the teacher is not so good. There are all sorts of arguments about this that will have to be faced at local level. We are being asked to agree a clause in a Bill which is based on the assumption that in really contentious cases there will be unanimity.
Let me add one further constitutional point. I entirely support what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said. But Church representatives, whether Church of England or Catholic, are not directly responsible to the electorate, and they will now have a major say in the spending of money on all this. Perhaps we think that that is now right. I am sufficiently old fashioned to think that local government was not quite run like that. Of course they should be part of the committee; of course they should be consulted. But at the end of the day the responsibility for how the money is spent should rest with elected councillors.
It seems to me that this proposition raises many serious constitutional issues. I feel quite sorry for the people who are to sit on this committee. They will have difficult decisions to take. I wonder whether the Government would not like to take all of this back. I do not know what local authorities have had to say about this in consultation. I think it raises serious issues and that it will not be in the best interests of the children within the authority.
Lord Baker of Dorking: This is a good example of where the Government are getting into a huge administrative muddle. The present procedure for the organisation of schools, which usually means the closure of a school, is, as the right reverend Prelate said, very clear. It goes to the Secretary of State; he receives

21
delegations from the local education authority, from the parents involved and, if it is a voluntary aided school, from the Church itself. That is now to be delegated, first, to an organisational committee because there is a variety of schools. Then there will be an adjudicator, a sort of Deus ex machina, who suddenly comes in and makes his own decision. I cannot make out whether the Government are creating a system which will make it easier to close schools or more difficult.
I think the Government are totally confused in this matter. I do not think they have a clear idea as to how this is to operate in practice. Then, on top of that, a hand grenade is lobbed in by Mr. Byers' speech, where there is to be delegation of 100 per cent. of the budgets and the LEAs will have residual responsibility. So the LEAs will have residual responsibility but still be responsible for some sort of planning. And then there are the organisational committees. Who is doing what to whom? It is a very muddled set-up.
The points raised by the Liberal Democrats who moved the amendment and by the right reverend Prelate have not effectively been answered. This aspect of the Bill is muddled. One would hope, even at this late stage, that the Government might take it away and reconsider it, because something approaching chaos will emerge.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may clarify two matters before I come to the point of principle. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, says, that many of these proposals will inevitably be contentious among the bodies represented on the school organisation committee. We shall on subsequent amendments discuss membership. But the proposals for membership that we have put both on the face of the Bill and in the document lodged in the Library indicate that we would expect the groups that are represented to have one vote each. Therefore, the providers would have one vote each and the schools group would have one vote. The question of unanimity, therefore, appears to be easier, although the problem of contested—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not say one person; I said a dissenting voice. The voice could be the Church, the teachers or any one of the groups on that body—one dissenting voice from the group. There is only one vote per group. As my noble friend Lady Young said, with something like a school closure there is always a dissenting voice. Therefore, it is likely that more decisions will go rather than only rarely, as the noble Lord suggested. The noble Lord, if he was in a local authority, would know that many of these decisions are very difficult for local councillors.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Of course, many of the decisions are difficult for local councils. But at the moment, if there is a dissenting voice, or the equivalent of what would be a dissenting voice in this context, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State. What this proposal for an organisation committee proposes is that as far as possible the decisions should be reached by discussion in an institutionalised arrangement among the partners of the providers of schools in the area to reach unanimous agreement.
22
Obviously they will not start from a position of unanimity in many cases. The intention is that this committee will provide a structure to ensure that in as many cases as possible unanimity eventually emerges. Where it does not, these issues will be referred to an adjudicator. That adjudicator will be appointed by an open appointment system from people who are experienced in school organisation—as we shall come to at a later stage in this Bill.
The whole point is that at the moment, where there is dissent, where there is a local problem, it is referred to the department and to the Secretary of State. The whole point of these proposals is to ensure that decisions as far as possible are made among the partners at local level. That seems to be an increase in devolution and democracy and not a centralisation or an increase in bureaucracy.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Some of us are not any clearer in our minds than we were when this debate started. As far as I understand it, the education committee is still the responsible organisation, the elected authority in charge of education in its area in the broadest sense of the word. So my question is, who is taking the decisions? If it is not the responsible organisation, why is it not the responsible organisation? And if it is the responsible organisation, why is not the school organisation committee an advisory committee, as my noble friend suggested, rather than not an advisory committee but a decision-taking one? You cannot have two organisations which are separately constituted—one elected and one non-elected—with both of them having power of decision over something. It simply will not work on the ground. It is constitutionally absurd, and I use that word in the correct meaning of the term.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to come back again but there are two questions, one of which the noble Lord has not answered. First, will the resources that will be needed to service the organisation committees, the adjudicators and all the attending costs be a matter for deduction from the funding for local education authorities? Secondly, the noble Lord a moment ago said that the adjudicator would be appointed by a local committee. The Bill says the adjudicator will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Lord Whitty: On the second point, I think I said that they would be appointed by the Secretary of State through an open process of application. We will both check Hansard tomorrow. Whether or not I said that, I certainly intended to say it, and that is in fact the case.
As far as the funding is concerned, the estimate of any additional funding in this puts the cost relatively low, below £1 million, against which has to be set the current cost of what are, in effect, appeals to the Secretary of State. I stress that that is £1 million in total, but against it has to be set the current costs of appeals to the Secretary of State. The whole point of this process, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is that clearly the local education authority is the constitutionally responsible body. But its position will

23
be subject to the views of the school organisation committee in the sense that it is already subject to the Secretary of State under the present arrangements. We intend to push that responsibility back to the local level to the school organisation committees.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord is now saying that these school organisation committees will be exercising the powers of the Secretary of State. But how can they do so in conflict with local authorities, which are also exercising their powers under statute? It seems to me that the internal inconsistencies of these clauses are not fully apparent to those sitting on the government Benches. We shall really get ourselves into a muddle on the ground in trying to work out who does what under the system. As I understand the decision-taking process, there are no fewer than 10 potential stages in the school organisation plan alone. That already is many more stages in decision taking than most local authorities ever become involved in. It will mean increased bureaucracy, which is very dangerous, time consuming and expensive; but, above all, it means that we are moving into internal inconsistencies in the legislation.
In response to an earlier intervention, the noble Lord said that what he wanted to do was institutionalise existing systems of consultation. Again, that wish could be satisfied if we were to agree, as set out in my noble friend's amendment, that these committees would work "in an advisory capacity". The fact that they appear to be decision-taking committees is causing the difficulty.
Lord Baker of Dorking: It seems to me that the Government must decide under which flag they are actually sailing. A moment ago the Minister said that this is a measure of devolution to the local community. However, a few moments later, he was forced to admit that the adjudicator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State on local advice. All of us who have served in government will know what that means as, indeed, will the noble Lord. In effect, the Secretary of State will largely decide who is to be the adjudicator.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was chairman of the Surrey County Council, when I was a member, which introduced considerable changes in education, some of which were most controversial and some totally wrong. However, we will not go into that aspect of the matter. None the less, it all went through a democratic process and not to an adjudicator; indeed, I took delegations to my successors as Secretary of State. As far as I can see, that will not happen in the future. The adjudicator has been put forward and I have no idea whether or not he will receive delegations from councillors, local residents and local parents. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the Government have the remotest idea in that respect. This is actually administration on the hoof and the Government should recognise that fact.
Lord Peston: Before I begin, perhaps I may declare an interest, or lack of one, in that I have never been elected to anything in my life. Indeed, I never deigned
24
to place my future in the hands of any electorate and still would not dream of doing so. That is why I so much enjoy being a Member of this Chamber. However, I must admit that it seemed to me that what the Government proposed on this matter made some modicum of sense. As always, my confusion arises from the present debate in this Chamber.
As I see it, the local education authority still remains responsible for organising education in its area. Indeed, there is a section in the Bill which refers to drawing up an organisation plan. I have interpreted it as going in the following way; namely, to follow the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the plan will include the possibility that a school will be closed. Alternatively, it may include a provision stating that such an occurrence might happen in due course.
It seemed to me that the Government's intention was to try to find a way, when controversy arose, to ensure that the matter did not revert all the way back to the centre. That is my reading both of what the Bill says and what my noble friend the Minister said. In other words, they are trying to find a method of saying, "We agree that there is a problem here. We agree that you're rowing about it. We are trying to set up a structure that will still enable you to sort it out at the local level if you possibly can". I understand the role of the school organisation committee to be just that.
In saying that, I speak as someone who is as committed as anyone in this Chamber to local government—just to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said in his earlier intervention. Indeed, I am fully committed to local government. However, I do not see this as being necessarily antipathetic to local government; I see it as a way of trying to say to those concerned, "Can't you at your level possibly sort this out without it going to the Secretary of State?" If one objects to the non-democratic nature of the adjudicator, it seems to me, from my experience of advising Secretaries of State, that one should not believe—but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will tell me that I am wrong—that they have actually looked in detail at such local matters. He or she would certainly have had the equivalent of a non-elected person saying, "This is a load of rubbish. If I were you I would do the following", but the Secretary of State would, of course, carry the can in such cases.
I have no great problem about the adjudicator, if such a process will work in practice; in other words, if we can persuade those concerned at the local level to move towards taking harsh decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is completely right. My experience as regards taking decisions about closing anything is that there will always be an objector. My favourite example is the case of trying to close a public lavatory, let alone a school or anything of that kind, where it becomes a matter of major constitutional importance. We should not doubt the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right to point out that rows will occur.
What I am trying to say in support of the Government is that they are trying to introduce a process whereby they are saying to those concerned, "Can't you do it at your level? Can we not set up a structure so that you

25
can do it at your level and get some agreement?" I do not believe that the proposal is quite such a mess as noble Lords have stated. However, having said that, I believe that Members of the Committee are right to express their fears as to whether or not it will work. But how do we know? Indeed, I should very much like to encourage my noble friend the Minister not to back down on this. It is certainly worth a try.
Lord Baker of Dorking: As the noble Lord mentioned me, perhaps I may point out that the actual receipt of suggestions for school closures is one of the matters which keeps Ministers and Secretaries of State for Education busy. In fact, the decision is not perfunctory; indeed, it is not taken lightly. As my noble friend Lady Young said, there is always an objection. One invariably sees delegations. They often nobble Ministers in the Lobby in the other place and demand to be seen. So Ministers see them and that means reading the case, as well as receiving one delegation in favour and one against. It is not perfunctory; it is actually part of our quaint democratic system working in practice.
Baroness Young: When I was an education Minister the happy task of looking at school closures fell to me. I recall quite clearly the numbers of Red Boxes full of submissions on each school. I saw delegations both in favour of the school in question and against it. As my noble friend Lord Baker said, the difference is that, in those cases, you could get the intervention of an MP and the matter could actually be raised in Parliament. After all, Ministers are all responsible to Parliament in some way. It is a new constitutional principle to have an adjudicator appointed with, as far as one can see, unlimited power to make a decision without any kind of an appeal over and above the local authority and, presumably, without there being any opportunity to raise the matter in any other forum, such as Parliament. This really is a matter which is worthy of further consideration.
Lord Peston: I and other Members of the Committee are most sympathetic to what the noble Baroness is saying. However, does she at least agree that it would be better if the people involved at the local level sorted out such matters themselves? That is what the Bill is trying to do. It is trying to suggest to those concerned that they should sort it out without going all the way through the system to whoever the current Ministers may be. I understand the point that is being made, but it seems to me that there is rather less sympathy than there ought to be among noble Lords opposite as regards what the Government are trying to do on this matter.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may ask a somewhat naïve question. What will actually happen to the SOCs and the adjudicator if the schools opt out? Will they disappear, or will they still be effective bodies?
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure whether I am answering for my noble friend when I say that we
26
absolutely agree with the notion that these matters should be handled at local level. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, misunderstood the concept of the school organisation plan. This plan is drawn up by a local authority's elected councillors. Normally there is a great deal of discussion at local committee level and there is consultation with the community. The bones of the plan are then drawn up and eventually something more substantial is submitted to various education sub-committees and then to the full education committee.
Even then the plan is not finalised until it is submitted to the full council. The full council comprises elected people from every corner of the local education authority area. The full council draws up the final organisation plan.
However, it is proposed that the plan will then be submitted to an unelected body; namely, a school organisation committee. That unelected body can oppose the plan. If that occurs, the plan is submitted to an adjudicator who can disagree with the decision of the school organisation committee. The adjudicator can take the majority view; he can reject the majority view; he can accept a minority view; or he can submit a totally different plan.
At the end of the day the decision is not that of the local authority. We agree that these matters should be decided at local level. A school organisation plan comprises details on mergers, closures, the establishment of new schools, the organisation of new places and the demands arising from the demography of a local education authority area. Any decision is taken within the context of the plan, but it is proposed that the decision will be completely removed from a local authority; now a local authority is to comprise nothing more than a part of the process. Elected people will pass the responsibility for taking such decisions to the adjudicator, not even the elected Secretary of State.
I refer to the experiences of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking as a former Secretary of State for Education and my noble friend Lady Young as an education Minister and my experience as a former Minister at the Department for Education. Decisions reached us after a great deal of deliberation on the part of local authorities. However, that process provided one more opportunity for an elected person to reconsider the decision that had been taken. Sometimes a Secretary of State reversed the decision of a local authority. However, that process enabled people to have their case heard one more time. However, we are talking now about an unelected body of placemen and placewomen and all powerful adjudicators. The adjudicators have the most draconian powers, more than any elected representative in the country, whether at national or local level, with no appeal. We shall discuss amendments later concerning an appeal to the adjudicator. However, this is the most undemocratic proposal. It may be consistent with what we believe is the hidden agenda; namely, the sidelining of local authorities.
Lord Whitty: I think we are all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has never been elected to any

27
position. That must be due to his modesty in not putting himself forward rather than to any rejection on the part of the electorate. He has articulated more clearly than I, or any of the Government's guidance, the Government's intention; namely, that, as far as possible, these issues should be dealt with at local level. I respect the diligence with which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, have pursued their duties as Ministers of the Crown. However, those decisions should not be taken at that level; they should be taken at local level. The intention of establishing school organisation committees is that, as far as is possible, such decisions will be taken at local level. The adjudicator is meant to act as a failsafe mechanism.
I believe that almost everyone who has contributed to the debate respects the view that these decisions should be taken at local level, as we propose. However, the amendment would allow the final decision to be taken by a local education authority, against the wishes of other partners in certain circumstances, without the existing appeal to the Secretary of State. That may not be the intention of the amendment but it would be its effect. We should recognise that it is the intention of the Government to return these decisions to local level. The adjudicator is not a draconian major general. He is to act as a failsafe mechanism in a situation where no unanimity can be reached even after lengthy deliberation by the partners involved at local level. This provision is not an anti-democratic device and it is no different from any other circumstance where local authorities are subject to final decision by an adjudicator.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: It is important to clarify one point. The Minister has repeatedly said that the decision should be taken at local level. Is it the intention that every local area should have an adjudicator in waiting, as it were; otherwise, how on earth can he be local? If he is not to cover a wide area, surely it will be most expensive to have an adjudicator in each local area to consider every possible closure that may arise.
Lord Whitty: It is not the intention to have an adjudicator for every LEA, if that is what the noble Baroness is suggesting. We hope that in the case of most local education authority areas, a decision will be reached unanimously by the school organisation committees. Therefore there will be no need for an adjudicator. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite recognise that the intention of this clause is to enable local providers and other interested parties to reach agreement at local level, and that the adjudicator—whose powers we shall discuss later—is to act as a failsafe mechanism. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in particular recognises that the amendment as it stands would give a local education authority the right to overrule all other partners without the existing
28
appeal to the Secretary of State. In the light of that response I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment as it stands.
Lord Tope: Before I respond to the debate, which I have been itching to do, I wish to press the Minister on the question of costs which we have not discussed fully. As I understand it, the Government have estimated the cost to be £1 million. That can be only a rough estimate, because as the Minister said, none of us knows quite what will happen. Depending on one's point of view, that is an optimistic estimate based on the Government's apparent belief that consensus will rule; unanimity will be the norm; and we shall go through only half of the ten-stage process that this Bill envisages. As I understand it, the eventual cost is to be borne by LEAs in full. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. Given the Government's recently announced intention to delegate 100 per cent. of funding to schools, will the cost of this process then be met by the schools? Will they be compelled to opt into this process and to contribute, or will the funds be top-sliced from local authority money? How will it work, or is it yet another matter that the Government have not yet worked out?
Lord Whitty: We shall debate funding at a later stage. As the noble Lord surmises, the intention is that the money would form part of the administrative expenditure of a local education authority and would not be devolved to schools.
Lord Tope: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall now contribute to what has inevitably and rightly been a wide-ranging debate. In introducing the amendment I made little reference to the adjudicator because I realise that is the subject of the following clause. However, it is impossible to discuss the whole concept of a school organisation committee without also considering the role of the adjudicator. Although we have strayed a little wide of my amendment, I think it was right and inevitable that we should do so.
The Minister was absolutely right to say that the effect of the amendment is to leave the final decision with the LEA. However, what alarms me is that the Minister is putting that forward as an objection to the amendment. However, that is the purpose and intention of the amendment. The local education authority is the democratically elected and accountable body which should take local decisions. We appear to have struck an extraordinary unanimity in the Chamber today. We all want to see these decisions taken locally and democratically; and that requires a form of election. The local education authority is responsible for ensuring the provision of education for all children in an area. It is democratically elected and accountable. That is why we tabled the amendment. For the Minister now to put that forward as a reason for opposing the amendment alarms me almost more than anything else I have heard today.
We have had much discussion on consensus and the desire for unanimity. I hope that we all wish to see these matters resolved in a spirit of co-operation and

29
consensus and rejoice when unanimity is arrived at. I do not doubt that, in numerical terms, many of the plans and proposals may be fortunate enough to go that way. Our concern relates to those cases where unanimity and consensus do not rule. I, too, have had some experience, albeit many years ago, of school closures. I have yet to hear of closures on the basis of unanimity among all concerned. Although it may have happened, it is certainly the exception rather than the rule.
Sometimes unanimity will not be achieved, and sometimes consensus, however hard sought, will not be achieved. Exhaustive discussions will sometimes fail in the end, though I hope not often. The question is: what happens then? My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood stole my line. I had intended to offer some help to the Minister in his attempt to explain how this proposal would work. I have been provided with a flow chart explaining exactly how it would work. If it is a matter of consensus and unanimity, we can stop at stage six; if not, we can argue about how long the process is and whether it stops at stage 10, when the adjudicator decides, or stage 11 when the adjudicator's decision is accepted. The process is long, difficult and complex; and it will be expensive. But finally, when consensus does not rule, who makes the decision? The Minister has made much of the fact that decisions are to be taken locally. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the final decision is not made locally but by the adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State. We do not know how many adjudicators there will be, but the number will certainly be fewer than one for each LEA. Nor will they be appointed locally, or be accountable locally; nor, under the Bill as presently drafted, will there be any right of appeal in relation to their decision.
I have long believed that the Secretary of State has far too much power and is acquiring more and more. If there is to be a right of appeal, the appeal goes to the Secretary of State. However inadequately and indirectly, the Secretary of State is democratically accountable. Ultimately, the Secretary of State can be questioned in Parliament. The adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State, who will probably have no local connection and certainly no local accountability, cannot be questioned by anybody anywhere. How the Government can say that that is in accordance with local democratic decision-making, I really do not know.
Sometimes from these Benches I hear the Government's explanation of their proposals and think, "Yes, I hadn't thought of that; maybe there is something in it". The more I have heard of these proposals, the more convinced I am, not that this amendment should be passed, but that a later one should be passed to get rid of this proposal altogether.
We have talked about a dissenting voice and the unanimity of a school organisation committee. Each group on a committee has one vote. If I remember the consultation papers correctly, the membership of a group could comprise anything from one to seven people. So a situation could arise whereby a group of one exercises a dissenting vote. Some may say that is democratic; I suggest that it is a veto. A group, whether of one, two or seven, will exercise a veto over proposals that have been exhaustively discussed by the LEA and
30
through LEA processes—which were well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—and considered by the SOC and so on; and it could be a group of one. It is less likely; however, it is a possibility under this legislation. That is not right.
In moving the amendment I said that the advisory role has some merit. Many LEAs already have some sort of system, some sort of forum, wherein interested parties, such as those proposed for membership of the SOC, have an opportunity for input and discussion. Indeed, many are members of, and represented on, the elected education committee, which is where these decisions ought to be taken.
I am far from convinced by the Government's arguments. In fact, I have become increasingly convinced that, later, in moving that the clause do not stand part I shall be doing the right thing. I will consider further what needs to be done. In the meantime, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. This has been a useful, if alarming, discussion. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 22, line 24, leave out ("includes") and insert ("shall have a majority of members who are members of the local education authority and shall include").
The noble Baroness said: After that long debate, I am wondering whether there is any point in speaking to these amendments. They represent a fall-back position, an attempt to improve the organisation committees. We are not in agreement with them and do not believe they are the correct democratic way forward.
Amendment No. 98 would guarantee that the local education authority had majority control of the school organisation committee. It underwrites the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Tope. It underwrites the principle that the LEA should have the final say over the recommendations from a school organisation committee. It should be for the LEA to decide whether the nominees were drawn from a range of political groupings, or whether they should represent the controlling group. The important point is that the LEA would remain in control of a school organisation committee. The proposal backs up our first amendment proposing that the SOC should be an advisory body. Amendment No. 99 is consequential on Amendment No. 98.
The purpose of Amendment No. 104 is, again, to make the best of a very bad job. It adds to the categories of representatives who must sit on a school organisation committee. It insists that the committee has members who are on the receiving end. At present, there is an absence of any requirement to include representatives from the schools involved. That highlights the general drift of this legislation; namely, that schools are to be organised by new, mini—or perhaps not even mini—quangos. We have put forward clear arguments today, supported not only by Members on these Benches but by many other noble Lords, and we shall shortly debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I shall

31
therefore not pursue points now that I shall make in that debate. I beg to move Amendment No. 98, also standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope.
Lord Rix: On the assumption that there are to be school organisation committees—which seems in some doubt—I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 100; I spoke to Amendments Nos. 58 and 64 in Committee on 19th May. I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth.
Last time, I was alone and loitering in the Stygian gloom of midnight, when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, added to my taedium vitae by turning aside my amendments to secure a clearer place for special educational needs on the face of the Bill. For noble Lords not present on that occasion, he used these words:
"the education action zone will bring together 10 or 20 schools. That could mean the membership of a forum swelling rapidly—if everyone were included—to 50 plus. That is unlikely to constitute an effective decision-making body".
I very much agree with that. Unfortunately, he continued a little later:
"It is therefore, in our view, not sensible to lay down that all these constituent bodies should always be members of an education action forum".—[Official Report, 19/5/98; col. 1585.]
I found that very difficult to understand. If 20 per cent. of all school populations have special educational needs—which is the accepted average—one can be certain that schools involved in education action zones have a percentage much higher than that of pupils with special educational needs—maybe 30, 40 or even 50 per cent. I would have thought that a guaranteed place could have been found for someone with expertise in special educational needs; but, alas, the witching time of night seemed to cause the noble Lord to turn a deaf ear. I am therefore trying again with school organisation committees and hope that, between the dark and the daylight, the Minister will see the need for a person with SEN experience to be on every school organisation committee. To borrow a phrase:
"You know it makes sense".
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether it would help the Minister if I speak to my Amendment No. 105 with this grouping. It is separately grouped, but I am happy to deal with it now if it saves the time of the Committee.
Like the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, Amendment No. 105 represents a fall-back position. We would rather not have school organisation committees at all. However, if there are to be such committees, we need to address ourselves to the question of composition. Very little is said in the Bill about the composition. The only three categories of membership mentioned are the LEA, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Beyond that, there is nothing definitive at all. Amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, who is not here at present to speak to them. I believe that grant-maintained schools, if they exist, need to be represented. If, as is likely, the Government have their way and they do not exist, they will all become foundation or voluntary-aided schools. It seems to me important that
32
foundation schools, which will be part of the family of schools, should be represented on that committee. I hope that when we come to Amendment No. 105 it will be accepted.
Lord Swinfen: Like the noble Baroness, I do not understand why Amendments Nos. 101, 105 and 105A have not been grouped with the amendments which we are discussing. Perhaps I may speak for a moment on the groupings list. I looked for one this afternoon before the House sat. Eventually I was able to prise a list of the groupings out of the Government Whips' Office at 2.35 p.m., while the House was at Prayers; there had been none before then. I wonder whether the Government could make certain that groupings lists are available at a reasonable hour. Under the previous administration, groupings were supposed to be available at five minutes past two at the latest, which gives an opportunity to prepare for the debate. I know it is not the responsibility of the Ministers on the Front Bench, but it is a matter on which they should chase their friends. There were no lists in the Printed Paper Office, none in the Prince's Chamber and none in the Peers Lobby. Eventually I obtained one that was still hot off the photocopying machine from the Government Whips' Office while the House was at Prayers. I believe that the Government have let the House down in this respect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, my name is also to Amendment No. 100. I know that there are different areas of special educational needs and I accept that it may not be possible to have someone with expertise in all those areas on a school organisation committee, but I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that there will be a member of the committee with special educational needs expertise. If the area of special educational need which has to be discussed is not within the member's narrow field, that member will at least know where to obtain the information. In this information age, it is a matter of knowing where to find the information that one requires rather than having it all at one's fingertips.
Lord Addington: I wish to address primarily Amendment No. 100. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it would be ludicrous not to have direct advice when special educational needs are being dealt with. There are so many areas of special educational needs. If there is a delay in obtaining the right information, there will be a delay in obtaining the right help. Pupils with special educational needs within schools are in the process of catching up. If they do not receive the help they need quickly, they are ultimately doomed to fail, or at least will take far longer over their education. Unless there is someone who knows where to find the assistance needed, these pupils will be almost guaranteed to be failures, at least within their own age group. Unless there is some way of getting the relevant information, we shall fail in an important area—possibly the major area—which has brought this type of organisation into being.
Lord Whitty: These amendments deal with school organisation committees and their membership. I do not

33
wish to stray too far into the debate we had earlier about the role of those committees. The essence of the committees is clearly one of partnership. We wish the membership of the committees to reflect that partnership. As we said earlier, LEAs will retain key responsibilities. Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 provide for majority membership of the committees. Local education authorities may be the major providers of schools, but they are not the only providers, and there is therefore no reason for putting on the face of the Bill that local education authorities should have a built-in majority on the organisation committees.
All decisions have to be unanimous. There is no suggestion that any of the bodies referred to in these amendments should not be consulted, but we make clear on the face of the Bill that in all cases the diocesan authorities should be involved in the committees and we make clear in the note lodged in the Library that we would expect there to be a schools group, which would vary in its composition, authority by authority, and that for certain purposes there should be representation from the Further Education Funding Council.
As far as the schools group is concerned—and this touches in part on the question of special educational needs and on Amendment No. 105—the note sets out:
"The group should include governors from a primary, a secondary, and a special school (and a middle school where appropriate). It should also cover community, foundation and voluntary schools (other than those maintained by the Church of England or Roman Catholic dioceses). But the way in which it does so should vary according to circumstances, including the size of the authority and the proportions of schools within particular categories. We would normally expect community, foundation, and non-diocesan voluntary schools to be represented in the group in proportion to the number of pupils in the LEA that attend their schools."
That will allow for representation of a range of issues and it will be different as regards each authority.
I turn to Amendment No. 100 and the issue of special educational needs. We recognise the important responsibilities that school organisation committees will have in relation to provision for special educational needs both in mainstream and in special schools. Clearly it is important for school organisation committees to have access to appropriate SEN expertise and we are committed to achieving that.
It might be worth pausing to consider for a moment the range of issues that might arise, including the alteration and closure of special schools; the location of SEN special units in mainstream schools; the availability of appropriate facilities, including physical access; the availability of particular expertise in SEN amongst teaching staff; and the impact on transport of the location of SEN facilities, and any changes to their location.
As noble Lords will appreciate, it will be difficult to secure representation of SEN interests on the school organisation committee that can cover that wide range of issues. That is why we want to look at how best to ensure that SEN issues are taken into account as widely as possible in the consideration by the school organisation committee of school organisation plans and of individual proposals. There are a number of ways in which SEN expertise might be provided to school
34
organisation committees. We are clear that SEN providers should be represented in the membership. But we might also want to explore other ways in which SEN expertise can be made available to the committee. That might include the appointment of experienced and expert practitioners as advisers to the committee in respect of specific proposals.
We are committed to getting right both the membership of the committee and the advice that is available to it. We shall seek specific views, when we consult, on how that might be achieved, particularly for special educational issues.
In relation to foundation schools and Amendment No. 105, the statement on school organisation makes it clear that we shall include foundation schools within the schools group and, where there are foundation schools in LEA areas, they will be represented broadly in proportion to the numbers for which they are responsible. We will consult on the detail of how that may be achieved, but it is a level of detail that is more appropriate to regulations than to the Bill. I note the amendments relating to the FEFC and neighbouring authorities which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They have not been referred to, but they are grouped with this amendment. However, I shall not comment on those at this stage.
The intention is clear. We want not only the major providers but also a range of interests to be represented by the schools group and elsewhere on the organisation committees. Our intentions are clear in the document that is available in the Library and I hope that my words this afternoon will reassure those who are particularly concerned with special educational needs. We shall take fully into account in regulations and in practice the way in which SEN expertise can be brought, authority by authority to school organisation committees. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will consider his position when we reach that stage.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, sits down, perhaps I may follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The whole issue of special educational needs is extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if I understood him correctly, listed at least six specific difficulties with regard to special schools or parts of mainstream schools which have units for special educational needs. It is true that specific difficulties can arise. However, if one chose to, one could make out specific difficulties for mainstream schools; for instance, those that may specialise in languages. Are those to be considered also?
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, feels about the response of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. However, it is not satisfactory to leave it as it stands. The committee must have a unanimity of view. If there is a question of closure of a special school when there is no representative on the committee and it has, at best, an adviser, difficulties may arise. This is something which needs to be looked at. The noble Lord,

35
Lord Whitty, may not be able to give an answer today—I shall understand if he cannot—but it would be helpful if he will undertake to bring back an answer to this important point before we leave the Committee stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He can then pick up on all our points and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wants to respond to his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the background paper on the organisation committees that is in the Library. I understood him to say that foundation and community schools would be represented. However, in paragraph 8 of that document the only groups to which the Government refer are those appointed by the LEA elected members, the Church of England diocese, the Roman Catholic diocese, the members of the FEFC nominated by them, reflecting the council's statutory responsibilities, and schools drawn from serving school governors.
There are two omissions relating to the amendment which are inconsistent with the answer the noble Lord gave to Amendment No. 105. First, can we have an assurance that foundation schools, as a category, will be represented on the committee? Secondly, there is no mention anywhere of teachers or head teachers. It is inconceivable that an organisational committee should have only governors, members of the Church and members of the LEA but with no guaranteed member for special needs, no teachers and no mention of foundation schools as a category of school within the local area.
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her intervention, which said extremely well what I wanted to say.
I have a further question for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It arises from what arose in another place. A note on school organisation was circulated to members of the Standing Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill in another place. From its discussion of that, the Government anticipate that the governors from primary, secondary and special schools will be represented on school organisation committees. That will be extremely welcome. It goes some way to meeting our concerns. However, we need a commitment on the record of the Government's intention regarding the issue of membership. I should like to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said so far and come back to this matter at Report.
If special educational needs issues are to be represented on school organisation committees by the governor of a special school, clearly such membership needs to be balanced by having the membership of someone with an understanding of special educational needs in mainstream schools. It becomes a vicious circle.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may respond before the noble Baroness replies to the debate. In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about
36
special schools in a local education authority area, where there is a special school within the area it would be a member of the schools' group. The paragraph to which I referred was not paragraph 8, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred; it was the expansion of paragraph 8 which goes into paragraph 10. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to that.
We indicated that the schools' group would include governors from a primary, secondary and special school where there was one within the education area. We should expect schools to be represented in proportion to the number of pupils that attend them. In relation to special schools, there would be representation. The more complicated area is that to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred; that is, representation on behalf of special educational needs within mainstream schools where we are looking at different ways of achieving that. It may be through membership of the schools' group or it may be through an adviser. We are prepared to seek further views in relation to that and I hope that that clarifies the position in relation to special educational needs.
I apologise to the noble Baroness for not covering the point relating to head teachers. We have considered the issue and feel that schools are best represented through their governors—the governors being the corporate authority within those schools. In certain circumstances head teachers can be governors. We would certainly not rule out a head teacher as a governor serving as a member of a school's group. In any case, we have no doubt that governors would wish to seek the views of head teachers on school organisation, plans and proposals. We might also seek views as to whether we should consult on the committee welcoming head teacher assessors offering a professional view from the frontline.
As regards the committee itself, we believe that schools are best represented only by governors and not by head teachers working with those governors. That is the position we have taken and it is a clear one. That does not mean that we are excluding the expertise of head teachers. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is looking worried about that. The authoritative position within the schools is represented by the governors. They are the appropriate people to be represented on the school organisation committee. In the light of that answer I hope that for this stage at least the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already indicated that he might come back to this matter at a later stage in the light of what I have said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not hear the discussion on the first amendment so I did not join in. However, my hair was standing on end in the light of what the noble Lord said on a couple of occasions. I believe that the Government are courting disaster. Members of the Committee should realise that for anyone who has been a councillor and engaged in the business of organising schools, and particularly as regards closures, there are technical aspects which only

37
head teachers understand and they simply cannot be dealt with by governors. It is completely unrealistic to expect that.
It is not a question of being difficult or awkward or trying to undermine the Government in their strengthening of the position of governors: I am all in favour of that. The governors will not like the arrangement. The head teachers will be quite often put in a very difficult position because their point of view will not be understood. Usually, head teachers and governors do not disagree, but there is a different input and one needs both of them simultaneously when decisions are made. The Government should look at these issues and not simply brush them aside out of some macho desire to push through their policies. The Government have the very wise and experienced view of those who have done these things for years. There is a book called How to Close Your School. Everyone is buying it, but because of the Bill it will have to be re-written. It is not very easy to close a school. The adjudicator is just going to make trouble. The Government should look again at the question of head teachers.
Lord Belstead: In terms of the number of members, how large do the Government envisage the typical school organisation committee to be?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that there is a typical answer. Local education authorities vary dramatically in size and in the number of schools that they cover. Therefore, there is not a typical pattern. As regards the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I am not saying that there should be no head teacher input into the process. Clearly there will be both with the LEA and the school organisation committee. As regards particular schools, there will be the adjudicator as well. Therefore, that expertise will be available and that channel will be open to head teachers and not simply through the governors.
As regards the decision-making body, it is appropriate that the school should be represented by the governors and not by an employee of the school or of the education authority.
Lord Belstead: I admire the way in which the noble Lord has been handling the questions, but he cannot quite get away with the answer that he gave me just now. What do the Government envisage would be the smallest type of school organisation committee and what do they believe could be the largest?
Lord Whitty: Theoretically, I suppose that the smallest could be one representative for each of the groups indicated. That is extremely unlikely but, theoretically, in a very small local education authority that could be the case. We would be talking about five or six people. But in an authority such as Birmingham I would hesitate to say what the size of the school organisation committee would be. Even with the largest authorities we would wish to keep them to a manageable size for taking sensible decisions.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I do not wish to prolong this matter, but does the Minister really mean
38
that in the smallest education authority each of the four groups would have one representative, each with the right to veto, and that there would be no headmaster representation? Does the Minister envisage that happening? My noble friend asked the question and the Minister replied that in a small education authority he could imagine one member for each of the four representative bodies. Surely the Minister would like to correct that?
Lord Peston: I thought my noble friend was making the logical point that on the face of the Bill only three groups are mentioned whereas the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, mentioned four, so I have missed the fourth one.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: There is also higher education.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: Logically, therefore, four is the minimum. I believe that is what my noble friend was saying. He then said that the number would be appropriate to the circumstances, or some such gobbledegook that the civil servants will write for him any minute.
What interests me is the initial position from which the Bill started; namely, the notion that the partners and providers would be getting together to do the job. That seemed to be the philosophy on which the clauses are based. I find the next phase very difficult. My noble friend seems to have accepted that beyond the partners and providers there is a concession, which slightly surprised me, that interest groups and experts come in as well. My original interpretation of the Bill was that they were not included. I thought the whole point was that the Bill would cause the heads of the local partners and providers to be knocked together and that they would have to make up their minds.
The moment my noble friend goes down the path of saying that headmasters should be included and why not this and that, he ends up not only with a large committee, but with one which is different from that which the Government had in mind in the first place. We have a classic case here where the interest groups declare their interests and try to influence the committee. It is by no means obvious to me that there should be interest groups on the committee. Normally, as regards anything which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, et al. say about special educational needs, I say yes to it, but in this case it is not obvious to me that they should be included in running the committee.
This matter goes back to an earlier debate. It depends on how we assume the committee will be run. I understood that the purpose was to concentrate our minds on practical cases. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for mentioning that. What really matters is whether this or that practical case can be sorted out. In considering the needs of special education, if a school is closed, one has to be aware that a tough decision is being taken and that perhaps certain children with such needs will have to go further. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is quite right in that if unanimity is the

39
procedural method then everyone has a veto. Therefore, if a veto is exercised one has to be aware that power is placed in the hands of the adjudicator. All these are practical matters which will emerge. My view is that the committee ought to operate so that it works bearing those matters in mind.
I do not accept at all the view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the adjudicator has absolute power. He or she will have to operate according to all the rules of due process, reasonableness and all the other things. No adjudicator in any law that we have ever passed in your Lordships' House is in a position to say, "I decide it: it is decided". The matter could certainly be queried if it were portrayed as a frivolous decision. I am less worried about the absolute power of the adjudicator than the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That does not mean that I am not worried because I am always worried, but that is another matter.
I see why my noble friend Lord Whitty is trying to respond to the interest groups, but it is not obvious to me that the Government should say that the heads of interest groups should be involved. For that matter, why not include professors of economics who know all about finance, choice and decision making? Why are they not represented as an interest group? The answer is that interest groups are endless. We should stick to the philosophy of partners and providers at the centre of the scheme who should really try to come to a conclusion and not exercise what used to be the easy way out of saying that it is a hard decision and the Secretary of State should decide. That is my attempt to be helpful.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am amazed that he dismisses special educational needs as a "special interest group" in a rather derisory tone, making those with special educational needs sound as though they comprise only a small body of people with most obscure objectives in view. Those with special educational needs account for one-fifth of the school population, so the noble Lord cannot possibly call them a "special interest group" and dismiss them as such. I was startled to hear the noble Lord use that term in what I believe to be a derogatory way and I must protest on behalf of children with special educational needs and on behalf of those authorities and schools which deal with their problems. They are, indeed, a special interest group of enormous special interest for government, education authorities, and local authorities. I would be most unhappy to leave the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, hanging in the air without some opposition.
Lord Peston>: It was certainly not my intention to take that view; quite the contrary. However, the fact is that those with special educational needs are a special group. That is why we use that word. They comprise a "special" group which many of us wish to see treated specially. The real point here is whether on the school organisation committee, or any other body, we should automatically say that they must be represented on every occasion. That is not my view, taking on board the obvious point that those elected to serve on a local
40
education authority do not take special educational needs into account. It seems that one is always hearing that the world consists of two groups of people: those who speak up for those with special educational needs and the rest of us, as if the rest of us do not do that. However, many of us have personal experience of such matters and we do speak up, but we do not always take the view that it is necessary to have someone on the committee who can say, "I am the representative who can speak up for special educational needs".
I do not seek to denigrate those with special educational needs; quite the contrary. I have spent a great many years fighting for their interests, and I continue to do so. However, it is not obvious to me that we should approach the school organisation committee in that way. I am not saying that that is obviously wrong; I am saying that it is by no means obviously right. I certainly would not want anybody to believe that I speak of special educational needs in a derisory manner or regard them as unimportant. I do not, as my record proves. However, I do not believe that every decision should be taken on the basis of its impact on special educational needs.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I understand his point entirely. It seems to me that the school organisation committees are composed of those who are providers. However important special educational needs are, it is not clear to me that that group comprises a "provider" of education. Once one starts to go down that road, one must take other groups into account. One could argue that the special educational needs group is among the most significant groups—or, indeed, that it is the most significant group—but, logically, it is not involved because it is not a provider of education. Those who are members of the committees are there simply because they are education providers. That is what I understand to be the logic of the provision. Once one passes beyond that logic, I am no longer sure what the committees are about. However, if you hold to the logic that you are requiring providers to reach agreement on any plans, it seems to me that there is a proper justification for such committees
Baroness Blatch: I am startled equally by the contributions of the right reverend Prelate and of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We are talking about "providers". In fact, the providers of education are the teachers in the classroom. Governors are not providers of education; they are managers of their schools. They comprise a school's governing body. Those who provide education are those who do the teaching.
Under the Government's proposals, school organisation committees are representative groups. The Government are not setting up panels of independent people who will collectively take into account all the different interests. The committees will include groups from the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, further education and school governors. The Government have left teachers outside those representative bodies, which are not collective panels simply taking on board collective interests. It seems

41
extraordinary that headteachers will not be represented on school organisation committees although they are major providers of education in their areas. This discussion has become even more extraordinary.
In answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Belstead, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he found it difficult to give us some idea of the composition of a small or large authority. Perhaps I may put the question in a different way which the noble Lord will be able to answer. How many groups? The number of members of each group may change depending on whether the authority is small or large, and reflecting the number of children, the number of schools and the size of the area. However, the number of representative groups will not change—unless, of course, there is no church school (Anglican or Roman Catholic) in an LEA in which case the school organisation committee will not include a member from the church group. It should be possible to say how many groups will be represented on each committee. That would give us some idea of the numbers involved, depending on the area.
Perhaps I may return to the point about teachers, which is the import of my amendment, Amendment No. 105. As I understand it, the FEFC will be a group in its own right on the organisation committee. Almost inevitably, members of that group will comprise lecturers from the further education world. Lecturers serve on its council and boards, so lecturers are likely to form this group. We would understand the position if the Government stipulated that governors of further education colleges are to be involved. However, if they do not, those serving are likely to be lecturers. Are we to have the spectacle of an organisation committee comprising lecturers from further education colleges but not including headteachers or teachers from local schools? If that is the case, it seems rather strange.
Technically, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right about my reference to the adjudicator having absolute power. Ultimately, the power is not absolute because there is the judicial inquiry system. However, it seems extraordinary that a school or parents would have to go to the extent of invoking a judicial inquiry. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that a judicial inquiry will not make judgments about the quality of the decision taken or about the actual decision taken. A judicial inquiry will consider the procedure by which the adjudicator arrived at his decision—in other words, whether the adjudicator was wilful or vexatious in disregarding certain aspects of the case by, say, not properly listening to the case or by not following properly the procedural path laid out, probably in statute by regulations. However, if the adjudicator makes a decision which local parents believe is deeply unfair and in their view wrong, they have absolutely nowhere to go, so in that sense the power is absolute.
Lord Peston: I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. I suppose that the difference between us is that I hope that recourse to the adjudicator will be rare. I would have to accept, as in the end would the Government, that if more or less every decision went
42
to the adjudicator, the system would have failed. The whole point of the system is that decisions should not be referred to the adjudicator.
I support the Bill as it stands and what the Government are trying to do precisely because I strongly believe that one should try to sort out such matters locally. That was my initial point. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—this follows on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that if, on every single decision, one or other of the partners says, "I am going to the adjudicator", we would all have to accept that, although this was a good idea and a good experiment, it had failed. We would all have to accept that, including the Government.
The difference between us is that I think that for the most part the partners and providers at the local level will be capable of taking such decisions, including those of a very sensitive nature such as those relating to special educational needs. It is really a question of whether we are willing to see whether this will work or whether we are so certain a priori at this stage that it will fail. That is the difference between us. I fully accept the bona fides of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on such matters, but I believe that this is well worth doing as a step forward. The noble Baroness is, however, quite right that if every decision is referred to the adjudicator, the system will have failed. We shall have to wait and see. Some of us may not be around by then, but someone will certainly see.
5 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to try to end this part of the proceedings, bearing in mind that we still have to debate whether this clause stand part of the Bill. We have ranged very wide in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said this afternoon that he had never been elected to a local authority. Given the deftness with which he got to his feet when a note was passed to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, anyone in local government would have been delighted to have had the noble Lord on his benches. What is more, the noble Lord managed to speak for a considerable period which gave me even more time in which to deal with the amendment.
Lord Peston: My point was not that I had not been elected, but that it would never have occurred to me to stand. I did not throw a six to start, if I may use that particular analogy.
Baroness Maddock: I did not realise that. However, the noble Lord would probably have made a very good job of it.
I should like to touch on one or two points raised by the Minister in replying to the amendment. The debate about the composition of the committees demonstrates the muddle and the problem that the Government face with these proposals. We have spent a long time discussing what should be fairly simple amendments. A good number of interesting and useful contributions have been made by members of the Committee this afternoon. Some phrases have been used that frighten some more than others. For example, the Minister said that the Government's intentions were quite clear. It is

43
precisely that which worries noble Lords sitting on these Benches. The intention is to set up a quango that is not democratically accountable. The Minister threw in the remark that of course the Government would take account of what head teachers said. Therefore, the local education authority which is the locally elected and democratically accountable body must defer to a quango but of course head teachers will be involved as well. The Government must have clearer thinking than that on something as important as this.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness rose to her feet more quickly than I did. To respond to my noble friend Lord Peston, we do not suggest that head teachers or other experts should be members of the committee but that their expertise should be available to the committee. I hope that is clear to all Members of the Committee.
Baroness Maddock: That was my understanding. The Government's Benches were very confused about how the decision would be made. All noble Lords agree that partnership in educational matters, or any other matter in the community, is vitally important. We agree that a partnership of interested bodies should be consulted on such controversial issues as school closures and other matters to do with organising schools in particular areas. One of the reasons why we on these Benches were not in favour of grant-maintained schools was precisely that we wanted a true partnership that would enable proper strategic decisions to be made.
The Government propose that the partnership should be at a higher level than the democratically accountable body: the local education authority. That is precisely why we have moved amendments to improve what we consider to be an extremely bad set-up; namely school organisation committees.
This matter will run and run. We shall come back to it at a later stage. The Committee will in a moment consider whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 101:
Page 22, line 31, at end insert ("; and
( ) a person nominated by the Free Church Council for an area any part of which is comprised in the authority's area.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I do not move Amendment No. 101. It may be of assistance to the Committee to know that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 105A.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 105A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tope: The Committee has spent about two hours demonstrating very effectively why this clause should not stand part of the Bill. The more I hear from the
44
Government the more alarmed I become about these proposals and the clearer it becomes how unclear the Government are as to how they will work. I shall not take up more valuable time by repeating all that has already been said. Perhaps I may briefly summarise what I said when moving my first amendment in explaining why we are so much opposed to statutory school organisation committees. They are cumbersome and bureaucratic and will prove far more costly than the Government believe. That is an unnecessary cost that brings no added value.
The following flow chart demonstrates just how cumbersome and bureaucratic is the proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said earlier, it begins with the LEA preparing a school organisation plan. As a proper part of that process the LEA will consult widely. It will consult all of the governing bodies and undoubtedly hold public meetings, probably attended primarily by parents. In addition, there will be formal and informal discussions. The authority will produce a draft plan. That will go to the education committee which meets in public. There it will be discussed not only by the elected representatives but by those who are co-opted on to the education committee: teachers, the churches and so on.
Eventually, the LEA and local authority will adopt a school organisation plan. That plan will be sent to the school organisation committee. If consensus rules and unanimity applies—I hope that in most cases it will, because I am a consensus politician (which is an approach that has come back into favour)—it will proceed on that basis. I hope that where there are concerns, even disagreements, there can be reconciliation and agreement. But if consensus rules and unanimity can be achieved it does not matter too much what structure one has. One needs a structure to deal with situations where unanimity is not achievable. It is that which concerns us here.
Therefore, the plan goes to the school organisation committee with its many perceived shortcomings in terms of its membership and rather unclear role. That committee will consider the plan. All the partners represented on the school organisation committee—I must not call them interest groups—must reach unanimity. If just one group dissents that is in effect a veto on the plan. If it is agreed unanimously that is fine and there is no problem, but where a group dissents—that is likely to occur in the more controversial cases, which we are concerned about today—the matter goes to the adjudicator.
Thus far, we have reached stage six in the 10 or 11-stage process. The role of the adjudicator is to be discussed next. That is an integral part of the process. However, this afternoon we must consider this matter in two separate parts. For the Minister to say that this is part of taking decision-making down to local level is a nonsense. The adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State and is not locally accountable; and he is not even subject to appeal, although the Committee shall debate that matter later on.
Coming as I do from a local authority background, inevitably I draw an analogy with the planning inspector. A planning applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against a planning decision. Normally, the Secretary of State will appoint an inspector to hear that appeal. But the analogy is not as close as I first thought it

45
was. In that case the inspector is acting in the name of the Secretary of State. The inspector is acting and judging in accordance with planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and ultimately the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. However inadequate that may be, none of that applies to the adjudicator.
I do not understand the argument that this proposal is democratic or seeks to move decision-making down to local level. It is the decisions where there is dissent that matter. If there is consensus and unanimity no one will worry; everyone agrees. But the important decision must be taken where consensus cannot be achieved. What is important is how and where those decisions are taken. The Government's proposals are not that decisions should be taken locally by a democratically elected LEA or even by a local school organisation committee, however inadequate we believe that to be, but that they should be taken by an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State.
As I said earlier this afternoon, my principal concern over this is that it further weakens democratic accountability and the role of the LEA. A point on accountability that has not been mentioned this afternoon is the chart which the Audit Commission produced during the time of the previous government about the confused accountability of decision-making in schools now. I cannot remember it precisely, but it was a simple circular chart: the school, the teacher or the head blames the governors; the governors blame the LEA; the LEA blames the Government; the Government blame the LEA; and the LEA says that it is down to the governors. It goes around in a circle. All of that can be right. If we already have confused accountability, that accountability will be even more confused under the proposed system.
We have all these stages to go through. They will all require the production of more paper. They would all require, I hope, good professional advice. I fear that before too long we might be into the use of lawyers as well when we go to the adjudicator. The Government's estimate that the whole process nationwide will cost only £1 million is as optimistic as believing that unanimity in this process will reign. For all those reasons, and all the reasons that have been so well enunciated during the debates this afternoon, I oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It is rare that I find myself speaking in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or to his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is an even rarer occasion when I find myself speaking on the opposite side to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that there is some misunderstanding about the intention of the school organisation committees. There was a little exchange a moment ago between myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in which she talked about heads as being providers of education. We are using words in different ways here. By "providers of education", I am referring to providers of schools; that is, those who provide the money which enables schools to operate. Others might be described as deliverers of education—teachers, head teachers, and so on.
46
School organisation committees are a way of enabling those who are providers of education to meet to reach agreed decisions. There has been a great deal of talk this afternoon about quangos and unelected bodies. I think that there are four bodies concerned here: the LEA; the Diocesan Board of Education; those appointed by Roman Catholic bishops; and the FEFC. Diocesan boards of education are not quangos. They are elected bodies. They are elected by a system different from that which will elect an LEA. Each of those bodies is accountable for the way in which it uses the funds to provide schools for education.
The point of the school organisation committee is to enable those providers to meet to reach an agreed decision where there is any possibility of any disagreement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston: I do not see that happening too often with those bodies. They will not be open to all and sundry to be influenced by this or that consideration. They are accountable, as I have said, to their particular constituencies which provide the money for education.
A great deal of this afternoon's talk has been a little wide of the mark. I have been confused by it. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has it right: we have here those who are responsible for providing finances; and we have a structure enabling them to meet to reach decisions in cases where there might be some disagreement. As each of those providers is significant, a unanimous vote is required. If one of them votes against a scheme, that will be regarded as a veto. I have no difficulty with that. Some of the difficulties have been due merely to a misunderstanding of the nature of this committee.
I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talk about schools groups. By that I took him to mean groups of people with educational interests which would be advisors to the school organisation committee. That is entirely right. At the end of the day, those decisions lie with those bodies, all of which are accountable, many of which are elected, although not necessarily by the same process. It is a perfectly proper structure.
Baroness Blatch: When we have long debates in this place, at the end we have often cleared up what we understand by the words on the page. The longer this debate has gone on, the more confused I have become. I do not normally take issue with the right reverend Prelate, but I am sorry to say that I take issue with his interpretation of the Bill.
If we say the organisation committee is a group of people who are providers, and that providers are people who provide money, then the FEFC does not provide money for schools. Governors do not provide money or education for schools. So immediately the interpretation that the right reverend Prelate puts on this organisation committee, and his understanding of it, is wrong. They are not providers. The only groups on that body which could genuinely be told to put up money would be the Churches which provide 15 per cent. of the funding for schools and the LEAs which provide for schools.
The people who provide the money for schools come from the local community. The LEA has no money unless it comes from taxpayers at large, nationally, or the local

47
community locally. That is the money that it has to spend. These committees do not have the very teachers for which they pay represented on them. There is nothing in the Bill about the groups which will advise the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said that the committees will be advised by specialists and special needs people, but there is nothing in the Bill about that. There is no requirement that they should be advised by these interest groups. There is no naming of these interest groups. Head teachers will have no part of this. The people who, in my book, provide education, are those who stand in the classroom and teach the children. I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, at whatever stage of the proceedings he decides to put this issue to the vote. I should prefer to walk through the Lobby on this Motion rather than on the other amendments. This clause has no part in the Bill and in a democratic country.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I do not want to reiterate what we said earlier. The deletion of the clause would remove a substantial part of the Government's strategy to achieve devolution, decision-making, and a new and clear partnership between LEAs and other providers.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for spelling out what, in these terms, providers of education are. They are the bodies that we have designated as members of the school organisation committees. The expertise to which the noble Baroness referred will be available to all of those providers and to the committee itself. We do not normally spell out in any education Bill precisely what expertise would be available. But the central role of the committee is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that we need to be clear about how and where decisions are made. The how of these decisions is that they are made in partnership by consensus by the providers of education in the technical sense. The where is that they are made at the most local level available. Occasionally that will break down. It frequently breaks down at the moment. Appeals will have landed up on the desk of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and other Secretaries of State.
This is an attempt to push down the decision to the providers of education at the local level; to sit them down together in a new institution. It is for the LEA and the other providers to reach, as far as possible, through the stages to which the noble Lord referred, a unanimous position on what is best for the provision of education in their area, taking account of all the interests within that area. It is local; it is devolved; it is by consensus; and it is in partnership.
If the noble Lord wishes to persist with this opposition and delete the clause, we shall be deleting a substantial part of the Government's strategy to achieve those aims. I do not believe that that is what the Liberal Democrat Party wishes to do. It wishes to seek partnership, devolution of decisions and consensus among the public sector and other providers within the education system. Consultation on these proposals has revealed widespread
48
support for devolving decisions. There is widespread support for the involvement of all the providers in a single decision-making process.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister tell the Committee what the Local Government Association thinks of the proposals?
Lord Whitty: The Local Government Association has expressed some concerns similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. There are differing views within local government and the teaching profession, and among those who advise the teaching profession. However, the key position of the Local Government Association and others involved in local education is that they wish to see decisions devolved.
Deletion of the clause would remove the element of partnership. It would reinstate the position that any disputed decision is referred back up to national level. That is not what the Local Government Association wants. It is not what I believe the education system of this country needs. We are instituting formal partnerships which in many cases build on good informal partnerships and consultation. We are building on a system which will require decisions to be made as far as possible at local level.
Clearly any such system will require a fail-safe device. That issue will be debated on a subsequent clause. The key issue on this clause, and the whole strategy of school organisation in the Bill, is that decisions will be devolved. The pressure will be on the providers of education to reach consensus on those decisions, and for the number of appeals above and beyond the local level to be as limited as possible, as my noble friend Lord Peston, indicated. At present there is no pressure to reach agreement. There is only pressure for decisions to be raised with the Secretary of State, often on a political basis.
The proposal is a sensible move. It will require some detailed regulations. It will require further consultation on precisely how it is carried out. But I urge the Committee to reject any move which deletes the clause and thereby deletes the concept of partnership and devolution of decisions on school organisation.
Baroness Byford: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify this point for me. At present decisions are made at local level. Although I am a newcomer to this Chamber, and a comparative newcomer to the education field, I understand that at present unless a dispute at local level is sorted out locally the matter comes to the Secretary of State. The Bill proposes another level of bureaucracy over and above that in existence. The issue will not pass to someone who is democratically elected, the Secretary of State, but to an adjudicator. Are my assumptions correct?
Lord Whitty: In practice they are not exactly correct. At present the LEA makes its proposals. Then any interested group, other provider, or substantial element of the community can object, and those objections can be referred to the Secretary of State. In other words,

49
there is no pressure to reach agreement at local level. This proposal institutionalises a pressure to reach agreement at local level. Our assumption is that eventually the number of references beyond that local level will be limited.
Baroness Maddock: I hear with interest what the Minister says. I understand that the majority of local authorities do not simply make decisions about closures of schools. There is considerable consultation. I have been involved in it. It does not matter which side one is on, it is painful. However, at the end of the day if one does not like the decision one can vote out the people who made that decision. That is the point we have been trying to bring home to the Government Benches all afternoon.
Lord Whitty: Clearly local education authorities involve themselves in substantial consultation. As the noble Baroness says, it is often lengthy and painful. That will remain the case. The local education authority and school organisation committee will continue to consult widely. The difference from the pre-existing situation is that the existence of the school organisation committee and the involvement in a structured partnership of all the providers will put the emphasis on reaching agreement at that level, not on appealing to the Secretary of State to take a decision over and above the local education authority and local views.
Baroness Young: What the Minister says is an absolute travesty of what happens in local government today. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lady Blatch, are important. It is an unbelievably muddled clause. We have not had a single straight answer to any of the questions raised. Instead we are given a string of New Labour words which are a substitute for thought—partnership, consultation, co-operation, or getting on well together.
Let us consider a future local authority in which there is a Conservative majority—there are plenty of them, and more will come, mark my words!—and the Labour people are in the minority. The Government Minister will say, "Of course you must all co-operate together and reach an agreement". That will be the day, unless the Labour Government at that stage have changed their minds on yet more issues and agree with everything that the Conservatives say. That of course is quite a possibility.
In the real world of this Bill, we have constitution-making on the hoof. We do not know the cost, the size of the committees, who will sit on those committees or the role of the advisers. We know nothing except that it is another layer of bureaucracy, and another cost which will come off the budgets of the schools. That is one of the matters that has emerged from the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right to say that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. The Government should think the whole thing through properly and come back with another proposal at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may add one small point to those made by my noble friend, with whom I agree. The
50
noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is wrong. The organisation committee does not take on a decision when the local authority cannot reach a decision. As those of us who have served on local authorities know, local authorities come to a view at the end of a long process of consultation, meetings with people eyeball to eyeball, and discussions with a church authority, parents, teachers and head teachers.
The organisation committee, which is comprised of unelected placemen and women, second guesses that decision. If the committee agrees, that is the end of it. The local authority—the elected members—may have come to a view; the organisation committee which is unaccountable to the people affected by the decision may be unanimous and take a different view from the local authority; or one group on that body could disagree and go to the adjudicator.
When we discuss amendments as regards the adjudicator, I hope that the Minister will not do us the discourtesy of talking of local levels. If I were an adjudicator covering just two counties in my part of the country, I could not claim sufficient special knowledge of schools in Suffolk or Norfolk to be able to make judgments about whether they should open, close, merge, be enlarged, or be made smaller. That would not be a local decision. If there were a Norfolk adjudicator on a Cambridgeshire school committee, we would be closer geographically to the Secretary of State in London than to someone in Norwich. The noble Lord cannot use that argument as regards the amendments relating to the adjudicator.
This clause should not stand part of the Bill. It may well be part of government policy, but it has not been thought through.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It has been made clear that the membership of this committee consists of those people who make a financial contribution to the provision of education in the area. I believe that I am right in saying that those people already sit on the education committee. They do in the county where I was a member of the education committee for several years.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, the local education authority comes to a decision. That decision has involved the people who assist the LEA with the provision of education. That decision is then submitted to a second judgment. The same people sit in judgment upon the decision which has already been made with their co-operation. On the one hand one might ask why we have this clause because the Government's objective is already satisfied by the present construction of administration through the education committees. On the other hand, it may be that one of the parties is not entirely in accord with the decision that went through the normal processes.
In this context let us not talk about school closures, but let us talk about something less controversial: for example, the school plan. If a party is less satisfied than others, or not satisfied but accepts that there is a majority in favour of what they do not like, then the situation is that there is a veto on that decision which has been taken by the majority in the education committee. That introduces something which, to my way of thinking, is most unsatisfactory.

51
The second unsatisfactory point is that at present, even when the decision has been taken by the local representatives and the local providers of education the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who is not present, was referring,—namely, the parents,—still have a say. However, as I understand it, under this system they do not. The adjudicator is adjudicating between a committee which is composed of the LEA and the providers but the two are in different groups. That is a recipe for muddle, disaster and the exclusion of very important interests in the community who, up until now, have been able to challenge the education authority's decision. I include among those interests the ones represented by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other people in this Chamber. That is a rotten substitute for what is now a reasonably well organised system.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I shall reply briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, accuses me of using new Labour phraseology. I am not often accused of that, so if the noble Baroness could put it in writing it could do me some good.
It seems to me that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has understood the concept of partnership between the providers. We keep talking about vetoes and we keep talking about the school organisation committee overriding the local education authority. We are talking about a new system of partnership, a new atmosphere which will prevail at local level so that we can at least have a good chance of reaching consensus.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, seems to think that there will always be somebody among the providers, who are clearly fairly determined, who will try to overturn what has otherwise been a rational decision, taken after consultation with all the parties concerned. That will not normally be the case.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I said clearly that either there will be agreement, in which case the committee is superfluous, or that if there is disagreement then the disagreement can overturn the previously made decision. I thought I had made myself perfectly clear on that point.
Lord Whitty: The disagreement will not overturn a previous position where all the providers have been equal parties. Certainly all the providers may have been consulted and may be represented on the local education committee, but they will not have been treated as equal partners in that decision. We are concerned with partnership, with consensus and with devolving decisions. That is what this clause is about. That is what would be removed from the Bill by the deletion of this clause. I would, therefore, ask the House to reject the noble Lord's Motion to delete this clause unless he is prepared to withdraw it at this point.
Lord Tope: It is clear that consensus and unanimity has not broken out in the Chamber this afternoon. The
52
Minister suggests that to oppose this clause is to oppose partnership and the devolution of power. That is absolute nonsense.
I object also to the suggestion that the concept of partnership is something either new or, even worse, new Labour. For many of us in local government in all parties—making a particular party point—it has been the way that good local government has worked for years and years. It was a central point of my own party's manifesto in 1986. It is not new. It is the way we work. It is essential to the committee basis of local government that it tries to work in that way.
I object strongly to it being suggested that to oppose this clause is to oppose partnership. The opposite is the truth. Here we are talking about an enforced, imposed partnership with statutory powers overriding those of the democratically elected body.
We are suggesting again that there should be devolution of decision making. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, properly recognised, my party has been pre-eminent in proclaiming for years the advantages as regards devolution of decision making. I strongly support that and to be accused of not doing so by somebody who, a moment ago, told us that he was really old Labour and of the old centralist style just about takes the biscuit.
We have been talking about the devolution of the real power. We had an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about what happens with what will be called school organisation plans. Where agreement has been achieved, where there is consensus, where there is no dissent, it may well be that that plan or that proposal, has to go to the Secretary of State. It is extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State, having received no objections to it, is then going to throw it out or amend it. I doubt that has ever happened. It is extremely unlikely.
We are talking about the situation where consensus and agreement have not been reached and who makes that decision. That decision has not been devolved to anybody. It will be removed to an adjudicator, appointed by the Secretary of State, without even the accountability of a planning appeal inspector. That is not devolution. It is the opposite of devolution.
As the afternoon has worn on, I have become more and more tempted to press the issue to a vote. I shall not do so at this stage because I am aware that we have taken a lot of time. On this occasion, I shall withdraw my objection, but we shall certainly return to it at the next stage.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nuclear Tests in India and Pakistan
5.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on India/Pakistan nuclear testing which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government of Pakistan have declared that they carried out six nuclear tests—five on Thursday, and a further one on Saturday. We recognise that the Government of Pakistan were under immense pressure to conduct these tests to match those initiated by India. But we are dismayed by the decision to respond in kind and believe that the interests of Pakistan have been badly served by their decision to do so.
"Pakistan's foremost concern is its national security. That security has not been strengthened by these tests. Long-term security for Pakistan can only come from lowering tension with India and building mutual confidence within the region. It cannot be built on the unstable foundation of an arms race, which will only raise tensions. Already it can be seen from news reports from the region that the voices that have been encouraged by the recent confrontation are the voices of extremism.
"But Pakistan's loss is wider than its own reduced security. Pakistan had the chance to win international support and respect for its restraint. That opportunity has now been lost. As with India, the effect of the nuclear tests by Pakistan has been to diminish, not to enhance, the status of that country within the international community.
"We have made clear to the Government of Pakistan our dismay at their decision. The Pakistani High Commissioner was summoned to the Foreign Office the day after the first tests to receive a message for his Government of our concern. I have recalled the British High Commissioner from Islamabad for consultation in London.
"We have already taken a number of measures to bring home to the Government of India the strength of our concern at their nuclear test programme. Last week we cancelled the visit by the Indian Chief of Naval Staff and we have also cancelled a forthcoming visit by their Chief of Army Staff. At the meeting last week of the General Affairs Council of the European Union, we obtained agreement to a Presidency text which invited the Commission to review India's preferential trade treatment. Having taken such steps against India, I would expect comparable measures to be agreed by European partners against Pakistan for similar action by it.
"Britain's aid programme, unlike that of some other countries, is directly targeted on providing help to the poorest people in the poorest regions. We remain convinced that it would be wrong to penalize the most vulnerable citizens in either country by suspending that aid programme.
54
"However no one, least of all governments of both countries, should under-state the economic price that they will pay for isolation within the international community. Already the value of the Indian rupee has fallen. Last week, the Indian Government offered 1 billion dollars of government bonds and got no takers. In May, there was a net outflow of foreign institutional investment. And last week the World Bank deferred three loans to India for energy and highways projects of almost a billion dollars as a result of objections by member states including Britain.
"The adverse impact of these economic developments will make it more difficult for India or Pakistan to reduce poverty. That is why it would be a tragedy if both their governments were to persist in an arms race to acquire the most expensive of weapons, which will do nothing to help the millions of their citizens who live in poverty.
"A regional arms race would also have an impact which would stretch far beyond the region. Other states who have already demonstrated their interest in acquiring nuclear weapon technology will be watching closely how the international community now responds to the precedent set by India and Pakistan. Their nuclear programmes therefore are not merely an internal matter for the two countries, but are a legitimate matter of concern for the world.
"At the suggestion of the United States, the permanent five members of the Security Council will meet on Thursday in Geneva to discuss the security implications of the nuclear test programmes and the heightened tension in the region. As President of the G8, Britain has called a meeting of their Foreign Ministers in London next week. That meeting will co-ordinate the response of the leading economies to the nuclear test programmes and how we can best promote dialogue with India and Pakistan and between India and Pakistan. There must be two strategic objectives in our dialogue with those countries.
"First, we must press India and Pakistan to sign up to the global regime against nuclear proliferation. The best way to reduce tension in the region would be for both India and Pakistan now to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to join in the negotiations at Geneva without conditions and to halt the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Neither the interests of Pakistan nor India, nor those of any other country in the world, are served by encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons.
"The second objective must be to tackle the roots of the tension between both countries. There needs to be a meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan over the issues that at present threaten stability in the region. Their security would be much better promoted by confidence-building measures than by nuclear testing programmes.
"The balance which we must seek in our approach to this issue is to confront firmly the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but without seeking confrontation with the peoples of India or Pakistan.

55
Britain has a long history of close ties with both countries and millions of people in Britain have community links with relatives throughout the sub-continent. Britain therefore does not voice its dismay at the recent nuclear tests out of hostility. On the contrary, it is as a friend of both countries that Britain is appalled at the risks and costs to the peoples of the sub-continent from a nuclear arms race. I ask the whole House to show our united resolve in condemning the nuclear tests and in calling for the Governments of both India and Pakistan to stop testing and to start talking".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. From these Benches, we share the Government's dismay and disappointment at the nuclear tests conducted last week by the Pakistani Government in a blatant show of disregard for international opinion. We share the sorrow and regret that Pakistan did not heed the international calls for restraint, since these tests fly in the face of worldwide efforts against testing and nuclear proliferation.
Pakistan's decision to conduct its nuclear tests in response to India's tests earlier in May has escalated the already considerable tension in the Indian sub-continent. These tests take Pakistan and India several steps beyond the sabre-rattling enmity that has existed between them for the past 50 years. The world has now openly been brought closer to the spectre of a deadly nuclear arms race in the region which could have grave ramifications for the international community, even though we have suspected this for some time.
Does the Minister believe that sufficient efforts were made by the international community at the G8 summit in Birmingham to induce Pakistan to exercise restraint? What security guarantees were offered to Pakistan in the event of an Indian attack and what assistance was offered to Pakistan? What efforts did the British Government, in particular, make to persuade Pakistan not to conduct its nuclear tests? What further representations do the Government propose to make to the Government of Pakistan following the withdrawal of our High Commissioner there?
From these Benches, we support the Government in their insistence that both Pakistan and India must adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that both countries must enter into negotiations on a global treaty to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. What immediate action are the Government taking to ensure that these two nations refrain from further tests and from the deployment of nuclear warheads or ballistic missiles and that they abide by the global non-proliferation regime?
Does the Minister accept that if any kind of exception is made for India and Pakistan to become full nuclear powers it sets a precedent for other countries which lack the democratic credentials, but which wish to develop
56
their own nuclear capability? Furthermore, what steps are the Government taking, together with our international partners, to ensure that the examples of India and Pakistan do not give the impression to other Asian and Middle Eastern powers that the possession of a nuclear arsenal is an effective short-cut route to a say at the world's negotiating tables? Does the Minister agree that the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir will be a continuing cause of conflict between these two nations? What assessment have the Government made of recent reports in Indian newspapers that the Indian tests were in fact a response to a Chinese-Pakistan attempt to thwart its nuclear weapons programme?
Finally, can the Minister give the House further details about the summit she mentioned due to take place in London on 12th June to co-ordinate efforts to bring nuclear activities in India and Pakistan under international supervision, announced by the Foreign Secretary? What success does the Minister expect this meeting to have, given the failure of the G8 summit to prevent Pakistan's nuclear tests?
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Perhaps I can echo the words of Secretary Cohen, the US Secretary for Defense, that this may be the most dangerous moment for the world since the Cuban missile crisis. It is important that we recognise how much could be at stake.
In that context, has there been any response to the call for both nations to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as soon as possible? Can the Minister comment on further international measures and sanctions which have been taken? I understand that the EBRD, for example, has suspended a loan to India and that the International Monetary Fund is reconsidering the next stage of its assistance to that country. Perhaps the Minister can bring us up to date on the steps which have been taken internationally.
Does she believe that there is a possibility that India and Pakistan might reconsider their unwillingness to discuss the situation in Kashmir, in view of the extreme escalation implied by the fact that they are both now nuclear powers? Does the Commonwealth offer any possible bridge to bring those two nations together with a view to a peaceful settlement?
Finally, perhaps I may ask her two questions with regard to the wider architecture of the world concerning nuclear proliferation and the attempts to try to bring about nuclear disarmament. It is easy for the nuclear powers, in a sense, to dismiss their own responsibility from the day when, in 1970, they first signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under Article 6 of that treaty a clear responsibility rested upon them. It was a responsibility to seek forms of multilateral disarmament in the nuclear field and to take steps to limit the production of fissile materials, particularly uranium and plutonium. Virtually nothing has happened in the intervening 20 years, for which I certainly do not blame the present Government. But the truth of the matter is that nothing has happened.

57
I wonder whether the Minister can respond to us by saying whether the Security Council permanent members when they meet, followed by the G8 members when they meet, could look again at the possibility of considering a new initiative in the field of international nuclear disarmament and control over fissile materials globally.
I fear that unless we take much more dramatic steps than have so far been discussed, this may be the beginning of a long slide towards a world of nuclear powers where sooner or later nuclear weapons are almost bound to be used.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their support for the Statement which I have made to the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about sufficient efforts made at the G8. I believe that very considerable efforts were made, not only at the G8 conference itself but by various leaders following up the G8 in the approaches which were made to Pakistan at the highest levels.
We understand, as my right honourable friend's Statement made clear, the pressure under which Pakistan has been working, but we also understand that Pakistan had a considerable opportunity to earn credit over restraint and sadly did not take that opportunity. But no one left any stone unturned with Pakistan in trying to persuade them of the wisdom of that course of action rather than the one which they eventually decided to take.
We have made a démarche with Pakistan to try to persuade them that they should now desist from any further activity in this sphere. The High Commissioner in London was summoned to the Foreign Office and there has been a considerable amount of diplomatic action, as was made clear from my right honourable friend's Statement. We have withdrawn for consultation our High Commissioner in Islamabad.
The noble Baroness then went on to ask me what more was being done. The permanent members of the Security Council are meeting on Thursday of this week. The GAC will be meeting on Monday of next week and the G8 will be meeting on Friday of next week discussing these matters in particular. So I think that in all the arenas open to us at the moment we are making every effort to ensure that the international community is able to co-ordinate its response to the situation which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has rightly described as an extremely serious one and one which is acting against the interests of stability in what we understand is a very fragile part of the world.
Of course, we are also trying to persuade both countries to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked if we have had any indications of whether they might be willing to do so. I have not heard anything through official channels. All I can tell the noble Baroness is probably what she is aware of already, that there have been some reports that the Indians have indicated that
58
they are willing to consider that, but with certain conditions. Of course, it is that conditionality which will probably prove to be extremely difficult. But I say that only as informed opinion at the moment rather than from any particular information that we have directly from the Indian Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also asked about the continuing conflict in Kashmir. Of course, we know that this is the really neuralgic and difficult point between India and Pakistan. As regards a similar Statement that I made in your Lordships' House the other day we discussed the volatile situation in Kashmir.
The noble Baroness said that India claims that it had itself undergone nuclear tests because of the Chinese/Pakistan axis. She will also know that the Pakistanis have said that they undertook their nuclear tests because they believed that they were about to suffer some sort of attack from India. There can be endless speculation from both sides about who did what first and the reasons for it. But we are left with the inescapable position that, as a result of the nuclear testing in both countries, the stabilisation of that part of the world has been severely undermined. Undoubtedly, the position over Kashmir is one of the potent factors involved in that undermining.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also asked about what further action was being taken. At the General Affairs Committee on 25th May there was a strong declaration issued. It was agreed that member states would work for deferral of the consideration of IFI loans in India. Partners also agreed to take all necessary measures should India not accede to and move swiftly to ratify the relevant non-proliferation agreements, including the CTBT.
The noble Baroness then went on to ask about what she described as the lack of action in relation to discussions over fissile materials. Her Majesty's Government are taking a leading part in the negotiations on fissile material in Geneva at the moment. We shall, of course, do everything we can to continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I would remind your Lordships that currently 149 countries around the world have acceded to the test ban treaties and 186 to the non-proliferation treaty. So I think that despite these very considerable difficulties that we are now experiencing as regards the position of India and Pakistan, the position of the major countries of the world is that the nuclear test ban treaties should be supported and we must do everything we can, both bilaterally as a friend of India and Pakistan, and through the multilateral opportunities open to us, to persuade both countries that the wisdom of their position lies in signing those treaties too.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we must thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement from another place. What she has had to say to us would have been more than adequate had we been discussing any weapon other than the nuclear weapon. I think there is a tendency for us to shudder away from the reality of the nuclear weapon.

59
It is almost a condition of life that no one likes to contemplate his own death. I can remember that being so during the war. No pilot ever got into a cockpit without a firm belief that he would be the one to come back. If that was not so, he would not have been able to take off.
Humanity generally shudders against and refuses to consider the possibility of the elimination of his own species. Therefore, if one is discussing this, as we have been doing, in terms of talking about an ordinary weapon, we ignore the reality. I am not alone in this point of view, of course. The prestigious Oxford Research Group takes a similar view. I shall quote from a statement made by them on this subject.
"The choice is, quite starkly, between arranging for the elimination of nuclear weapons, or anticipating their proliferation to many other countries and sub-state groups".
The Government must have known that that would happen. I say that because, time and again, at the United Nations the Indian representative made the point that, unless the nuclear states were prepared to consider seriously becoming non-nuclear states and moving towards the elimination of such weapons, India would have no alternative but to develop a nuclear weapon.
A noble Lord: What is the question?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there is very limited time available. Several noble Lords wish to speak and my noble friend should really pose a question on the Statement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am sorry, my Lords—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend has a question for the Minister.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the question that I intended to ask my noble friend the Minister is this. Why do the Government refuse to take the step of bringing a certain amount of reality into our discussions on the matter? Why do the Government refuse to say that a nuclear conflict spreading throughout the world would probably result in the end of our civilisation and, indeed, in the extinction of humanity?
The Oxford Research Group has said that that is a possibility. Therefore, does not my noble friend the Minister recognise that to refuse to pay attention to the point I raised, actually avoids and fails to respond to the present situation by removing its gravity and its reality? Is that not the view of my noble friend?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am most dismayed to feel that my noble friend does not think that the Government are dealing with the matter with what he described as a certain amount of "reality". Of course, a nuclear conflict in any part of the world would be disastrous. Indeed, when repeating the Statement, I stated that Britain is appalled by the risks and the costs to the people of the sub-Continent from a nuclear arms race. The Statement also said very clearly and unequivocally that this is not just a regional matter
60
for India and Pakistan; it is a matter for the peoples of the whole world. Other countries throughout the world, perhaps some who are thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons, will be watching very closely what we are doing. That is why there is unprecedented diplomatic activity, as I described in detail when responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, which will take place over the next 10 days to ensure that everything that can be done will be done to discourage both countries from continuing down this path.
My noble friend said that the Government have not done enough and that we should condemn what has happened. I should point out to him that I condemned it unequivocally when repeating the Statement. Britain was the first nuclear power to ratify the CTBT in April of this year. We also withdrew our freefall bomb in March of this year. Our ambitions were clearly stated in the election manifesto in relation to eventual nuclear disarmament through a process of verification and balanced nuclear disarmament throughout the nuclear powers.
Our position is an ambitious but practical one. I am extraordinarily dismayed that my noble friend should think that we are in any way not dealing with the matter seriously or that we have not dealt with it in a realistic manner.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her generous words about friendship for both India and Pakistan. In view of that friendship, will the noble Baroness agree that there is a certain amount of hyping-up of the tension rather than actually trying to improve matters? Perhaps I may also take the liberty to say that I was dismayed to hear the Defence Secretary in the United States, Mr. Cohen, say that this was the same as the Bay of Pigs situation. I was in the US in 1961 and, at that time, China attacked India. It was extremely serious. I know that it was a long time ago and that perhaps the noble Baroness will not remember. However, everyone was absolutely immersed in the situation in the Bay of Pigs and no one in the international community was in the least bit interested in what was happening to India vis-à-vis China.
The Minister must accept the fact that India does not expect the international community to jump up and come to its aid if any other aggression takes place from outside—and that does not include Pakistan. Further, does the noble Baroness realise the true position of Pakistan? How could Pakistan not have followed that course of action? It needed to do so because of internal consumption. The Pakistani Government would have found it extremely difficult to cope with a situation where India had undertaken five nuclear tests while Pakistan had undertaken none. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider the internal situations and, indeed, the immediate situations in the surrounding countries and that she will try not to hype-up the situation to the extent that it has been hyped-up by the international community.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in all these issues there is, as the noble Baroness suggests, a fine line to tread between, on the one hand,

61
recognising that there is a grave situation as regards the nuclear testing that has just taken place, and, on the other, going over the top—if I may use a colloquialism—or hyping-up such situations.
The noble Baroness referred to the friendship that the UK has for both India and Pakistan. That means that we are in a position to put forward our views to both countries, but to do so as a friend and not in a spirit of hostility. We must remember that in this country we have large communities of Pakistani-British and Indian-British people with relatives and friends in Pakistan and India who will be most concerned about the heightening of tension between the two countries. The noble Baroness should be in no doubt that that tension has undoubtedly been heightened by the events of the past two or three weeks.
I turn now to whether or not we are overstating the case. It was extremely distressing to read reports of the celebrations which took place in both India and Pakistan in honour of the exploding of their nuclear weapons. The noble Baroness mentioned the comparison that the US Defence Secretary, Mr. Cohen, made, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and said that it was not necessarily helpful. We are where we are today. Therefore, trying to make comparisons with where we have been during the past 10, 20 or 30 years is probably not a very helpful comparison to make.
I can tell the noble Baroness that I do remember the Bay of Pigs incident. I remember it very clearly because I was a very frightened schoolgirl when it happened. In my view, anything that we can do to help lessen the tension between India and Pakistan at present by talking to them and by getting the international fora, which I described earlier, to put forward the views of a number of different nations and, indeed, by persuading them, if we can, to have a dialogue with each other to lessen the tension in that part of the world, will be enormously important.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the Statement. Any nuclear test by anyone, anywhere, is an event that all peace-loving people profoundly regret. India and Pakistan may have had their policy compulsions—in some ways understandable—but nuclear testing is a defeat for peace, for compassion and for the ethic of goodwill between states and peoples.
Although I welcome the Government's approach—namely, to use diplomacy and not economic threats—can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether they will continue on that path? These situations underline the need for international co-operation and the co-ordination of diplomatic efforts. Economic threats, especially sanctions, achieve little in today's world; indeed, they alienate countries to such an extent that they often impede diplomacy. Sanctions will work only if they are universal, and where can universality be achieved in today's world? Moreover, sanctions give opportunities for various dubious business interests, especially those with shady international connections, to make sneak profits by circumventing the law. No government should encourage that. I hope the Government will make sure that it does not happen.
62
Will the Government sustain their efforts at multilateral diplomacy and work within the framework of the great goodwill that exists towards Britain in both India and Pakistan? That goodwill, which is almost unique in the context of history, must be nurtured. I welcome the Statement and I hope that the Government will pursue their policy of diplomacy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support. I remind my noble friend that the General Affairs Council of the European Union agreed on 25th May that member states should work for the deferral of consideration of IFI loans to India, and that partners should also agree to take necessary measures should India not accede to and move towards the relevant non-proliferation agreements. It is only fair to remind my noble friend of that point. As I have already indicated, we shall consult with our EU partners on any comparable measures that may have the same impact on Pakistan. Sanctions, of course, take a number of different forms. We must be clear that we are concerned that we do not start to undermine the aid effort to the poorest people in both countries. I hope that my right honourable friend's Statement made that clear. There are over 300 million desperately poor people in India who live on less than 1 US dollar a day. Cutting off aid would hurt them and not impair India's nuclear programme.
We are concerned that in both India and Pakistan the consequences of any renewed arms race may divert scarce resources from vital productive development and their efforts to reduce poverty and to improve their education provision. I can give my noble friend the assurance, at least in part, not necessarily that there will be no sanctions of any economic nature against either country, but that we shall do everything we can to sustain the diplomatic effort. We are enormously conscious of the importance of trying to sustain aid programmes which help the poorest people in those countries.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise that I was not present to hear the beginning of the Statement. I recognise the dangers in this situation. However, like my noble friend Lady Flather, I wonder whether this is the best time to talk of threats, sanctions and lectures and to indulge in handwringing. Have we all completely forgotten that the best outcome of the events in the region is the mutual deterrent effect and the stabilising effect, as we learnt in the cold war? Have we now forgotten that reality that we had to face in the past? Does the present situation not pose an opportunity as much as a danger; namely, for us to press ahead to put the whole non-proliferation regime on a far more effective, less disguised and covert basis? We must understand the position of both Islamabad and Delhi and try to bring them into the regime in an effort to establish a much better basis for non-proliferation in the future, and ultimately a test ban and a reduction in nuclear weapons worldwide.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course we want to bring both countries into the regime

63
of the non-proliferation treaty and to persuade them to sign the test ban treaty. However, Her Majesty's Government would find it difficult to agree with the noble Lord's remarks on mutual deterrence. If that policy were pursued, it is inevitable that other countries, perhaps in the Middle East, may decide that they will develop their nuclear deterrence on the basis that it will constitute mutual deterrence between two countries. I believe that is the policy of despair as regards nuclear disarmament. I hope it is not a policy that commands a great deal of support in your Lordships' House.
However, I agree strongly with the noble Lord's remarks about not indulging in threats and handwringing. I hope that the Statement did not indulge in either threats or handwringing. I believe the Statement is rather well balanced, but then, "I would say that, wouldn't I?" I hope that if the noble Lord has the opportunity to read it in full, he will agree with me. We must do everything we can to persuade both countries that their best interests lie—now that they both have a nuclear deterrent—in not proceeding with their nuclear programmes and in considering the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must try to persuade them to sign the test ban treaty as quickly as possible.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is not the situation much more urgent than the noble Baroness has indicated? We cannot wait until the test ban treaty is signed or until the sanctions become effective. Would it not be better to work towards a "no first use" agreement by both sides? Perhaps non-nuclear powers such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries should give a lead in this matter, as both India and Pakistan do not trust the nuclear powers to deal fairly with them.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the situation can be described as urgent although I take the point made earlier about not "hyping-up" the situation to a point where we become more excited than the situation merits at present. The noble Lord is correct to say that we must do what we can to persuade both countries not to adopt a first strike position. I am reminded that Argentina and Brazil, for example, both stopped their nuclear programmes mutually at the same time through the agreement of both countries. There is also the example of the South African programme which was stopped. When countries decide that they are prepared to take a step away from developing nuclear weapons, there are encouraging examples of what can be achieved. We also have the encouraging examples of those countries which have already decided to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the test ban treaty.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, will she inform the House whether it is the United States or Britain which has convened the G8 foreign ministers' conference and what is the objective of that conference? Will it be in the interests of the people of India and Pakistan not to develop any sanctions policies because, as the Minister rightly pointed out, that will affect the very people one wants to help? Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady
64
Williams, asked about the role of the Commonwealth countries. Will the Minister take into account the role that the Commonwealth Secretariat can perform in trying to establish some kind of rapport between those two countries? India and Pakistan are more likely to listen to other Commonwealth countries than to the United States and Britain. Anyone who knows of the resolve of India and Pakistan at the time of independence will realise that sanctions or force will have no effect whatever on those countries.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as president of the G8, Britain proposed a meeting in London on Friday of next week to discuss these matters. The United States proposed that the permanent five members of the Security Council should meet on Thursday of this week in Geneva. As I said, we hold the presidency of the G8 at the moment. Your Lordships may be interested to know that this matter is being discussed in the United Nations. Britain is doing everything it can to try to ensure that the discussion in the United Nations has some impact on both the countries concerned.
The noble Lord also asked about the position vis-à-vis the Commonwealth. I am sure that any international forum that can be used will be used in this situation. It is always a matter of striking a balance between what was described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as "hand-wringing" on the one hand, and being able to say something practical and useful on the other. I am sure that if there is any practical role that the Commonwealth can play it will be willing to do so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had the prescribed 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions on this Statement. I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, with respect, a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber took five minutes on one question. Perhaps I may briefly ask one simple question—with permission—I am the only one who has been here for all—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think noble Lords are aware that 20 minutes is the tight timetable on a Statement. I believe that we should observe the normal convention. I therefore move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Bill
6.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 4 [School organisation committees]:
[Amendment No. 106 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 117, line 11, at end insert ("of those voting").
The noble Lord said: These amendments clarify some points of detail in relation to the voting arrangements for school organisation committees. They are all government amendments. Amendment No. 106A would put beyond doubt the ability of a school organisation committee to reach a unanimous decision in the absence from a particular meeting of one or more groups or if one or more groups abstains. The Bill as drafted left the matter in some doubt. For the avoidance of paranoia, we shall also specify in regulations that there should be a minimum period of notice which those convening meetings of the committee should give to members so that they are not excluded through lack of notice. The amendment also clarifies that, where a group on a school organisation committee has reservations about a proposal, it may express them by abstaining. That is a third option for groups on the committee.
I shall also speak to Amendment No. 106B and the remaining government amendments in this group. Amendment No. 106B follows from discussions that took place between my noble friend the Minister and her ministerial colleagues and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who originally tabled Amendment No. 106 for this group.
It has always been our intention that there should be two Church groups on each school organisation committee, one representing the Church of England and one the Roman Catholic Church. We have always intended, too, that decisions on school organisation plans should require the unanimous vote of the school organisation committee. We had intended that those points of detail would be set out in regulations; however, we have no intention of drawing back on the commitments that we have already made in relation to the Churches. On that basis, and following discussion with the right reverend Prelate, we propose that the provision should now be on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 107A and 109A make important statements about maintaining equal opportunities in the organisation of school places and admissions. They secure that decisions taken by school organisation committees or adjudicators take full account of the non-discrimination duties placed on schools and local education authorities under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act. The Equal Opportunities Commission has argued strongly for such a specific duty in the Bill. We share the commission's view that it is important to draw particular attention to the vital need to avoid discrimination in this way. These amendments therefore provide an important safeguard to ensure equal opportunities in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In the previous debate we heard much about unanimous decisions. We now understand that a decision does not in fact have to be unanimous, but unanimous only in relation to those attending the meeting. In other words, if there is a group who for some unavoidable reason cannot be present, even given the minimum period of notice—which is not that long—that group's views can be disregarded for the purposes
66
of reaching what is technically now called a unanimous decision. Will the noble Lord confirm my understanding?
I did not understand the noble Lord's remarks about abstaining. If a decision—short of referring it to an adjudicator—has to be unanimous, and if one of the groups around the table abstains, my understanding is that the decision is not unanimous. However, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks, I do not now understand the intention.
Thirdly, in relation to equal opportunities and discrimination on grounds of either sex or race, this is not the first time that I have objected to these provisions appearing on the face of a Bill—not on the ground that I believe they are not necessary, but on the ground that they are Acts of law with which we are all obliged to conform: if we do not conform, we are in breach of the law. It seems extraordinary that we continue to have to repeat the provision and place specific duties in statute—which is a double positive, not a double negative. Knowing that the committee will have to act in compliance with the law of the land, whatever that law is (certainly both measures referred to are approved statutes), why should this specific duty have to be included in this Bill when the committee or the adjudicator has no option but to obey the law? I should be grateful for clarification of my understanding in regard to the absent group, for some clarification as to what is meant by "abstaining" in relation to whether or not there is a consensus, and clarification as to why the amendments are necessary in relation to discrimination on grounds of sex and/or race.
Lord Whitty: On the second point, it is true that all such bodies would be subject to the general provisions of the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. However, those two Acts place specific duties on local education authorities and governing bodies of schools not to discriminate. These amendments would ensure that the decisions of an organisation committee or an adjudicator would not have the effect of placing local authorities or schools in default of those duties. In other words, the provision squares the circle. It is so that schools, governing bodies or local education authorities are not placed in jeopardy as the result of a decision by a body not explicitly covered by the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
In relation to the question of abstention, the noble Baroness is right. We are, in effect, by these clauses defining "unanimous" to include nem. con. That is a usual procedure. Indeed, if any one of the groups wishes to oppose a proposal and therefore trigger a reference to an adjudicator, that group has the right to do so. As regards absence from a particular meeting, the absence would follow an adequate period of notice. If that adequate period of notice were not observed, or if in any other way the absence had been contrived, then there would be redress. However, if the group were simply not there, or decided to abstain, then the decision of the rest would stand as a unanimous decision. I hope that provides clarification.
Baroness Blatch: No, it does not. Will the noble Lord explain why the Health and Safety Act is not

67
included? It is equally an obligation on the part of local authorities. They have a specific obligation under the law in relation to health and safety matters. I imagine that, dealing with provision in schools and with the safety of children, if one accepts the reasoning put forward by the noble Lord, that Act ought also to be included in the Bill. This illustrates the nonsense of having chosen two statutes to be placed on the face of the Bill. I have singled out only one other; there are many more to which local government is specifically obliged to conform, and yet they are not on the face of the Bill. I find the reasoning extraordinary.
My understanding of the Bill now becomes quite alarmist. Is the noble Lord saying that if—after all its deliberations and the pursuit of healthy partnerships with all those with whom it enjoys relationships—a local authority comes to a view which is agreed by the local council within which that local education authority resides, the local authority decision passes to the organisation committee, from which one group or more could be absent for avoidable or unavoidable reasons, or one group or more could abstain, and the remaining groups could vote for a decision that was different from that of the local authority, the decision would be deemed unanimous and thereby overrule that of the local authority? Is that right?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I assume that that would be right only in the case where the local authority were absent. In that case, the situation is no different from the position where a unanimous decision is reached. Clearly, the organisation committee can take a different decision from that taken by the local authority, whatever its voting mechanism.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misunderstands my point. The local authority may be the group that is present. I wish to go through my hypothesis again. If the noble Lord is saying that the groups which are absent have no sway one way or the other and the groups present which choose to abstain have no sway one way or the other, is my hypothesis correct that a local education authority could come to a view about a proposal and pass it to the organisation committee at a time when one or more groups, although properly notified of the meeting, are, for avoidable or unavoidable reasons, absent, when one or more groups could abstain, when the remaining groups could vote for a proposal which was different from that arrived at by the local authority, and when, in order to make sure that my hypothesis works and to remove the argument that the noble Lord was trying to deploy, the LEA could be one of the local groups remaining? Is the noble Lord saying that those voting, whether or not they include the local authority, give rise to a so-called unanimous decision?
Lord Whitty: I suppose the short answer to the noble Baroness is yes because the organisation committee can take a different view from that of the local education authority. Clearly, if people choose not to cast their vote
68
and a decision is therefore deemed unanimous, there could be a decision different from that of the local authority. In cases of unavoidable absence, the committee must be held to have acted irresponsibly in going ahead with the meeting in the absence of one of the parties. However, subject to that, the noble Baroness is right.
Baroness Blatch: Is substitution allowed? If so, can the noble Lord point me to the part of the Bill that allows for substitution? I am thinking now, in a practical way, about a grouping which may, as the noble Lord said earlier to my noble friend Lord Belstead, be as small as one person—in other words, members could be ill on the day of the meeting or simply not be present—or it could be as large as several people. Does the noble Lord still argue that, if one of the groupings is not present, that is the situation that pertains and a substitution would not be allowed?
Lord Whitty: There is no part of the Bill where substitution is allowed, but I suspect that it would be the intention to cover the question of substitution in reasonable circumstances in regulations.
Baroness Blatch: It is important that we know whether or not substitution is allowed. Will it be covered in regulations?
Lord Whitty: I fully suspect that it will be covered by regulations. If the noble Baroness wishes further clarification, I undertake to write to her.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I apologise for not being in my place when the Minister introduced the amendment. Amendments Nos. 106A and 106B replace an amendment in my name and result from conversations we have had. In the light of the earlier debate about the place of school organisation committees, perhaps I may again make the point about why the Churches regard the committees as being so important. There was a good deal of talk, when we were considering Clause 23, about the place of the local education authority and the fact that those authorities have power to make decisions. That is not the case at the moment. In relation to voluntary aided schools, whether we are talking about closure or major changes which might include enlargement or the provision of nursery places, the local education authority has no power to make a decision. It is the Secretary of State to whom that decision has to go. At the moment, therefore, it is not a question of disagreement. What normally happens is that the appropriate Church body will reach agreement with the local education authority that, for example, nursery provision is right. That then has to go to the Secretary of State.
The school organisation committee is in place of the former arrangement. No longer will such a decision go to the Secretary of State. It is not that he was regarded as a court of appeal but that he should be required to give his consent to any such provision. There was inevitably a delay on proposals brought forward by voluntary aided schools. Sometimes that could put us in

69
a position of disadvantage. For instance, in relation to nursery classes, a long delay could mean that by the time the decision was made, the financial year was over and the finance was no longer available. This provision for local decision-making is of considerable importance to the voluntary aided sector. The major providers in that sector are the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, for both of whom I speak. We welcome the proposal but feel that it is necessary that the regulations should specify the issue of unanimity. We take unanimity to mean nemine contradicente; that is to say, that those who are voting vote in favour and those who abstain and those who are not present are not regarded as voting against. We are happy with that arrangement.
Perhaps I may clarify a point which arose in an earlier debate. I made reference to providers and the reasons why I believe that providers are the proper people to be represented on school organisation committees. By "providers" we mean the group of those who provide finance. I made reference to the Further Education Funding Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, picked me up on that. I still believe that I was right in making that comment. I am aware that the Further Education Funding Council does not appear on the face of the Bill, but my understanding is that normally it will be part of the school organisation committee. It is, of course, a provider of education for those in the sixth-form age group. Sixth forms may be provided through schools but may also be provided through the further education sector. It therefore seems to me proper that the council should be regarded as a provider and should be represented on the committee.
I make this point because I feel that there has been much misunderstanding about the place of school organisation committees. I repeat that the Churches welcome the proposals. We stress that we believe the proposals to require the regulations to specify unanimity are right. I am very grateful to the Government for listening to our concerns and for putting forward this amendment, which I am delighted to support.
Baroness Blatch: The right reverend Prelate rightly takes me to task on a point I made earlier about the FEFC. Although that council does not directly provide for schools, it does provide for some schoolchildren who are not statutory aged, who are post-16. Therefore I concede that point. May I ask the right reverend Prelate, through the normal conventions of the House, what part governors play in that? Governors are neither providers of education nor funders of schools. They have a management role but are not providers in the sense that FEFC would be and/or the LEA. How consistent is that with the points made by the right reverend Prelate?
I join with the right reverend Prelate in saying that we are pleased that diocesan authorities, both for the Anglican Church and the Church authorities for the Catholic schools, are to be represented on the committees. If there are to be such committees, that must be right. If they had not been included, we would have argued vigorously that they should be.
70
I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in that teachers, in some form or other, should be represented. It seems extraordinary that governors should be represented. They are not providers; they are not even deliverers of education and do not fall into the interpretation that the right reverend Prelate puts on the committee. Nevertheless, they will have a place over and above that of the very people in the classroom who provide education for children.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The noble Baroness and I have already had this conversation. I was using the language of "delivery" in relation to heads and teachers; that is, those who actually deliver the education. I used the term "provider" in the technical sense of those who provide the financial resources. That is a clarification of language.
The point of the school organisation committees is that those who provide the financial resources shall be those who are involved in the taking of decisions. Of course, they must listen to all kinds of other people and that is why it is important that there are others who can give them advice. Those others will include governors, teachers and all sorts of other groups, including those for whom the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is concerned. However, the decision is properly taken by those groups named on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Governors are to be part of this body and they are neither providers nor deliverers.
Lord Whitty: The debate between the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate could go on for some time. However, at this time we are not discussing membership of the committee, but the voting procedures.
The right reverend Prelate is right in relation to our use of the term "provider" and as to why they should be members of the committee. Governors have the corporate responsibility for the management of schools and, to a degree to which we shall come later, for managing the funds of the schools. That is why they or their representatives will be members of the committees.
The amendments deal with two issues. First, they deal with the voting procedure. The right reverend Prelate clearly indicated his support for our position that a nem. Con. position should account for these purposes; that is, unanimity. Secondly, they deal with the question of equality and the duties on the adjudicators and school organisation committees in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106B:
Page 117, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) Regulations under this paragraph must, however, include provision—

(a) for the members within each category of members of a committee to have collectively a single vote in relation to any decision to which this sub-paragraph applies;

(b) requiring any such decision which is taken by a committee to be a unanimous decision of those voting.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to any decision of a committee as to whether or not—

(a) to give any approval under section 25(4) or to prepare such a plan as is mentioned in section 25(5)(d)(ii);

(b) to give any approval under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 or to—

(i) modify any proposals,

(ii) specify any date, or

(iii) make any determination,

under paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) or (3) of that Schedule;

(c) to make, vary or revoke a transitional exemption order under paragraph 21 of that Schedule or paragraph 16 of Schedule 7;

(d) to give any approval under paragraph 8 of Schedule 7;

(e) to make any decision authorised by or by virtue of paragraph 6 of Schedule 23.

(5) Where regulations under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 provide for either of the following provisions, namely paragraph 3 or 5(2)(a) of Schedule 6, to have effect in relation to proposals published under paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 8, the reference to that provision in sub-paragraph (4) above shall include a reference to it as it so has effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 117, line 15, at end insert—
(" . When taking any decision a committee shall have regard (so far as relevant) to the obligations which, by virtue of—

(a) Part III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, or

(b) Part III of the Race Relations Act 1976,

are owed by any local education authority or governing body which will be affected by the decision.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Adjudicators]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Maddock: I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Tope cannot be with us for the rest of the evening, though I still have friends on the Bench here with me.
The Minister will recognise that we have already had the majority of this debate this afternoon. We are unhappy with the undemocratic nature of the school organisation committees and, for similar reasons, with the role of the adjudicators. We are extremely unhappy—putting it mildly—given what we said earlier, that important local decisions over schools organisations can pass to a single, unelected, non-accountable individual who represents the Secretary of State.
It is clear from our debates earlier and those in another place that the Government wish to appoint around 20 adjudicators. It may be more; we are not sure. There were questions about this earlier this afternoon both here and in another place. We are also not sure what the cost will be. We understand that the adjudicators will be local, but we are told that they will
72
not be local. They will be partly local, but there will not be enough for there to be one who understands each local area.
The adjudicators will be appointed by the Secretary of State after open advertisement. We understand that they will be salaried and will also be paid on a daily rate. There was a great deal of discussion in this regard some time ago and I remember reading with horror in the newspaper that it was estimated that adjudicators may be paid £90,000 a year. I wondered whether I would be eligible for such a post; £90,000 would be helpful to someone in my position.
We still do not know how much the Government intend to pay and how much it will cost. We do not know from where exactly the adjudicators will be drawn. We are told that a background in education will be welcome, but not necessarily a requirement. We feel that the requirement that school organisation committees should make unanimous decisions will lead to many decisions being referred to the adjudicator.
Many of us know that trying to make decisions, particularly in relation to school closures, is not an easy job and often takes a great deal of time. Questions were asked in another place about how long committees would have to make a decision and the response was that they will be asked to reach a conclusion within two months. However, I worry about how the system will operate; how the adjudicators will deal with what will be a heavy workload.
We have heard arguments about how this is devolution; that the Secretary of State is devolving power locally. Many of us do not recognise it as devolution because it will not be to a democratic body. We believe that democratically-elected local authorities should make those decisions. My noble friend Lord Tope made that point clear this afternoon.
An issue we have discussed in this Chamber on other occasions is how local people do not turn out in local elections. We are now doing something which takes away even more power from local education authorities and locally-elected councillors, yet we continue to wonder why people do not want to vote. The reason is that decisions as to whether or not a school will remain open will not be made by local people; they will be made by an unelected body and an adjudicator.
For all those reasons we are not happy that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I take this opportunity to say that a schedule goes with this, which raises serious questions about the role of the adjudicator. For example, the adjudicator can be dismissed by the Minister for misbehaviour. What does that mean? Does it mean when he disagrees with the Minister? Does it mean that he is not on message? We do not know how much adjudicators will be paid. We do not know what level of staff support they will receive.
I suggest that there are people working in local authorities who already do very much the job that an adjudicator will be required to carry out, particularly when we are talking of school closures. I have been in a situation where the people working for the local

73
education authority go out and consult with parents, going through the pros and cons of why they want to close a school and what the local authority want to do.
I suspect that we shall not divide on Clause 24 tonight which is why I have spoken about Schedule 5 at this point. There is no point in talking about it if the clause is still in the Bill. Mentioning the schedule also raises very serious questions about the role of the adjudicator and it is important in this debate as we are looking to see whether we need the adjudicator. We have made it quite clear that we do not want to have the school organisation committee and therefore we do not want the adjudicator.
We have made it clear also that we understand what the Government are trying to do. We believe in devolution and recognise that there is a problem with decisions being made at the centre. But the method that has been put forward is undemocratic and does not answer the problem. I and many others believe that it will only make matters worse. We have almost begged the Government to take this matter away and come back with something better. We want partnership and decisions to be made locally, but we want that done democratically and, above all, we want a system that will work. We have heard not just from these Benches but from around the Committee the views of people who have experience of how this measure will work in local government and how local government works now. We were not in favour of the committee and the adjudicator. The way in which the scheme is being set up is deeply flawed. For that reason, we do not wish to see this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: We have discussed this matter at some length so I shall be brief and direct. The argument is that the adjudicator will play very little part because agreements will be reached in the school organisation committee. That raises great alarm in my mind because as many noble Lords who have served as Ministers in the department have said, in the past there has been a large number of appeals to the Secretary of State regarding the closure of schools and other matters.
Therefore one must ask with some suspicion why it is that the school organisation committee is going to succeed where the local authority has conspicuously failed so that the adjudicator will not be used so much. I gain some suspicion from what the right reverend Prelate said. The professionals, who are the men from the diocesan boards, the picked local authority people, the Higher Education Funding Council and the governors—I say "picked", although I gather that the governors may be elected—are more likely, in smoke-filled rooms, as at an American convention, to reach agreement than will be the case in the more democratic forum of a local authority. So I believe that sometimes unanimous decisions might be suspect.
I am more optimistic about human nature than that. Therefore I assume that the school organisation committees will not be as I described, but that there will be disagreement and that the adjudicator will play a part. In other words, I do not accept that only at the most dismal level the school organisation committee, if it
74
performs properly, will reach unanimous agreement. That said, I agree with the noble Baroness in saying that I have great worries about the adjudicator.
Perhaps I may begin at a very practical level. I believe that the workload will be enormous. I served on the Parole Board and I was also chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Committee. I realise the workload that falls on anybody who deals with appeals and makes such decisions. It has already emerged in this debate that in some cases, in the documents setting forth their powers, it may be necessary to hold an inquiry in public. Judgments will have to be submitted on paper. That is a time-consuming task and it will demand staff. We do not know how many adjudicators there will be, but one assumes from some of the things that were said in the other place that there will be 20 or so. I cannot say offhand at the moment how many local authorities there will be. I believe that there were 31 when the shire counties were responsible, but now we have the London boroughs and so much more. The number may well be 31 to 40 or possibly more.
Many of the adjudicators will have to deal with two local authorities. I believe that they will find the workload very large. I also have some doubts as to whether £1 million will cover the cost. One is dealing with 20 people and staff. If the sum is insufficient then one is not going to have the right decisions and the scheme is not going to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out the problem of judicial review. Having served on the Parole Board and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, I can tell the Committee that for these kinds of bodies which hear appeals the judicial review is a hazard of life. It is expensive and also for the Government which will have to defend the case.
I am saying that there is an element of doubt and uncertainty which has emerged in this debate. Unless the school organisation committee is going to be a government poodle, there will be disagreements. I do not believe that any Members of the Committee will want it to be a poodle and therefore the present situation may continue, if not in full, at least in part. The adjudicators will not be sufficient; they will be subject to judicial review; they will not be local; and there will be no appeal from their decisions. It is a flawed scheme and one which the Government will later regret. Therefore I and my friends on this side of the Committee are prepared to give considerable support to the Motion that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may ask one or two questions. I shall be grateful to have some information as to how this body will work vis-à-vis action zone schools and with what are now called grant-maintained schools and what will be foundation schools. Do they all have the same powers? In that case, are they all subject to this undemocratic body of placemen and women?
I put it on record that not only do I believe that partnership is the only way to operate in local government. It has certainly been a feature of my local

75
authority in Cambridgeshire; it has also been a practical feature of my role as a Minister in government. It was my government that instituted a raft of policies which involved partnership at local level. The single regeneration budget exists because partnerships come together with a common aim. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, knows, I was concerned with the North-East and Teesside. It has a very great deal to teach the rest of the country about fruitful partnerships. Partnerships have been developed there to an extensive degree. The fruits of those partnerships can be seen right across Teesside. There was the Save the City programme; the City Action programme and the City Challenge programme. They all relied on partnerships. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will not join with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in saying that we are against partnership as a way forward. That would be a great travesty because we believe that partnerships works best. I also believe quite fervently that partnership on a voluntary basis works even better because it works from the bottom up. It is an organic partnership and not one made by regulation which I find deeply offensive.
The Secretary of State and Ministers are better known to the population of this country than will be an adjudicator. I hope that the noble Baroness will give us some idea or confirm what we believe through rumour and odd comments, that there are likely to be about 20 adjudicators. Plans are now so advanced that there should be some view in the department about the number of adjudicators.
Let us say that there will be about 20. That means that there will be at least two or three local education authorities to each adjudicator. I go back to a point that I made during a previous debate when talking about organisation committees. If there were one adjudicator covering Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire or Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire or Cambridgeshire and Suffolk or Cambridgeshire and Norfolk or Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, with the tremendous powers as set out in this Bill, that adjudicator will not be known. It is quite difficult to find in the market square people who know the local Lord Lieutenant or the local High Sheriff. They are key figures in the area.
The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Government say that the adjudicators will hardly be used because we shall have great harmony at the level of the local education authority and in the school organisation committee, that means that they will be even less known. The adjudicator will be brought into play when there is disagreement and that is the whole point of having an adjudicator. The argument that has been deployed so far in this debate that the rationale for what the Government are doing in setting up school organisation committees and adjudicators, is that they want to devolve decision-making to a local level, but in the case of an adjudicator that simply will not work.
The adjudicators will not be local. I referred earlier to Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. In that area, we shall not only be closer geographically to the Secretary of State and his Ministers in London than to the adjudicator—if he or she is based in Norfolk, he or she
76
will be very distant from Cambridgeshire—but we shall also know them. We know the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The populace of the country know the Ministers. They can take views of the Ministers and the quality of their judgments. Accountability is therefore much sharper.
Much has been made of the argument that there will not be too much work for the committees to do. Using round figures, there are about 25,000 schools in the country, half a million teachers and goodness knows how many million pupils. Decisions are taken daily in local education authorities on reorganisation, on matters relating to demographic change, such as the establishment of new schools, changing the category of schools, enlarging, closing or merging schools. All of those are bread-and-butter decisions for most local authorities. They happen all the time. In my local authority we had what we called a "medium-term plan". Each year, we rolled it forward, constantly trying to match provision to the number of children in the area and their needs. It is wrong to say that the committees will not be working hard.
As I understand it, an organisation committee will receive every single local organisation plan. When that plan is developed, all of the smaller decisions flowing from it will go before the committee. Whenever there is a disagreement among the members of the committee—however small, whether involving one group or more—the matter will be passed to the adjudicator. Matters as painful as school closures, school mergers, the loss of a sixth form or the closing of a Church school will be passed without objection only very seldom—that is, unless the Government have it in mind to approve the sort of committee which will reach consensus decisions. That would mean that the will of those at the end of the decision—I refer to the parents of children attending small schools or city schools which may be merged and to parents whose children are being sent to a distant school not of their choice—would be overruled by the harmonious organisation committee of which we have heard so much.
The adjudicator argument is as strong as that on organisation committees. The adjudicators will have absolutely unprecedented powers. They will be unaccountable placemen or women. They will be appointed by the Secretary of State and can be removed or replaced by the Secretary of State. However, they will have more powers than any elected councillors. Indeed, in this instance they will have more powers than the Secretary of State. This is a real buck-passing measure as far as the Secretary of State and the Department for Education and Employment are concerned.
For that reason I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will not seek to press this Motion this evening. However, she has our fullest support. If we return to this matter on another occasion, we shall certainly support such a Motion.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall not go back over the same ground as was covered in the debate on school organisation committees. We had quite a discussion of

77
adjudicators in our earlier debate. I shall try to stick to issues relating to adjudicators, which is what the clause is all about.
Clause 24 provides that the Secretary of State shall appoint a number of adjudicators for England. I can confirm that the intention is to appoint about 20. Their job will be to take decisions where the school organisation committee has been unable to reach agreement on school organisation proposals and the school organisation plan to be established within each LEA, and to resolve certain admissions disputes.
We have placed in the Library a statement on the adjudicators which describes in a little more detail our view on the functions, operation and appointment of adjudicators. That statement will provide a basis for consultation.
I believe that it is understood that the adjudicators will be called into play only where it has not been possible to reach agreement at local level, either on school organisation or on admissions cases. The adjudicators will look again at the issues and concerns raised, taking account of proposals, comments and objections. The adjudicators will consider all cases in the light of principles set out in guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, in a school organisation plan and the code of practice on school admissions. The adjudicators will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case, based on the facts and against those principles.
It is important that the adjudicators should be demonstrably independent, both from the Secretary of State and from the local authorities and other bodies. Their credibility will derive from their experience, independence and impartiality. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that we shall advertise the posts widely. We shall do so in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Adjudicators will be part time. They will be called upon as cases are referred, and they will be paid on a daily basis. Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, not to believe what she reads in the newspapers about salaries of £90,00 a year. So much in the newspapers is absolute nonsense and that is just another example. The exact amount of their daily rate is currently under review, so I cannot give a precise answer to that question yet.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to the Higher Education Funding Council. Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue. It is, of course, the Further Education Funding Council—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Yes, the Further Education Funding Council.
Baroness Blackstone: I just wanted to be sure that we were clear about that.
The noble Lord said that he was optimistic. I am glad that he is optimistic because the last time that we had a debate about optimism and pessimism, the noble Lord said that I was over-optimistic and that he was a pessimist. However, my optimism about this leads me to
78
different conclusions from him. I believe that the school organisation committees will for the most part be able to reach agreement. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said earlier. I very much hope that the number of occasions involving adjudicators will be relatively small because there will already have been a great deal of local discussion.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, perhaps I may say that consensus will have been reached at local level. That is exactly what we hope will become commonplace once the new arrangements have been implemented. For those reasons, I hope that adjudicators will not have an enormous workload. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is right that they will have to be careful in their judgments and to put them in writing.
I also hope that judicial review will be used only rarely. I hope that once the system is established people will accept the impartiality of the adjudicators and the fact that their procedures are totally above board. That is what is expected.
I cannot remember which noble Lord referred to misbehaviour, but perhaps I may rebut any suggestion that this provision is all about being on-message. It is nothing like that. This is clearly about undertaking a job properly and having a decision-making process which can be seen to be fair and in which the right procedures are used. I hope that instances of dismissals among adjudicators will be extremely rare.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to education action zone schools and foundation schools. Schools in education action zones will be treated in exactly the same way as any other schools where the issue of closure arises. As to foundation schools, they will be subject to exactly the same system, and proposals in respect of foundation schools which are not decided by the school organisation committee will go to the adjudicator if necessary.
The clause also introduces Schedule 5. That gives practical detail as to how the adjudicator will operate. It also gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about further details of the adjudicator's functions. This clause provides a vital mechanism to resolve school organisation and admission cases while safeguarding the interests of a range of local players. The noble Baroness indicated that she will not press her opposition to Clause 24 standing part of the Bill.
I should like to deal with one other issue raised by more than one speaker, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I was a little confused by the contribution of the noble Baroness. At one point she said that adjudicators would not be local but at another point she suggested that possibly they would have to cover two areas. She spoke about her own part of the country: Cambridgeshire and Norfolk or Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the adjudicators will not be local; they will be nationally-appointed people. They will be appointed on the basis that they are the best people for the job rather than that they represent a particular area. I believe that it would be wrong for them to represent a particular area because in that event it is very likely that they would be parti pris in some respects. We want to have people

79
of experience who will be impartial and independent in arriving at their judgment. I hope that I have answered all the points raised. I hope that the Committee accepts that this is a fundamental part of the new system and that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for replying to a number of points. We shall not press the issue any further this evening but we hope to return to it at a later stage in the light of other proposals that may come from the Government on school organisation committees. A good number of questions have been asked today. The role of the adjudicator is very much tied up with what happens on the school organisation committees. The Minister was intent on driving home the independence of the adjudicators. I do not know whether it means that at the moment, when the Secretary of State makes a decision about a school closure, it is less than independent. There have been times in my life when I have believed that to be the case when dealing with school closures. That seems to be one of the main arguments in trying to convince the Committee that adjudicators are the correct way to go.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that adjudicators would not receive fat cat salaries. We shall see what happens. I am slightly confused. The Minister also said that adjudicators would be paid on a daily basis. In view of the comment of the Minister, Estelle Morris, in another place that it was likely they would be salaried, appointed on a part-time basis and paid a daily rate, is it the case that the decision has now been made that they will be paid only a daily rate? Perhaps the Minister can deal with that before we proceed further with the matter.
We on these Benches believe that as many decisions as possible should be made locally by democratically elected local authorities. We are deeply concerned, knowing the kind of issues that will come forward, that adjudicators will have to make a good number of decisions. I hope that the Minister is right. If not, even more money will come off the education budget. Our main worry is that this bureaucracy will cost money and that the education budget will be top sliced. Some of us fear that given the number of decisions that adjudicators will have to make the amounts that they will be paid and the length of time that committees sit will go up. I do not believe that we have received a satisfactory answer to that.
We shall not press the matter tonight. However, can the Minister clarify how exactly the adjudicators will be paid? Further, in light of the very serious concerns about how the system will operate, can the Minister give a commitment that should all of this go ahead there will be a review of what is happening and if our worst predictions turn out to be true the Government will do something about it? If the worst predictions happen it will not be in the interests of schools. We are all concerned about what happens in schools and want to ensure that the highest standards are achieved. We are not being party political about this; we are genuinely worried about what will happen. I hope that the Minister
80
will take that into account and give a commitment that the Government will also be concerned if this turns out to be a huge bureaucracy that does not work properly.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may put two questions. The first, which I should have asked in the earlier debate, is whether the school committee is to meet in public so that all of its discussions can be heard by everyone. Will those discussions be fully recorded? Almost all of the decisions will be difficult and I suspect controversial. That will make a great deal of difference to the number of cases that go to the adjudicator.
Secondly, I should like to deal with the question of cost. Earlier, we were informed that the scheme was expected to cost £1 million. If there are 20 adjudicators that will not leave much per adjudicator. We know from Schedule 5 that inevitably the adjudicator will require some staff if he or she is to consider the papers and write reports. The adjudicator will require an office, a secretary and so on. We are all aware of the add-on costs. I believe that £1 million is a complete under-estimate of the cost of this whole organisation. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill noble Lords can be given a much clearer idea of the cost of the exercise.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to add to the questions. I ask the Minister to whom the adjudicator is accountable. As to cost, I understand that the figure to set up the system is £1.2 million and that revenue costs per annum thereafter will be £1 million. I also understand that the capital costs—the buildings where adjudicators sit, equipment and all the rest of it—will be additional to those figures and therefore will fall on the LEA. This appears to be an open-ended cheque for the LEAs. Allied to that, what is the mechanism for funding this money? Will it be top-sliced from the LEA budget or will it be a precept on the LEA or individual schools? The question was asked earlier but not answered. This is probably one cost that individual schools will not be able to opt out of. They will all be subject to the services of the organisation committee and adjudicator.
Next, will the organisation committee and the adjudicator have a role to play over admissions to foundation schools? I understand that the foundation schools will be their own admissions authority. If that is the case, what is the relationship between admissions policy and admission issues vis-à-vis the organisation committee and adjudicator and foundation schools? That is quite an important point.
On the point about the adjudicators not being local, I was not being inconsistent or trying to have my cake and eat it. I was trying to understand the arguments that were put forward strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Every time he came to the Dispatch Box he said that the whole rationale of what the Government were doing was to see that decisions were taken locally. The argument that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and my colleagues on these Benches are putting forward is that the adjudicator will not be local to many people. He will not be known by many people. Confidence in the

81
people who take the decisions will be important. I shall be interested to hear the answer to my noble friend Lady Young as to whether the meetings will be in public. Given that there is no other accountability, that would at least be some form of accountability.
I understand that the Minister cannot give us the salary figures at the moment, although it sounds as if there will be a daily rate for the job. The Minister has said that she does not know that at the moment because it is under review. Can we have a promise that when it is known we shall hear it. I hope that it will be before the Bill goes through Parliament, so that we will understand what it will be.
Which body in government will determine the daily rate? Who thereafter will review it? Where will the responsibility for reviewing the salary lie? Will the members of the committee receive a fee per diem or expenses? What will be the form of recompense for disrupting the lives of the people who will serve on those committee? I do not believe it, but the Government say that the adjudicator will not have to do very much work. The organisation committee will have to do quite a deal of work. How will those people be reimbursed? Presumably LEA members will just receive their normal LEA expenses. They are already busy people, especially if they are on the education committee. It would be helpful to know what they will receive.
It seems that the budget total is £50,000. There will be 20 committees covering wide areas. I have already asked about the capital costs. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall begin with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I can confirm that the adjudicators will be paid on the basis of a daily rate. They will be part time. They will not receive a salary. The noble Baroness asked about a review. There have been a number of gloomy predictions about the impact of this new system. It has been suggested that it will not work, that it will be incredibly expensive, and that there will be huge numbers of disagreements which will lead to the involvement of adjudicators. It would be reasonable to monitor and review the system as we go along. Of course if Members opposite turn out to be right in their gloom and pessimism about all this, the Government would naturally want to look at ways of improving the way in which the system operates. I have no difficulty in confirming that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether the school organisation committees would meet in public. The answer is that they will. In that sense, there will be local accountability. People will have access to the way in which the decision was made and how the arguments were played out. I accept that that is important. So I am grateful to her for asking that question. I am pleased to clarify that point.
The noble Baroness asked also about the cost of the system. Perhaps I may clarify something which may not have been sufficiently clear earlier. The system will cost £1 million over and above the cost of the existing
82
system. There will obviously be substantial savings in the number of civil servants employed to deal with the 300 or 400 cases that come up to the Secretary of State at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a number of questions. She asked about the mechanisms of funding and whether the schools would have their budgets reduced. The answer is that the schools will not have their budgets reduced, the costs will have to come out of the local authority's budget.
The noble Baroness asked who will review the adjudicator's daily rate. It will obviously be reviewed from time to time by the Secretary of State. Where inflation requires the daily rate to be increased, it will obviously have to be increased by central government. She asked also about the adjudicators' accountability. Adjudicators will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Once they have been appointed, they will be independent. Any decisions that they make will of course be subject to judicial review. That is the sense in which they will be accountable. They will be accountable to the courts for the way in which they make their decisions.
We must remember that the Secretary of State currently considers each year 300 to 400 proposals for changes of one kind or another, where they have not been sorted out satisfactorily at local authority level. The existing system leads to a large number of referrals back to central government. Our hope is that we can avoid that kind of referral. Everyone knows that the existing system is far from perfect. It often, but not always, takes a long time. People in local government feel that it is not transparent. I hope that the way in which the adjudicators will operate will make the system rather more transparent, that there will be clarity about the way in which decisions are made, and that in the end we will have an improved system. The noble Baroness shakes her head.
Baroness Blatch: It is unbelievable to say that it takes a long time, and that it will take less time. There is nothing in the Bill to cut down the amount of time and trouble that local authorities will go through to come to a decision. That stays. It will take even longer, because once they have gone through all the procedures to come to a decision, they will be gone through all over again by the organisation committee. If there is one dissenting voice on the organisation committee, it then goes on to the adjudicator. The idea that it will take less time is absolutely absurd.
Baroness Blackstone: Once again, I may not have made myself clear enough. The noble Baroness has misinterpreted what I was saying. I was suggesting that the system of going to the Secretary of State when agreement cannot be reached can often take a long time. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, may have been involved. When there is a large number of referrals to officials who have to advise the Secretary of State, it often takes a long time. The hope is that with the new system, through the 20 adjudicators who will be appointed, we shall be able rather more quickly to reach decisions where there has been disagreement.

83
I have already said that if the Government are proved to be wrong about this, we will have to review the system. It is important that it is streamlined and that people are not kept waiting for months and months before a decision is made. In the light of what I have said, I hope that it will be accepted—
Baroness Blatch: The Minister has missed the point about admissions and foundation schools.
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, foundation schools and their admissions will be subject to the agreement of school organisation committees.
In the light of what we have discussed, I hope that we can now move on. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she does not wish to press that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, but that she may wish to come back to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. I look forward to further debate when we reach that stage.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Committee stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Building Regulations (Energy Rating Information) (Amendment) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make more effective use of the existing requirement for all new and substantially converted homes to have an energy efficiency rating.
The benefits of energy efficiency are well understood. Apart from the immediate benefit to the consumer there are significant benefits to the environment. As a Government, we are committed to a reduction in greenhouse gases, a commitment recently renewed at the Kyoto conference, and well insulated homes can make a significant contribution to our targets. A good energy rating could also influence the prospective purchaser of a property and it is important that this information should be available when the decision is made. That is the objective of the Bill.
Energy rating for new homes was introduced by the previous administration in response to a Select Committee report recommendation. The scheme established a standard assessment procedure which rated houses on a scale of from 1 to 100 for energy efficiency. This SAP was introduced by way of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations of 1994 and required that, among other things, all new homes created by building or by a material change of use, should be the subject of a calculation of their energy rating and
84
that notice of that rating should be certified to the local authority. But, surprisingly, there was no requirement to give the information to prospective purchasers.
Clause 1 of the Bill inserts new paragraphs (3A) and (3B) in the relevant building regulations, namely regulation 14A of the 1991 regulations which was itself inserted by the 1994 regulations. I am sorry if that sounds complicated, but regulations often do.
New paragraph (3A) requires the energy rating to be, first, displayed in the building so that it can be easily seen by the prospective occupant; secondly, given to any agent who has been instructed to sell the home; and, thirdly, given to any prospective occupier.
New paragraph (3B) specifies that the person on whom the duty is placed is the person carrying out the work or, if different, the person for whom the work is carried out. This is important as it puts the duty on the developer rather than on each individual builder.
Subsection (2) inserts identical new provisions in the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations. This covers the situation where the role of building inspector is being carried out by an "approved inspector" rather than by a local authority inspector. Clause 2 provides a defence of "reasonable steps" having been taken to carry out the duties imposed by the Bill.
Clause 3 contains the title, commencement and extent. It will be seen that the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland as the law is different there. However, it is hoped that the Bill can be extended to those countries as soon as possible. The honourable Member for Swindon South tried recently to introduce a similar Bill in another place, but it fell foul of a government review in progress in the department and would have complicated the issue of the review. This is a similar Bill to the one which the honourable Member sought to introduce. It is a simple attempt to give house purchasers what is for them important information on energy rating. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will indicate that the Government support the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Nicol.)
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in moving this Private Member's Bill. In another place I had the fortune to come top of the private Members' ballot, moving successfully all stages of the home energy conservation legislation. This Bill complements everything that we sought to do. If we are to succeed with energy efficiency, we need, first, to give people information and to educate them on the importance of energy conservation and energy efficient buildings. Secondly, we need to give them the facts and figures to be able to make decisions on how to achieve that.
The Bill is ideal. As the noble Baroness said, it seems strange that when the measure was introduced for new buildings, it did not cover all buildings. I half understand that because for older buildings there are housing programmes to improve properties that are not up to a certain standard. That may partly be why the

85
measure was not introduced for all buildings: the Government might have seen it as a noose around their neck with people asking for extra money not just for home improvements but for energy efficiency measures. That is an enormous task and governments like to target their money effectively.
However, the Government should not be worried about that aspect. The Bill merely gives people information. It may be used as a stick with which to beat the Government, but so be it. They do not have to respond, although many of us would be pleased if they did so.
Energy efficiency makes sense not only as regards the environment and sustainability but also health. I understand that the Government are looking at building regulations in a wider sense. I understand the Government's problems regarding fitness standards. They are undertaking research on the issue, and research is also being undertaken outside government on the relationship between health and the state of energy efficiency in buildings. Programmes have been put into practice. If energy efficiency is improved in high-rise flats where many people are on low incomes, the greatest benefit for those people is in the quality of health. I hope that the Government will consider seriously all the research in this area. I hope that they will look favourably on this Private Member's Bill.
Bills have been introduced which have sought to enable purchasers of property people to obtain an SAP rating. A Private Member's Bill sought to require an SAP rating to be given when mortgages are taken out. I sought to persuade building societies of that when I was in another place. I was disappointed that the societies were unable to see that it was in their interest to encourage people to have lower heating bills through greater energy efficiency, in particular at a time when people were falling behind in payments on their mortgages.
We need to push for energy efficiency measures on all fronts. We need people to understand why those measures are necessary, and to be given the information on how to achieve them. That is why I am happy to support this Private Member's Bill today. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, every success.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for the introduction of the Bill and her explanation. I wish I had spoken to her before this evening rather than wading through the regulations to find out precisely what it meant. The noble Baroness was able to explain it to your Lordships' House in a much shorter time than it took me to research it.
It seems to be a relatively straightforward matter and one which, I am sure, is worthy of support from all Members of your Lordships' House. My understanding is that it still only applies to new build and conversions of buildings into dwellings. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I read with some concern about the difficulties that the Government have had in persuading building societies to incorporate these ratings into their mortgage valuations, although I am bound to say that
86
before we take steps to insist upon that we need to ensure that this will not add in any way to the cost or delay involved in getting a mortgage and consequently purchasing a property. This seems to me to be a modest measure and one which we should support.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Nicol for the introduction that she has given this debate. As my noble friend has explained, the Bill defines "responsible person" and requires that person to have a written notice of the SAP rating displayed in the dwelling for certain defined periods, given to the selling or letting agent at the time of instruction, and given to the purchaser or occupier. It would provide in the Building Act 1984 that evidence of having taken reasonable steps to comply with these requirements would be a defence against prosecution for failure to comply.
First, we are encouraged by the strong interest in energy conservation and carbon dioxide abatement that the history of this Bill exemplifies. Julia Drown, MP, introduced, as my noble friend said, similar proposals earlier this year in another place and here we see an improvement. I congratulate my noble friend and her Bill's sponsors. Similar determination by others involved in the construction industry and elsewhere will be helpful in meeting the targets for abating carbon dioxide emission that we set ourselves in our manifesto and those to which we are now committed following the Kyoto Summit.
The proposed changes to the regulations would help to make prospective purchasers and tenants more aware of the energy efficiency of dwellings. We are persuaded of the merits here and support the Bill's aims in principle. Therefore, I am very grateful to my noble friend and her sponsors for putting forward ways in which this wider availability of information might possibly be brought about.
However, we have some reservations. These have ultimately led us to conclude that the Government cannot support this Bill's further progress. We are concerned about the proposal to amend the primary legislation in this way because it might jeopardise the use of this defence against other alleged contraventions. We have misgivings about the proposal to define "the responsible person" for the specific purposes of this Bill, again because of the wider implications for the regulations of assigning responsibility for building work. We also think that there are drafting anomalies in the definitions of the proposed periods for displaying, or otherwise making available, the SAP rating that might make them impractical in some cases.
Although these issues may perhaps turn out to be merely drafting points, we think they are too complex to be resolved in the remaining time for Private Members' Bills in this Session. We have a further important reservation. It is common practice for the Government, when proposing amendments to the building regulations, to subject them to wider consultation before finally deciding on how to proceed.

87
However, we, therefore, propose a different course. We propose to work with the Bill's promoters to resolve the difficulties that I have mentioned. Our intention will be to make amending regulations introducing new provisions into the building regulations. These will have similar aims of increasing accessibility to the SAP rating information. Following the appropriate consultation we would aim to make amendment regulations in the first half of next year.
I have listened to the debate so far and will listen to the further debate in your Lordships' House with interest, and as I have said, the Government will be receptive to further approaches on these matters. As I have also made clear, we believe that it would be unwise to proceed with this Bill.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I am a little disappointed in my noble friend's response from the Front Bench. I find it difficult to understand how such a simple matter should require wider consultation, and I am also puzzled by the reference to the complications that might be caused by the defence mechanism that we offer.
However, I feel sure that the sponsors of the Bill, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, will be very pleased that the Government are prepared to take a more positive line on the requirements of the Bill, even if it is not going to be exactly what they wanted.
As my noble friend gave a long and fairly complicated answer, I would like the opportunity to study what my noble friend has said and, therefore, I hope that I can ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may return to it on another occasion.
Before I do that, I wonder whether my noble friend can give any indication of how long she would expect this consultation process to last before we can move to what is after all a fairly simple result.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is usual practice to allow a three month period for such consultations, and legislative processes are not generally rapid. As I indicated in my earlier statement, we hope that the consultation will not add, as a result of the legislative processes, to the timescale involved, and we would aim to make amendment regulations in the first half of next year.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I find that encouraging but, nevertheless, I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may all study what has been said and perhaps return to it later.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a very short Bill which seeks to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.
The Bill will enable Ministers to authorise on a case by case basis, the use of non-damaging types of fishing gear, such as creels, in several fishery order areas by fishermen as well as by the grantee of the order.
Currently, the 1967 Act is inflexible in this respect. This Bill promises a win-win situation and, therefore, comes before the House with the full support of all interested parties.
In addition, this proposal has enjoyed support from both sectors of the fish industry since a public meeting in Inverness in May 1993. That meeting was chaired by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who was then chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The meeting unanimously identified the introduction of flexibility as the key to removing the adversarial element of the current situation.
In addition, this Bill will contribute to sustainable development. It will help enterprises in some of our most remote and rural costal communities. It also promises conservation benefits through making several orders less objectionable. Research shows that several orders enhance recruitment to the natural fisheries.
This Bill is the result of extended and extensive consultation and has attracted wide approval. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Earl of Lindsay.)
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I rise to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on introducing this Bill to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 in respect of several fisheries.
I know that the Scottish fishermen have been opposed to several orders as they saw them curbing their rights to creel in those areas where several orders would apply. As we have heard from the noble Earl, this Bill enables the orders that introduce a several fishery to exclude certain types of fishing only, allowing creeling to continue.
I am from the west country fishery where circumstances are somewhat different, but there several orders have worked very well indeed for many years. I support this Bill because I can see a new flexibility resulting that will be useful all around our coastline. As we have heard from my noble friend, Lord Lindsay, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, would have been supportive tonight if he could have been here. Unfortunately, he has another engagement so I speak for him.

89
The Sea Fish Industry Authority carried out a great deal of work on scallops. Using several orders to lay down young scallops will be better than the lantern cages currently used. Not only will we have marketable scallops, but the laid down ones will go through at least one breeding cycle and in that way reseed in the world much to the benefit of all the fishermen.
It is most important to keep vigilant and up to date in all our fishing regulations as technology advances and monitoring our maritime environment shows an ever-changing picture as we approach 2002 and prorogation. I can see nothing to stop this short and sweet Bill receiving a fair wind in its passage through both Houses to Royal Assent. Our British fishermen need all the help and support they can get. This Bill will allay the fears of many in Scotland. I am happy to support it and I wish my noble friend Lord Lindsay every success.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his compelling and succinct explanation of this short but important Bill. I am delighted to confirm that we on these Benches welcome it and will give it as fair a wind as possible. We do so not least because my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland will be sponsoring it in another place but also because it is a clear and sensible piece of legislation. As chairman of Scrabster Harbour Trust—if that is an interest I declare it—I am well aware of the importance of the Bill to shellfish growers and fishermen alike. I therefore welcome it personally.
I will not detain your Lordships for long, but I wish to make three brief points. First, the Bill is simple and deserves to succeed for that reason if for no other. Secondly, the powers it grants are clearly needed and desirable. Thirdly, the consultation has been extensive, even exhaustive, and it is clear that the whole industry supports the Bill. I hope that the shellfish growers and fishermen, for whom the oyster is their world, once the Bill is passed will be able to say that the world is their oyster!
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for introducing the Bill. I hope he will be pleased to hear that we share his enthusiasm for several fishery orders and I am delighted to be able to say that the Government welcome this amendment Bill and can support it.
With that in mind, I shall be brief and confine my remarks to the importance which the Government attach to several orders and to achieving a better balance between the interests of the applicant and the shellfish farming sector on the one hand and the inshore fishermen on the other.
As already alluded to, several orders are designed to encourage the establishment of, or indeed enhance, shellfisheries and provide protection for stock within the designated areas. There are currently 21 several orders in operation; 16 around the coastline of England and Wales but only five in Scotland.
90
The Government are disappointed that greater use of several orders in Scotland has thus far not been possible. They make sound economic sense: they offer employment opportunities for those living and working in rural and remote areas; and they can provide the basis for a sustainable shellfishery and a means whereby production can be increased to meet consumer demand for top quality shellfish.
As matters stand, once a several order has been granted the 1967 Act then provides protection for the shellfish stocks and the owner's rights within the designated area. As the noble Earl explained, all other fishing activities are prohibited except where pelagic trawl nets or hook and line are used. Therein lies the problem. The 1967 Act places too great a restriction on fishing within several order sites. On this there is no dispute between shellfish interests and the fishermen. Both are agreed greater flexibility is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has played her part in extending the Act. I was pleased to learn, and I am sure she was pleased to know, that some use is being made of the powers provided by her 1997 amendment Act.
The noble Earl's amendment will provide flexibility by removing the current prohibition and giving Ministers discretion, on a case by case basis, over the types of fishing which may be permitted within a several order area. I can assure your Lordships that such decisions would be exercised with great care, after full consultation with applicants and interested parties, and founded, I hope, on consensus.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the Bill. I am confident that the amendment, if enacted, will help to resolve some of the difficulties surrounding the granting of several orders in Scotland and should, as a result of greater uptake, stimulate shellfish farming production. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of all those who have spoken. I am grateful for the support expressed by the Minister on behalf of the Government. She helpfully explained several aspects of the Bill which in my efforts to be brief I had edited.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilcox. Her description of the Bill as being short and sweet is accurate. My gratitude goes to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, not only for his support and that of his party but for managing to work some humour into a Bill. I had thought that impossible.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox mentioned that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish would have supported the Bill had he been able to he here tonight. He regrets being unable to be present but has had a long interest and involvement in several fishery orders. As long ago as 1993 he attempted to deliver just this solution.
The proposal represents a much needed answer to an inflexible element of the 1967 Act. It meets the modern requirements for all concerned and will contribute to the sustainable development of marine resources and our coastal communities. I hope that the sectoral support

91
across coastal and fishing interests outside the House and the cross-party support inside the House bodes well for the Bill's remaining stages. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.30 p.m.]

School Standards and Framework Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—

RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF ADJUDICATOR
(". The governing body of any school or the parents of pupils at any school affected by decisions of the adjudicator with respect to matters referred to him concerning or in connection with—

(a) school organisation plans under section 25 below;

(b) directions given under Schedule 7 concerning rationalisation of school places; or

(c) admission arrangements under sections 84 and 85 below, shall, in all cases, have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: Optimism and pessimism have been thrown around in this Chamber but this is a lovely, kind amendment, and it is nice to begin after dinner with this.
As the noble Baroness knows, there has been enormous controversy throughout the whole of the afternoon about organisation committees and adjudicators. I somehow thought that that would occur and I thought of a nice democratic way out. I therefore propose this amendment which allows the structures of the organisation committee and the adjudicator to continue, but allows an appeal to a Secretary of State who is responsible to Parliament.
I do not wish to dwell on history but in these Chambers we have always fought for parliamentary responsibility. We have always avoided the official who makes decisions without responsibility. The reason for that is mainly related to those who have not the power nor resources to resort to judicial review.
I assure noble Lords that resorting to judicial review is an expensive and exhausting process. I mentioned earlier this afternoon my experience as chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. None of the plaintiffs ever resorted to judicial review, only the rather rich corporations.
In this situation relating to the school organisation committee and the adjudicator, there will be, without a doubt, some aggrieved parents, people who possibly do not understand the processes of law. At the moment,
92
they have no appeal. It is true that they could seek a judicial review and it is certainly true that some organisations which have the money—and it is very expensive—will resort to lawyers and seek judicial review. But this amendment is primarily designed for the parents of children who have found that their school is being closed; they object; and they have not found any satisfaction from the organisation committee or their representations to the adjudicator.
I suggest that following English constitutional tradition, there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State who can answer questions in Parliament about such a matter.
In a sense, this amendment sums up the whole of the debate this afternoon. I hope that as an optimist, and a smiling optimist like myself, and also, I know, a supporter of the constitutional traditions of our country, the noble Baroness might even find it in her heart to accept this amendment.
Lord Newby: Our initial response to this amendment is rather similar to that of my younger son when, as sometimes happens, he is asked to choose between two green vegetables. His answer is always "neither". He has an aversion to green vegetables and so it is that we have an aversion to the adjudicator. Therefore, whether or not his decisions are appealable to the Secretary of State is a decision with which, in principle, we should rather not face.
However, given that if the Bill passes there will be adjudicators, as the mover of the amendment has made clear, the question is whether they should be given virtually unappealable powers. It is undoubtedly the case, as the noble Lord has already said, that judicial review is an expensive and cumbersome process and, frankly, one that is ill understood by many of the people who could conceivably use it. To the extent that they understand it, it is worrying and too expensive for them to wish to proceed.
The question then is simply, if one wants to have the adjudicator's decisions appealable at all, in reality, should one be able to refer back to the Secretary of State?
We have looked in detail at the amendment and I think it is fair to say that we are not wholly happy with it. We do not regard it as ideally drafted. For example, there is a failure to define what constitutes "parents of pupils". Moreover, there is no suggestion of whether one is talking about a majority of pupils in a school and how such a situation would be balloted. That is a shortcoming.
Equally, paragraph (b) of the amendment concerns directions given under Schedule 7. In a sense, those directions will flow from directions given by the Minister. Therefore, one will be appealing to the Minister against decisions that flowed from the Minister in the first place. That clearly is not a satisfactory appeal procedure.
However, even with those shortcomings, on balance, we are concerned that the adjudicator should not, in effect, have carte blanche to take a decision and that

93
there should be no right of appeal against that decision except in exceptional circumstances. That leads us to support the principle behind the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, there is another issue here. Under the present system, at the end of this very long process, a local authority reaches a decision. Parents do not argue that the decision was not arrived at properly and was not procedurally correct. They simply do not like the decision and they think it is the wrong decision for their school. They then take their case to the Secretary of State. So they do not need procedural grounds. It would help them if they had procedural grounds but they can go to the Secretary of State and say, "Our local authority has taken this case into account. This is the view that it has reached but we want, once more, to put our case before the Secretary of State".
The trouble with judicial review is that it is not only expensive—a point that has already been made—but it is not possible for the kind of judgment to be made that a Secretary of State can presently make. In other words the Secretary of State can look afresh at the decision and can come to a different view. If the adjudicator takes a decision, that is the end of it. Unless he has made a procedural "howler" along the way, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Parents can, if they do not like the decision, go through the process of judicial review but the judicial review is free to make a judgment only about the way in which the decision has been arrived at as opposed to the actual decision made.
Therefore, under this provision, parents and governors and children attending those schools that are the subject of those decisions lose a part of a process. It is on those grounds that I believe an appeal is very important. If the adjudicator makes a decision that is against the interests of the local people, the local people in any particular school should have the long-stop opportunity to take their case to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blackstone: I am intrigued by the proposed new clause as I believe it represents a departure from the Opposition's usual criticism of any proposal to give powers to the Secretary of State.
The objective of the new arrangements that we are introducing, both for school organisation and for admissions, is to secure that decisions are taken at a local level. In the case of school organisation, we are requiring the establishment in each LEA area of a school organisation committee to bring together the partners, as we have already discussed. In the case of admissions, we shall require consultation on admissions arrangements at local level, and suggest that the establishment of a local admissions forum may be helpful. However, we shall deal with that aspect later when we debate the admissions part of the Bill. We recognise that in some circumstances local agreement will not be reached. As I said earlier, we hope that those will be rather rare occasions; indeed, the adjudicator exists for just such cases.
The adjudicator will review all the issues, taking full account of all objections and comments made, before reaching a decision. The adjudicator's decision will be
94
final. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, recognised, any challenge to the adjudicator will be by judicial review.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the new system is one based on the principle that the adjudicator will undertake a review as regards any dispute which is taking place. Therefore, to add the Secretary of State to that process would further extend the whole system thus rendering it more time consuming. Moreover, it would also duplicate what the adjudicator was doing.
The amendment would re-introduce the Secretary of State as a further source of appeal. That would have two effects. First, it would involve the Secretary of State in decisions which are properly taken elsewhere; and, secondly, it would prolong consideration of the issues. We believe that the arrangements that we have put in place provide proper opportunities for schools and parents to make their views known. Where cases are referred to the adjudicator, he or she would be bound to take those views into account in a proper and reasonable consideration of the issues. Therefore, they will have every opportunity to put their case, as clearly as they are able, to the adjudicator.
I note with interest the inclusion of proposals flowing from a direction given under Schedule 7 in the proposed clause. Any such direction would have been given by the Secretary of State where he was of the opinion that the provision of places in any part of an LEA area was either excessive or insufficient. Schedule 7 also provides for the Secretary of State to bring forward his own proposals where he is not persuaded by those brought forward in response to the direction. In such a case, unless the school organisation committee approves the proposals, the adjudicator will be obliged to hold a local inquiry. That reflects arrangements introduced in the 1993 Act in which the Secretary of State was obliged to take account of the findings of a local inquiry in reaching a decision on his own proposals.
To provide for appeal to the Secretary of State in such cases seems particularly inappropriate when the adjudicator has already held a local inquiry. We believe that there are sufficient opportunities within the arrangements we propose for schools and parents to make their views known. I accept that that is important. Indeed, they should be able to make their views known and they will be able to do so under the system that we propose to introduce. Both school organisation committees and adjudicators will have to take full account of any comments and objections made in reaching reasonable decisions. We shall ensure that our guidance covers the procedures that both the committees and the adjudicators should be following.
I am afraid therefore that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, who was optimistic that the Government might be able to accept his amendment. On this occasion, I believe that pessimism might perhaps have been the right emotion for him to express. Our objective is to ensure that these decisions are taken at a local level as far as is possible and not by the Secretary of State. We are introducing a system of adjudicators. If we were then to have an appeal process

95
to the Secretary of State, it would really make the adjudicators redundant. So, against that background, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should point out to the Committee that the Minister's new elegant hairstyle does not represent a change in generosity of spirit. I have two comments to make. I shall deal, first, with the position as regards our objection to the Secretary of State taking powers. Basically, on this side of the Committee, we hold the constitutional principle that when you make a law you ought to put on the face of the legislation the powers that are given to the executive. We have—and I acknowledge this fact—objected strongly to the Secretary of State taking such powers and the scrutiny committee supported us in that view. I am pleased, as indeed are all our noble friends, that the Minister has taken our views to heart and has introduced legislation accordingly. Therefore, when she said that we objected to the Secretary of State in such circumstances, that is quite true. We certainly objected to him taking arbitrary powers.
It has been a fundamental principle of the English constitution that we do not hand to unelected officials powers without appeal. I acknowledge that you give an appeal to a judicial review. But I can only endorse what noble Lords opposite have said; namely, that this is not a redress. Judicial review is only available to the wealthy. Therefore, our objection is that the executive has taken power to avoid its responsibilities without allowing for proper redress.
The Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament and has to answer to it. He also has to face people demonstrating outside his office. However, more importantly, in such a case he has to answer to the local MPs for the constituencies where the schools are situated. We therefore propose that the appeals procedure should enter into the long 200-year tradition of English democracy, from the Wilkes case onwards, and that the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament for his decisions which should be subject to appeal.
Secondly, it has been said that the adjudicator is local. However, he is not local; he is an official. The noble Baroness said earlier that he is official and that his virtue is that he should not be local. I accept that. It is like being a member of the Parole Board or chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and so on. I do not understand how the Minister can now contradict what she said earlier today. She now says that he is local, but that is not so. As I said, he is an official who is going to judge such matters, but he is an official without appeal except to judicial review. I am sorry to repeat myself, but judicial review is not available to the poor.
We have been debating this matter since three o'clock this afternoon. I believe that the opinion of the Committee has been against these proposals. On
96
this side of the Committee, we feel that it was most unfortunate that Members of the other opposition party did not press their amendment to a Division. I regret that fact. Therefore, at this point and late in the evening, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
8.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Aldington, L.

McNair, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Maddock, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Newby, L.

Biddulph, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Blackwell, L.

Northesk, E.

Blatch, B.

Norton, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Chesham, L.

Renton, L .

Chesham, L.

Rowallan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Cox, B.

Seccombe, B.

Dholakia, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Strange, B.

Fookes, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Leigh, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lucas, L.

Thurso, V.

Luke, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Orme, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Fitt, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Islwyn, L.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.55 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Adjudicators]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 118, line 8, at end insert—
("Training
The Secretary of State shall make provision for ensuring that persons appointed as adjudicators receive appropriate training.").
The noble and learned Lord said: While the Chamber is thinning I should say that I come to this Committee as a johnny-come-lately. I was not able to participate at Second Reading. Had I done so, I should have been broadly supportive of my noble friend's proposals in this Bill. Certainly I should have been duly deferential because I have no qualifications as an educationist and I have never been a member of an LEA. The nearest I can approach such a qualification is as the husband of a former school governor.
The purpose of these amendments is to reflect the concern of the Council on Tribunals which I am privileged to chair. I am grateful to my noble friend for providing that the Council on Tribunals will exercise a supervisory role over adjudicators. This amendment reflects a long-standing concern of the council that those entrusted with the task of adjudication should be trained properly for that purpose. Those who are appointed adjudicators—whatever the method of appointment—are not likely to find themselves the beneficiaries of a sinecure. My noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lord Peston said they hoped there would not be many appeals to the adjudicator. They may be right about that. They frequently are right on these matters. At that moment the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was in a less optimistic mode. I do not know who is right on that issue. However, I know that appeals are likely to arise when local objections are strongest, where controversy is most virulent and where those concerned are least open to conciliation.
It has been said that the adjudicator will be invited to reconsider decisions of LEAs and of governing bodies; those most immediately accountable to local communities. That is not totally unique in our constitution. He will exercise a judicial role. I imagine it is hoped he will be in a position to review the situation dispassionately; to hear the arguments objectively; and to apply his knowledge of educational principles so as to produce a coherent result. Perhaps that is not always so simple for LEAs or governing bodies which are more immediately subjected to pressure from those who are most concerned in the matter. One of the problems of any democracy is that accountability is not always easy to reconcile with objectivity.
I understand that the adjudicator will not be particularly knowledgeable about local conditions. I am bound to say that I never heard any of my noble friends in the course of these debates say anything to the contrary. Clearly, one of the virtues being claimed for the system of adjudicators is that they will be able to be rather more objective. They will not be so concerned with all the local political and social currents, and for that reason may be able to produce a more objective report.
My concern in tabling this amendment is not to pass judgment on the merits of a system of adjudicators but, if there are to be adjudicators, to ensure that the system will work properly and fairly. I can testify from my own experience as a constituency MP that few issues evoke such outbursts of feeling as admission to a school which the parents see as their preference.
Of this I am certain. The adjudicator will need a high level of skill, not only in controlling procedures, weighing arguments and reaching a reasoned conclusion; he will need to know how to defuse a very emotive situation, how to convince desperate parents that they have received a fair and proper hearing—and if, as I assume, at least some of the procedures are to be by way of a public hearing, how to retain control of a crowded hall when tempers are hot and insults fly.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, who for reasons which I understand is not in his place, pointed out that there is not a complete analogy with planning inspectors. There are some similarities. The inspector who has to conduct a public inquiry into a proposed ring-road or a cutting through a stretch of woodland is sometimes faced with an outbreak of passionate emotion. By comparison with the adjudicator, his job is a doddle. This is a subject likely to strike much nearer to people's hearts.
Inspectors appointed to conduct local inquiries are now afforded proper training. I hope that no less a provision is intended for the adjudicators. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This is another amendment that I should prefer not to be supporting because, as the noble Lord knows, I do not agree with this appointment. Nevertheless, if there is to be an adjudicator—and our judgment is that, given the kind of vote in the other place, even if we vote successfully on this side of the Chamber, there will be an adjudicator—I support all the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. This is an important post. It will be a very exposed post. The noble Lord's comparisons between the operations of the adjudicator and the way in which a planning inspector operates, are points well made and I support them.
While the noble and learned Lord was speaking to the amendment, a question occurred to me in relation to a point made earlier by the noble Baroness about one of the advantages of the adjudicator not being of or familiar with the local area being to dispel any notion of his or her being parti pris. I therefore need to ask formally: will it be a condition of appointment that the adjudicator should not operate in the area in which he or she lives, or in an area in which he or she is familiar with the locality or with the key players in the education service such as schools, teachers, head teachers or the LEA?
The noble and learned Lord made another important point. My understanding is that when a planning inspector takes evidence and goes into local communities to hear both sides of the case, those meetings are held in public. One can go along, sit in the building and hear what is going on. We have heard during our debates today that the routine meetings of the

99
organisation committee will be held in public. Will the deliberations of the adjudicator also be heard in public? For example. it is my understanding that an adjudicator will normally carry out his or her duties on paper. That is stated in the background information that we have received on this measure. However, it is also possible for an adjudicator to call for evidence and to see the protagonists and antagonists in a case. It would be helpful to hear from the noble Baroness whether that process will also take place in public.
Lord Baker of Dorking: It will be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what adjudicators are to be trained in. As the situation has developed over the past few hours and we have learnt more about this system, it is clear that the close analogy is with the post of planning inspector. The Government are inserting into a system that has stood the test of many, many years a system of planning inspection in relation to the question of school closures.
The Government have sought to defend that approach on the grounds that it is somehow an improvement in local control. That argument has been used by both Ministers during the course of today's debates. The word "devolution" was heard. Any word that came to hand which is approved by the latest Demos pamphlet was used to demonstrate the impeccability of these proposals. The reference is to local devolution. But the one thing in which an adjudicator must not be trained is local geography. So if a school closure comes up in Lincolnshire, appoint a man from Birmingham—or, even better, from Devon! He has not got to know about Lincolnshire. So the Member of Parliament for Lincolnshire will have the fate of his school decided by a chap from Devon. That will go down very well with the Member for Lincolnshire, who has addressed a huge packed meeting in his school hall the night before, with people marching and holding up banners saying, "Save our school". No, the chap from Devon is going to do it. He is going to be immaculately trained. He will know tribunal procedure. He will be like an inspector—pure. That is the system we are being asked to approve.
The other phrase used by the Government is "democratic control". There is now a form of democratic control, as several noble Lords who have spoken today know perfectly well because they have been Members of Parliament and Ministers. When the question of school closures arises, the local Member of Parliament turns up and demands to see the Minister of the day. I dare say that the noble Baroness has received delegations involving people from the other place. I am sure that she has found time for that. She will know that that is a form of democratic accountability. That has totally gone out of the window with this proposal.
If I or my party had dared to introduce this proposal when in government, we should have been blown out of the water by the party opposite. It is a most bizarre and extraordinary proposal, to insert a form of planning
100
inquiry procedure into an area so politically sensitive as the closure of schools. I wait with bated breath to know exactly what the adjudicators will be trained in.
Baroness Maddock: Those who have followed the debate this evening will know that I and my noble friends, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would rather not be discussing this amendment because we do not believe in the system of adjudicators. It is rare that I find myself in virtually complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but on this occasion I do.
Analogy has been made with a planning inspector. I wonder whether the Minister can let us know whether, as is the case with a planning inspector, the adjudicator will make a written report—"findings of fact", I believe it is called—which explains how the inspector reached his decision. If we are to have a system of adjudicators, they need to be trained; and one way to make them at least marginally accountable would be for there to be findings of fact as to the reason for the adjudicator's decision.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble and learned friend Lord Archer speaks from a position of considerable knowledge, in spite of his modesty, as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. I am delighted to have this opportunity to thank him and the council for agreeing that there should be provisions in the Bill which would put adjudicators under the supervision of the council. I emphasise that we take the supervision of the Council on Tribunals very seriously. The council's guidance and its recommendations as to best practice will inform the procedures that adjudicators will follow. That provides a considerable degree of assurance for those who will be affected by decisions made by adjudicators.
I thought that the somewhat sarcastic comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, were extraordinarily misplaced. I am sure that when my noble and learned friend replies to the debate he will put the noble Lord right and explain why it is that the Council on Tribunals will want to be involved in the training of adjudicators and what that training will involve. I acknowledge the concern that the council has, and which my noble and learned friend described very clearly, to ensure that there is appropriate training for adjudicators. We are committed to ensuring that all those appointed will be given appropriate guidance and training, both before they begin to consider cases and as part of a process of continuing development. I entirely agree with my noble friend that the job is certainly not a sinecure and that adjudicators will have to make judgments about complex matters dispassionately and objectively and ensure that locally people believe that they have had a fair hearing. That is extremely important.
However, we do not believe that a requirement for training is appropriate to the face of the Bill. We believe that provision for supervision by the Council on Tribunals provides a sufficient safeguard and will ensure that adjudicators have sound and fair procedures. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked whether it will be a condition of appointment that adjudicators will not operate in an area where they have worked in the education system or have been involved in it in some

101
way. It would be a little rigid to make that a condition of appointment. At the same time, just as in the case when a complaint is made about the police it is sometimes desirable to involve a police force from another authority to investigate the complaint, I believe, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, that it makes a lot of sense for someone in a judicial role who is to look at a dispute of this kind dispassionately and objectively to come from outside the area. Chairmen of many different kinds of tribunals have to learn about the details of local areas. It is rather strange to suggest that intelligent people who are carefully selected to do this job after national advertisement are not able to acquire sufficient knowledge to make sensible judgments.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the adjudicator will sit in public. He has the power to call a public inquiry, if he wishes, but he will do his work by examining evidence that is sent to him and by looking at all the papers. There will be a written report in which he will set out the reasons for his decision.
The department's officials will consult with the secretariat to the Council of Tribunals about the detail of the training programme and on guidance to adjudicators. In making that clear, and in the light of that reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down and following on from what my noble friend Lord Baker said—the noble Baroness easily brushed that aside—I pointed out that this is not a matter for the Council of Tribunals; it is a matter for the Government. Can the Minister say what are the criteria against which the decisions of adjudicators will be made? For example, in relation to a school closure the problem may well be the local authority's view on finance, educational opportunity or the preference and convenience of parents. What will be the criteria in such a case against which an adjudicator will judge? The adjudicator will need to know about such things before learning how to handle large meetings or quasi-judicial issues, which require a lot of training and are extremely difficult issues—I agree with everything the noble and learned Lord said. Have the Government decided what the criteria are? Perhaps I should know.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I can ask one further question because it is very relevant. The noble Baroness said that the adjudicator would not hold hearings in public, but that his decisions would be based on written representations. Is she saying that individuals, the authority or other interested parties cannot put their views to the adjudicator in an open session and that it must all be done in writing behind closed doors?
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I can deal with the second question first. It will be up to the adjudicator, depending on the nature of the dispute and who is involved, to decide how he or she wishes to reach their judgment. It will be open to the adjudicator to hold a
102
public inquiry and receive evidence in public. But it will also be open to them to do that on the basis of written evidence from those objecting to the original plan.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, adjudicators will need to take into account a whole range of criteria. For example, they will look at demography and projections of numbers of children in any one area; they will consider the views of parents as expressed and look at the viable alternatives. They will also consider the different cost of different approaches. There is a whole variety of such factors that an adjudicator will want to take into account in reaching a decision.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in the course of responding to amendments throughout the day, have been saying conflicting things. The emphasis earlier was about the rationale for what the Government are doing; that is, devolving decision making locally. We now know that the decisions that go to the adjudicator will not be local.
The noble Baroness screws up her nose at that statement. The Minister should now stop hedging one way or the other. Is the noble Baroness prepared to give an assurance to the Committee—I believe she has already done this—that it will not be a condition of appointment that the person must not operate in an area in which they are familiar with the schools, the demography, the local people involved, the head teachers and LEA members?
Earlier the noble Baroness said that it would be of benefit if an adjudicator was not familiar with the area because that would dispel any notion of somebody being parti pris. That myth would be dispelled. Is the noble Baroness saying that somebody could be appointed in an area local to where they live, where they understand the demography, the geography and the local characters involved, but it may be a good thing if they are not? Surely by now the Department for Education and Employment has made up its mind about what are the criteria for making the appointments. Is the notion that it is better for everybody concerned—for those who may think adjudicators are parti pris—that they should not be familiar with the area in which they operate?
Another side effect of appointing somebody arises. Is the adjudicator to be responsible for one, two or three local education authority areas? If so, they may be familiar with one of them but not the other two. I have already given examples of how very different one county is from another and the vast differences that there are within counties. The distance between north Lincolnshire and south Cambridgeshire is very great indeed. So it is possible to have someone from one local education authority appointed responsible for that area plus the adjacent one or two areas. In that case they are familiar with one part of their area and not another. It is absolutely essential that the Government make up their mind whether the person should be familiar or unfamiliar with the area in which they are to operate or whether they believe it important in policy terms that they should not be familiar with an area or that it does not matter.

103
As regards local decision-making, we should have some consistency. Either the view of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, prevails or that of the noble Baroness that at the end of the day, it is possible that the little school in Devon will have its decision made by someone from another county. It is very difficult to convince the people concerned that the decision was made in the name of bringing decision-making closer to the people. Nothing could be closer to them than their own local authority. But if it is to be taken by the third or fourth bodies that makes the situation very difficult.
Perhaps I may now return to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour who referred to the closing of a school. There is a philosophical and political bias against sixth forms in schools existing in many parts of the country. Many further education colleges are hungry to take the sixth-formers in schools. The decision to lose a sixth form in a school becomes very painful indeed. Where do such people go?
I link that point to one that was made by my noble friend Lady Young. We asked questions as to whether the adjudicator will operate in public, which arose in points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, when referring to the analogy with the planning inspector. I am not talking about formal inquiries rather along the lines on which the planning inspector operates. In this context we have to remember that the planning inspector is acting in the name of the Secretary of State. A very detailed report is produced which then goes to the Secretary of State and the decision is made by that Minister. I am referring to an adjudicator who makes a decision.
There are two questions about that. Will the report produced by the adjudicator be as detailed, full and public as the report produced by a planning inspector? When the adjudicator decides to take oral evidence from a body of parents, the local education authority or interested parties in the community and which falls short of a public inquiry, will those occasions be made public? Is it to be an ad hoc decision for the adjudicator so that those meetings can be made public where one side wishes to put an argument and have closed meetings for the other side which wishes to put its points orally to the adjudicator and where the adjudicator deems that to be appropriate? If at the end of the day we end up with an adjudicator, it is important that we know in some detail how the adjudicator will operate.
Baroness Blackstone: We have reached group number seven of the amendments on the Marshalled List and we have over 30 groups to go through this evening. It is now 25 minutes past nine. One of the reasons for this situation is that the noble Baroness speaks about four times on each amendment including those tabled by her fellow Front Bench spokespersons. She also asks a whole range of questions which have absolutely nothing to do with the amendment on the Marshalled List. The amendment we are dealing with is about training of adjudicators. I am happy to try to answer some of the noble Baroness's questions, but I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with me that we must make progress with the Committee stage of the
104
Bill. On an amendment about training, we have had 15 different questions which have absolutely nothing to do with it and which could have been asked earlier when we were discussing other amendments; or if they were not asked then, they could be asked on Report.
The noble Baroness suggested that there is a difference between what my noble friend Lord Whitty and I are saying. She is completely wrong. She has totally neglected the fact that earlier my noble friend was talking about school organisation committees, not about adjudicators. School organisation committees are part of the Government's new procedure for devolving decision-making locally. The adjudicator system is a national system that is to be set up to resolve disputes where issues cannot be settled locally. Nothing that either my noble friend Lord Whitty or I have said suggests any difference between us.
The noble Baroness seems to misunderstand the system of adjudicators. They will not be attached to one, two or three local authorities. There will be about 20 adjudicators to cover the whole country. That is the purpose of the system. It would be over-rigid to make it a condition of appointment that, whatever the case, they would never operate in an area of which they have some knowledge. In fact, that would be patently ludicrous. At the same time, it is important, as I have said more than once, that they should not be parti pris but should make their judgments as dispassionately as possible. There may be many advantages in doing so if they come from a different part of the country.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the adjudicator's report will be as full as that undertaken by the Secretary of State with regard to his decisions. The answer is yes; they must be just as full.
We really must move on. In the light of what I have said on the issue of training, which is what this amendment is about, I ask my noble and learned friend whether he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I take personal offence at the remarks made by the noble Baroness. In Committee we are in the business of doing two things. We seek to solicit from the Government information which is not part of the Bill or part of the background papers. We are asking questions where we have a gap in our knowledge. This is most important when we reach the next stage.
The noble Baroness said that my questions were not pertinent to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking asked a question about training. We are anxious to know whether there will be reports and whether that will form part of the training. We are anxious to know whether evidence will be taken in public and whether that will form part of the training. We are anxious to know whether or not adjudicators will act locally. Those are very important questions, all of which are relevant to the issue of training.
One of the hazards of being in government—I have been there myself—is that the Opposition have only these stages of the Bill in which to solicit such information. All of the points I have made have been

105
entirely pertinent to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord. In the event of there being an adjudicator system, I support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: The questions which the noble Baroness has just asked about training are completely different from the questions she asked earlier. I am happy to respond to her questions; I want to be helpful. I also want us to make progress. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber would like us to make progress. I do not believe that we shall be able to do so if we continue as we have for the past four or five hours.
Those who will take on the role of adjudicators will have to be trained in exactly the matters which the noble Baroness has just identified. They are all extremely important. The Government endorse what has been said about the need for training. Indeed, as I said, our officials will consult the secretariat to the Council on Tribunals about the details of the training programme. I think—the Government think—that it is right that expert advice should be sought on a matter as important as this. That is what we intend to do.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for concentrating on the merits of the amendment. I confess that the debate has ranged rather more widely than I envisaged. I fully appreciate the position of the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Maddock. They would prefer not to have a system of adjudicators. However, given that there is to be a system of adjudicators they both believe it is better that it operates well than badly. I do not believe that there is any great issue between us on that matter.
I was invited to respond to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I hope he will forgive me if I resist the temptation, save to observe that although a planning inspector reports to the Minister, an adjudicator will make the decision for himself. I do not believe that that distinction should be reflected in whether or not he has local knowledge. Local knowledge is just as good or bad if one is reporting to the Secretary of State as if one is making the decision for oneself. But if we are talking about people who make decisions for themselves perhaps when a High Court judge whose home is in Devon next goes to Norwich Crown Court to try cases the noble Lord will address the same arguments to him and see what kind of reaction he receives.
Turning to the merits of the amendment, I hope that the adjudicators will receive training in all the skills that are necessary for them to undertake their work. It will consist not only of analysing issues and controlling procedures, but matters such as taking evidence in public and formulating reasons for a decision when it is given. If there is to be training at all it is pointless if it does not include those issues. I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that the Council on Tribunals will be consulted about that matter.
I hesitate in relation only to one matter. My noble friend and I are entirely at one on what we should like to see happen. My noble friend did not say that she
106
wanted this to be written into the Bill, which is the purpose of my amendment. However, it may be that we should both consider what has been said this evening and reconsider the issue at a later stage. For the moment, I am grateful for the indication that she has given and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 118, line 32, at end insert—
(" . When taking any decision an adjudicator shall have regard (so far as relevant) to the obligations which, by virtue of—

(a) Part III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, or

(b) Part III of the Race Relations Act 1976,

are owed by any local education authority or governing body which will be affected by the decision.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Maddock: As I indicated earlier, I believe that we have already had this debate. I do not intend to pursue this matter any further tonight.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [School organisation plans]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 109B:
Page 23, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No school organisation plan prepared under this section shall include proposals to—

(a) discontinue sixth form provision at a particular school;

(b) introduce pupils of the opposite sex into any age group or teaching group in a particular school in which that school currently offers single sex education; or

(c) eliminate selection by ability, in part or in whole,

unless the proposals submitted within the school organisation plan have previously been accepted by the governing body and parents of the school concerned.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment owes itself to the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Out of pure generosity of heart, he advised me that I had tabled the amendment in the wrong place. I thought that in all honesty I should table it in the right place. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to assure me with the same conviction that he showed over the education development plan that this does not present any problem to Her Majesty's Government.
I shall not dwell on these points. These matters are very precious to schools. If one discontinues sixth form provision one destroys the school. Single sex schools are very valuable. The way in which they select is of enormous value given the nature of the schools and their appointments. As a former headmaster presiding over schools, this amendment is close to my heart and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for helping me to table it. This is a headmaster's amendment which hope the Government will be able to accept, given that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, assured me that there were no problems as regards the education development plan. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord must listen a little more carefully, if I may say that to a former headmaster. On 19th May, after explaining that there was no question of education development plans dealing with the matter in the amendment, I said:
"If the noble Lord cares to put down an amendment to Clause 25 or a later clause, we shall consider it. But it is hardly for me to anticipate what will happen in the debate on those later clauses".—[Official Report, 19/5/98; col. 1506.]
The noble Lord has, as is entirely his right, chosen to put down this amendment in relation to Clause 25. I shall seek to persuade him that it is in the wrong place. It may be helpful if I, first, emphasise the purpose of the school organisation plan. It is to provide a context against which subsequent proposals for change may be brought forward by proposers and considered by school organisation committees. I say that with due deliberation, because from what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, it seemed that there was some confusion about what a school organisation plan does.
A number of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches seemed to think that a school organisation plan sets out those matters which have in the past been matters for statutory proposals considered by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who was helpfully in his place on the previous occasion, reminded the Committee that changes such as those suggested by noble Lords opposite required, and still require, the publication of individual proposals.
While under current legislation such proposals might be required for changes to selective admissions arrangements, the Bill's provisions handle that separately and we shall come on to them when we consider Clauses 94 and 98, for partial selection, and Clauses 100 to 102 for grammar schools. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that I said that on 19th May.
We shall come shortly to discuss those clauses that deal with individual proposals. Under Clause 27, schools must publish proposals to make prescribed alterations to their schools. Among the changes that will be prescribed are changes of a year or more to the age range of a school and changing from providing single sex to providing co-educational education or vice-versa. Those are all matters brought forward again in the amendment.
That means that it will not be possible to discontinue sixth form provision at a school, or to make a single sex school co-educational, without having proposals to do so approved through the new decision-making system. That is the local decision-making process.
The new system will continue the current arrangements for publishing statutory proposals—in other words, the proposed change would have to be consulted on, and then published, with notices made publicly available, and various interested parties informed, including the governing bodies of any school affected. There will then be wide opportunities for comment and objection over a statutory two-month period before the proposals are put to the committee for consideration.
108
The committee will consider the proposals in the light of any comments and objections, and take into account all views expressed in reaching its decision. It is not our intention that the school organisation plan should replace the arrangements for proposals for change to individual schools. That is the error in the placing of the amendment. The plan should supplement that process, and, in the way that we have already discussed, make more transparent the demographic and policy considerations that underpin such proposals.
I hope that I can put the noble Lord's mind at rest about the extent to which the school organisation plan might deal with those issues. The local education authority will consult upon and publish a draft plan. There will be widespread opportunities to comment and to object. If there were to be any suggestion in a draft plan that, for example, school sixth forms should be removed, local schools and parents would have ample opportunity to comment and object, and the school organisation committee would have those objections before it.
As to the admission of pupils of the opposite sex to a single sex school, I would expect the interests of particular religious communities also to be reflected at local level and that both LEAs and school organisation committees would take their wishes fully into account in reaching decisions. That is the point of local decision-making. Our aim is that there should be a local consensus, reflecting the wishes and needs of all parties, not that we should impose constraints. Individual schools have enough opportunities to make their views and wishes known.
I hope that the noble Lord will not be too disappointed and will accept that the process of local decision-making infuses our thinking throughout the Bill and that his amendment is not appropriate at this place.
Lord Blackwell: I have not had the opportunity to hear all the debate today. However, I believe that the amendment strikes at the heart of the Bill. The noble Lord makes the point that the proposals should not be commented on by parents but that parents should accept the proposals put forward. Whether or not the amendment is in the right place, it seems helpful to have such words inserted in the Bill.
Clause after clause takes powers away from parents and puts them in the hands of either appointed officials, LEAs or the Secretary of State. I have done a tally which no doubt the Minister can correct. There are 65 new powers and duties for LEAs, 71 new powers and duties for the Secretary of State, and 52 new regulatory powers for the Secretary of State. The noble Lord would be hard pressed to point to any new rights for parents of the children in the schools.
On this side of the Chamber, we have fought for some time for the principle that the best people to protect the interests of children and educational standards are the parents of those children. It should be clear in the Bill—at either this point or at any other point in the Bill that the Government may decide—that no measures reducing the diversity of choice of schools available to

109
parents should be enacted without the parents of the children of that school approving them. It is an important principle that we support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that we have not had the benefit of the opinions of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, in our debates until now. If I had heard those comments before, I should have been able to say something more definitive about them, perhaps at a time when there would be more Members of the Committee present. It could have been raised at Second Reading. These are clearly important points. They deserve, and will receive from me, a considered answer in response to the statistics that he raises. He will understand that I am unable to respond to them off the cuff.
However, the noble Lord gives expression to a profound misunderstanding about what the Government seek to do in this legislation. It is not that we are taking rights away from parents. On the contrary, the search for a local consensus involved in the school organisation committee has to be considered in the light of the composition of the school organisation committee. If we had been simply returning power to local education authorities, we would not have had a school organisation committee with an elaborate procedure for consensus, for blocking votes from religious communities, and with membership from governing bodies including parent governors. We would not have had any of the difficulties that have taken up so much time in drafting changes in the past few hours.
What is fundamentally different is that the decision shall be taken at local level, as far as possible on a consensus basis, including parents, parent governors and other governors in that decision process, rather than by the Secretary of State. I long to join in the wider debate raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. However, I have to return to my point: that this is not what school organisation plans are. The protection of the process of proposals, consultation and decision-making still exists for the issues raised in the amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I admire the noble Lord's honeyed words. They managed to perplex a large number of my colleagues when I put forward the amendment. I have had to run seminars to tell them what the noble Lord was saying.
The fundamental point of the amendment is to give parents the right to decide over sensitive issues. As the Minister knows, we on this side of the Chamber have considerable doubts about school organisation committees and adjudicators. We therefore want written on the face of the Bill support for certain sensitive areas such as sixth forms, the style of the school decided by admission and single sex. The noble Lord has not submitted grammar schools and similar matters to the local authority. The Government have established balance, which we shall discuss later. The parents of the county or the area will decide. We are suggesting that in certain other areas parents decide. This is not a Bill that removes parental choice. It allows it over grammar schools, and we are extending it to other areas.
110
I am not satisfied with the noble Lord's answer, as I was not previously. He knows as well as I do that if it goes on the surface of the Bill, the school organisation committee, the adjudicator, can do nothing about it. It is safe. It is set in tablets of stone. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 109B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 43.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Blackwell, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rowallan, L.

Carnock, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

David, B.

Maddock, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Newby, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Orme, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gilbert, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grenfell, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) A school organisation plan must set out the ways in which diversity in the style and type of education offered by the schools in the area will be maintained or increased, and the ways in which parents and pupils will be enabled to take greater advantage of such diversity.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 110, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 110A. These are clearly probing amendments. The issues which they cover are dealt with specifically in Clause 25(3). I do not expect the Minister to accept the idea that any alteration should be made to the Bill at this stage.

111
However, I hope that he will take the opportunity to expand on Clause 25(3) and to explain in particular how it covers the points raised by the amendments.
Amendment No. 110 addresses the question of diversity. Any school organisation committee, local bureaucracy or local organisation of this sort will tend towards simplicity and towards things which are easily comprehensible and controllable. In the past when LEAs have had control over this sort of thing they have tended to be against diversity. Since they will not have quite the control over diversity which they used to, they will control ways in which parents can make use of that diversity.
Jumping ahead, a later amendment, Amendment No. 241, deals with school transport. That is one of the main mechanisms which LEAs use to control access to schools. I shall take the concrete example of schools around Winchester, which I happen to know. Hampshire is not a bad LEA and pursues relatively benign policies. But within Winchester there are three good secondary schools, all, I would say, on a par academically, all with very different characters. Different children will do better in different schools, and parents who take the trouble to look at all three will develop a strong preference for one or the other. They are all within half a mile of each other but, depending on where you live, you can get a bus to only one of them. No effort is made by the local education authority to enable parents to send their child to the secondary school of their choice. If they choose a different secondary school from the one they are allocated they have to do the entire school run themselves. So it is only those parents who can afford to do that—and there are plenty of those around Winchester—who can take advantage of the diversity.
I do not want the Government to spell out any specific nostrums in the Bill, or indeed in the regulations, but I should like them to encourage local authorities to enable parents, where possible, and where it can be done without undue inconvenience, to take advantage of the existing diversity.
In Amendment No. 110A, at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, earlier, I turn to the question of the consideration which should be given to expanding popular schools. I do not have any difficulty with what Hampshire has done in this regard. But in the case of some of the excellent state secondary schools, particularly around North London, there has been a long history of the local education authorities not putting money into those schools and expanding them but insisting instead that the money should go into the schools that the parents do not want to use. Parents can like it or lump it, there should be only so many allowed in Camden Girls and that is it.
I detect from what the noble Baroness said on Second Reading that there is an understanding in government that support for popular schools, enabling them to expand where that is what the schools want and what local parents want, is an admirable objective. Even if it may mean that other schools shrink, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to give me some comfort that
112
LEAs and school organisation committees, in particular, will be signed in this direction by what the Government choose to put in the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: As we stagger on, oh so slowly, from school organisation committees to school organisation plans, and as it seems that a member of a local education authority, a person nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education by any diocese of the Church of England, and a person nominated by the Bishop of any Roman Catholic Church are the only people guaranteed a place on such committees. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 111 in the forlorn hope of securing some reference to special educational needs in these new arrangements for organisation of schools.
This amendment would have the effect of ensuring that alongside the draft school organisation plan that is submitted to the school organisation committee—if they eventually exist—there would be an explicit assessment of the impact of the draft plan on provision for children with special educational needs. Excellence for all children—it is such a little thing to ask.
10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am glad to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on this amendment, especially as I felt compelled to oppose an amendment which he moved on a previous occasion. It seems to me to be entirely right that, at this point in the Bill, there should be specific reference to special educational needs in relation to the draft plan. We are all aware that it is always easy to overlook children who have special educational needs in these days when so much emphasis is laid on the meeting of high targets and the establishment of high standards.
It is perfectly possible to have high standards in relation to children with special educational needs. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, may be interested to know that a society of which I am chairman—the National Society—which originally founded many of the schools that have become church schools, has just set up a fellowship to study the whole area of the spiritual and moral development of children with special educational needs. The Churches have a strong concern in that respect. I would personally be very glad to see this particular amendment on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like, first, to support Amendment No. 111 as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We had a long argument some time ago—it seems like six months ago, but it was not actually as long ago as that—on the inclusion of the word "all" to emphasise the Government's stated commitment to the welfare of children with special educational needs.
It seems to me that this is an absolutely perfect place for us to make that commitment plain on the face of the Bill. It would satisfy many people who have been trying to amend various parts of the legislation if we were to get that commitment clarified on the face of this Bill. Therefore, on those grounds, I appeal to the Government to at least give the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and all those who are concerned about such matters, some comfort by

113
saying that they will at least take the matter away and consider it as being a potential way of satisfying that demand. Indeed, it would be most useful if local authorities had to show how their proposals would affect that very vulnerable group of people. Of course, not all of them are vulnerable; some of them are just difficult and they also have to be coped with.
Secondly, I turn to Amendment No. 110, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. At the end of the noble Lord's opening remarks, I was quite uncertain as to whether he was talking about the possibility of having a large number of different sorts of schools or whether he was talking about being able to have the same sort of school, organisationally speaking, delivering different nuances of education. In other words, I am not quite certain as to whether the noble Lord's proposal would enable more schools of a different kind to be developed or whether his amendment addresses the question of educational diversity—that is, diversity in the classroom. If it is the latter, then I believe the noble Lord has made an important point.
One of the tragedies that is taking place today because of the demand for high standards, and their measurement by examination results throughout the system, is that diversity of provision which, after all, has to respond to a wide range of different sorts of pupil—for example, those who develop at different speeds, and so on—is in danger of disappearing. We need to pay more attention to the diversity of education within our existing schools. I am really not interested in a huge organisational change regarding whether or not such schools are of one sort or another. However, I am interested in maintaining diversity of provision. If that is what the noble Lord is talking about, I believe that he has made an interesting and important point.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should like briefly to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As the Minister knows, special educational needs have occupied the education authorities of this country for a considerable amount of time this century. We are entering into a difficult area, but I felt on Second Reading that perhaps the Government had not given enough attention to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am sure that that is unintentional, but I believe that considerable thought should be given to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said. It is a very sensitive and delicate area. There has been much controversy about how one copes with this.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right to say that the matter should be mentioned on the face of the Bill. I said at Second Reading that I felt that not enough attention was given to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I hope that the Government will be able to address the issue.
Lord Swinfen: I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said in support of Amendment No. 110 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I shall not go further into that as it is getting late. I also support Amendment No. 111 to which my name has been added. As already mentioned, one-fifth
114
of school pupils have special educational needs, a surprisingly large number. It is absolutely essential that school organisation plans take that into consideration. It should be made plain to schools how they are to deal with the matter. The Green Paper on excellence for all children indicated that regional plans may be drawn up with regard to special educational needs. How will schools take those regional plans into consideration? Will they have a duty to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to respond to all three amendments. I recognise the good intentions of all of them. I do not wish to repeat what has been said about school organisation plans. However, I must say once again that they are an important part of the new arrangements for local decision making on school organisation, not because they replace the proposals for change for individual schools but because they provide a context in which those proposals can be submitted and considered. The preparation of a school organisation plan will be subject to consultation. It will be published and there will be opportunities to object to any of its content. In that way we can reflect the developing consensus and partnership at local level which is at the core of our policy. It is therefore at the core of my response to each of these amendments.
The essential point is that we intend the school organisation plans to be drawn up at local level. The more these plans comprise concessions and even agreement with particular interest groups such as special educational needs—"interest group" is far too narrow a description for a movement which permeates all our views on education—and the more we agree further elements to a school organisation plan in addition to what is prescribed on the face of the Bill, the more we move away from the fundamentally local character of the school organisation plan. We have said that we do not intend to be over-prescriptive. We expect a school organisation plan to include demographic information and statements of policy relevant to the provision of places as the basis for reaching conclusions on the need to add or to remove places within an authority's area. We expect the plan to make a specific link between the organisation of school places and raising standards. Beyond that the plan should cover those issues which seem to LEAs and to school organisation committees to be relevant to the provision of places in their area. It should reflect local concerns and the views of local partners on the provision of school places.
I now turn to Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Diversity can mean two things. It can mean diversity as regards different kinds of organisation of schools or as regards the educational ethos of a school. The previous government used diversity as a cover-up for an attempt to get schools away from local authorities into the grant-maintained sector and under the direct control of the Secretary of State and the Funding Agency for Schools. Therefore "diversity" has to be a dubious word so far as we are concerned.

115
However, leaving that on one side, of course we agree with the noble Lord. We want a system in which schools, as autonomous institutions, whatever their organisation or category, can develop their own strengths within a framework that treats all schools equitably. There is no place for arrangements under which schools compete with each other to cream off certain groups of pupils.
The school organisation plan will provide an opportunity for an agreed local vision in relation to the provision of school places. The procedures for consulting on and agreeing to the plan will provide an opportunity for individual schools to say whether the plan is consistent with the way in which they want to develop. That is the only way in which I can see diversity being achieved. The plan itself, in particular the material on demographic change, will contribute to the schools' own planning. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is a step forward. It reflects the fact that these are issues that should be resolved locally. We propose not to be too prescriptive.
On the matter of popular schools, the same argument applies. Yes, of course there are advantages and difficulties in expanding popular schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it is not always a bad thing that that will result in falling rolls in other schools—although it could be a bad thing, as I think the noble Lord will recognise. We expect local education authorities to balance supply and demand in relation to school places in so far as that is possible. This is nothing new. It has been happening in education authorities since they began in the last century. Supply and demand in school places has always been a difficult balance to strike. The key must be that the local authority, the schools and the parents in an area should decide how far the school organisation plans cover that issue, rather than having it placed on the face of the Bill.
I now turn to the question of special educational needs. I was glad to have confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that he recognises the importance of the Green Paper, Excellence for all children. As I think the noble Lord will know, the department is working with representatives from local education authorities and other organisations to set up regional pilot projects which will explore how to take that forward.
I can say to the noble Lord, if it helps him at all, that regulations will provide the broad framework for the content of school organisation plans. However, we believe that the place to cover the content in any detail is in guidance that we intend to give to local education authorities, including advice on how the plan should reflect provision for pupils with special educational needs. But again, it is guidance rather than regulations, and even more so, rather than by accretions onto the face of the Bill. We believe that that will provide an opportunity to build on the work that is about to start in the pilot areas. We are open-minded about it: we know that these are pilots. Although we think that guidance is the best approach, if in the future it appears that school organisation plans do not satisfactorily reflect proposed
116
provision for pupils with special educational needs, we can make further regulations governing the content of plans.
However, the over-arching arguments for agreeing the plan locally are also important. I hope that we can reassure noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment that this is the way in which special educational needs concerns can best be addressed. There will be a draft plan with wide opportunities to comment and object. At that stage, if not before, there will be opportunities for special educational needs groups to offer explicit views on the impact of special educational needs provision on the authority plan. The authority will be obliged to pass any such comments on to the school organisation committee when it comes to the school organisation plan.
In the interests of maintaining local responsibility, while recognising the virtue of the thinking behind these amendments, I urge Members of the Committee not to press them.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would like to reconsider a statement he made in response to the important amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, when I think he described special educational needs and those representing them as an accretion on the face of the Bill. I wonder whether that is how he views pupils with special educational needs. Most of us who take education seriously would not describe pupils who fall into that category in that way. I do not think it helps the Government's case to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think the noble Baroness detected that I realised that my wording was unfortunate as I was speaking. I sought not to cause offence to anyone concerned, as all noble Lords are, with special educational needs. The noble Baroness is right. The thinking about special educational needs must permeate our educational thinking. If I used any words which went against that, I apologise to her and to the Committee. I do not apologise for using the word "accretion", which is an objective word; it describes putting something else on the face of the Bill. I would rather not do that, for the reasons I explained.
Lord Rix: First, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and other noble Lords for their wholehearted support of Amendment No. 111 to place special educational needs at long last in an important part of the Bill. Unfortunately, the response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is once more disappointing.
The noble Lord said that after due consideration it might be necessary to bring in special regulations because the Government are open-minded. I think that that holds out only a crumb of hope. The special educational needs consortium, which I have the honour to represent, is composed of many important national charities, education authorities, local authorities and teaching unions, all of whom subscribe to the

117
amendments that I have put forward, together with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth.
The Government seem to regard special educational needs as a local difficulty. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, selected special interest groups with rather more care than did another noble Lord on the government Benches earlier today. But he said that it was important to keep the local character of school organisation plans in place. I would have thought that special educational needs locally were of the utmost importance. I cannot believe that they can be thought of as not being local. If they are not local, where do they belong? In outer space? Are those with special educational needs to be once more proscribed in regard to education as they were until 1971? I find the Government's resistance to putting the special educational needs problem on the face of the Bill extraordinary. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says now, whatever any other noble Lord on the Front Bench may say, it gives the impression to those of us who are trying to work with children with special educational needs that such children are somehow still regarded as second-rate citizens. I shall return to this matter at Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, did not formally move his amendment; it is being considered with others in the group and perhaps therefore I can say a word in relation to his remarks. Of course, special educational needs is an issue which occurs locally and in every locality. I was not in any way seeking to deny that. I was saying that solutions may vary and the solutions should be determined locally.
Lord Swinfen: When the Minister first replied, he mentioned that pilot schemes either had started or are about to start. There must therefore be draft guidance available for those schemes. Is it possible for those of us who have taken part in the debate to be given a copy of that draft guidance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All information about pilot schemes will be made available. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—since he raised this specific point—with copies to all other Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and I will place a copy in the Library.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his remarks, particularly the last one. I look forward to reading it and, if necessary, returning to the matter on Report. I understand what the noble Lord said about preserving local character. The emphasis of my interest therefore changes to what the mechanisms are for groups of local people to make representations in order that their views can be considered. As I understand the Bill as it stands, it is necessary to wait until a local education authority
118
produces its plan; there is then a once-round of ideas coming into the committee and out. I see the noble Lord shaking his head.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Local views will be welcomed at all stages in the preparation of the school organisational plan.
Lord Lucas: In that case, all I want to hear from the noble Lord—either now or later—is how that will be organised, asked for or done. Are we to have guidance or regulations for the local authority? It is not on the face of the Bill that there should be consultation or input before the LEA produces its plans. Is that something to which I shall need to return on Report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My immediate reaction is how a local authority or schools organisation committee could stop local people expressing their views at any stage.
Lord Lucas: Of course, they could not. But unless the committee invites it, such representations are likely to be disjointed in time and disorganised in form. It would be much better if there was a period during which representations were invited. I do not see provision for that on the face of the Bill. However, I shall not press the matter tonight and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110A and 111 not moved.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 23, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) requiring that the draft plan shall not be approved by the school organisation committee, or referred to the adjudicator, if the representatives of the relevant diocese or dioceses of the Church of England for the area of the local education authority, or the equivalent representative of the Bishop of the Roman Catholic church concerned, are opposed to the proposal;").
The noble Lord said: This is a non-political amendment though it has considerable sensitivity.
I am assuming, in the case of this amendment, that in view of the large majority Her Majesty's Government have in the other place, and in light of the action they have taken this afternoon, they will carry the Bill through the other place almost intact. I cannot speak for what we will do, but for the sake of the amendment let us assume that the Bill goes through as it stands.
As the Minister and her colleagues know, denominational schools in England have always been a sensitive issue. When Mr. Gladstone first introduced the education Bill in 1870 he preserved the position absolutely of denominational schools. That was continued in the 1944 Act.
Denominational schools provide particularly for Roman Catholics, but also for many Anglicans. For Anglicans—I speak as an Anglican clergyman—they provide a community role in rural areas, but in urban

119
areas they provide a specific focus for those who want to go to schools where that faith is established, as I recognise in the part of London where I work.
As Members of the Committee know from the long and arduous discussions this afternoon, the schools organisation committee consists of four colleges of which one is a representative of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. If they are not unanimous—in other words, if the denominational schools object—they do not have a right of veto; the decision goes to the adjudicator.
As Members of the Committee know, Scotland is outside the scope of the Bill. This measure has caused considerable worry to the Roman Catholic Church in that Cardinal Winning is resisting the closure of schools in certain parts of Glasgow. I hardly need point out to Members of the Committee opposite that this is an area of sensitivity.
I realise that on page four of the adjudicator's instructions there is the possibility of individuals having the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, but they do not refer to the closure of schools or similar matters. My amendment restores the tradition of English education from, as far as I know, every educational Act that gives denominational schools the right of veto. In other words, if the closure of a faith school is involved then that does not go to the adjudicator.
I put forward the amendment in the spirit of 150 years of education during which, in contrast to the Continent, we have avoided conflict between Church and state over such issues. I recommend the amendment to the Committee. The right reverend Prelate will speak with more authority. I have discussed it both with Roman Catholics and members of my own Church. I believe that it meets with their approval. I hope that the Government will accept it. I believe that it will not cause problems. The issues will arise very rarely. The Minister would be following the tradition of Mr. Gladstone. It is a noble tradition which I am sure the Minister would wish to follow. She may get wreaths on her own grave later on. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I welcome the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, for moving it. I thank other noble Lords opposite for giving it support by putting their names to it. I have already argued the importance of school organisation committees and of the significance of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church having a strong voice and indeed having the power of veto on those committees.
I should perhaps comment that, as I understand it, the amendment is a permissive one—that is to say, the regulations are those under subsection (5) which may make provision requiring certain things to happen. So the amendment as it stands simply empowers regulations to say that this may be the case. Amendment No. 106B, to which we have already agreed, makes it mandatory for all bodies on a school organisation committee to reach a unanimous decision. That is mandatory whereas this amendment is permissive.
120
However, it provides a further protection for denominational schools as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made clear.
Plans would not be referred to an adjudicator if either of the Church bodies objected to that happening. That raises the whole matter of the role of the adjudicator. What powers is he to have? I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put that question earlier. It seems to me that this is a proper place for that question to be put. To what issues or to what representations will the adjudicator be required to have regard? It is perfectly possible that the future of Church schools in the neighbourhood could be in the hands of such a person. The Churches need to be assured of the way in which those powers are to be exercised.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will be reassured to know that on this occasion I speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church as well as on behalf of the Church of England. I spoke with a representative of the Catholic Education Service this morning who in turn has spoken with the cardinal. I also speak on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London who is not in his place this evening. He had hoped to make a contribution to this amendment. He has written to me and with your Lordships' permission I will read what he says:
"The Churches are keen to continue the real partnership which exists between faith communities and other providers of educational services. Our intention is to serve local communities by co-operating in the drive for educational excellence and by developing an explicitly Christian ethos in our schools as a contribution to genuine pluralism. As the Bill is currently drafted, the new post of adjudicator will have very wide powers. These may be restricted on a temporary basis by regulation, but could it not be the case that the powers of the adjudicator might be used to force changes in admissions policies without further primary legislation? Whilst there is confidence that the present administration intends no such thing, there is always the problem of the new Pharaoh who knows not Joseph. This is a cause of concern to the faith communities. Although we would anticipate that the proposed veto on references to the adjudicator would only be very infrequently used, we would support Amendment 112 as a safeguard to the continuation of the current genuine partnership in education".
That letter sums up the concerns of the Churches, to which I have already given expression. I shall be most interested to hear how the Government respond.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As we have already made clear, the focus of the arrangements for deciding school organisation plans and proposals at local level is to support local partnerships. The arrangements that we propose, in particular requiring unanimity within the school organisation committee, reflect the balance between providers. They give each provider, including the Churches, the same ability to ensure that an individual proposal or a school organisation plan is referred to an adjudicator in the case of disagreement. The objective is to reach consensus. We believe that in most cases that will be achieved within the school organisation committee through discussion reflecting the views of local people in response to the draft plan. We are appointing the adjudicator to address those cases where the school organisation committee is unable to agree.

121
However, it would not be appropriate to give two particular groups within the school organisation committee the ability to prevent the agreement of school organisation plans. The Church representatives will have as much power as any other group in the committee to secure that plans are passed to the adjudicator. They will each have opportunities to offer the adjudicator options with which they are content, but there must be a genuine opportunity to decide a plan that balances the views of all partners and in the agreement of which each of the partners has been treated in the same way.
The right reverend Prelate rightly referred to the fact that regulations under subsection (4), which are set out in subsection (5), are permissive in the sense that the Secretary of State is not required to issue such regulations, but Clause 25 is not about Church or denominational schools; it is about all schools. The amendment would give two groups (of all those which comprise the school organisation committee) representing the denominational interest a veto on all aspects of the school organisation plan, irrespective of whether it relates to denominational schools. I am afraid that the amendment would unbalance the partnership which is at the heart of our proposals and I invite the noble Lord not to press it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I press him on the powers of adjudicators and on how the issues with which they will have to deal and the representations to which they shall have to pay attention will be spelt out? Where will that appear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We considered the powers of the adjudicator on Clause 24 and I do not think that at this time of night the Committee will be grateful if I go over that ground again. However, if I think that I can helpfully say anything new to the right reverend Prelate, I shall gladly write to him on that point.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I agree with the noble Lord that this is not permissive; it is direct. I accept that it would give a right of veto to denominations. This is well within the tradition of English education. It has been done on many occasions before. In not allowing it, Her Majesty's Government are making quite a departure. Historically, the Churches have not used their considerable power to question state plans. For example, when comprehensive education began, the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches accepted it as state policy. They believed their task to be to maintain their denominational schools. They are not just one group among many. The Roman Catholic Church both here and in America has always regarded parochial, denominational schools as a very important part of its work. The Anglican Church is somewhat different but in many areas it takes the same view. I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed the problem. It was one that Mr. Butler addressed in 1944 with greater sensitivity. Unless we have particular regard to church schools, this is a secularising measure.
122
I do not press the amendment now but shall return to it with some force at Report stage. Like the right reverend Prelate, I have spoken to both Roman Catholic and Anglican authorities. I do not speak here as a Tory Front Bench spokesman. I never wear my dog collar in this House because I do not feel that I can attach the Almighty to many of the policies that I espouse, unlike some other people. However, on this issue I am metaphorically wearing my dog collar. I feel quite strongly about this and believe that many noble friends support me. This issue falls well within the history of English education. I hope that the noble Lord will rethink his rather secular approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No.113:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—

REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(" . The Secretary of State shall keep under review all aspects of the new framework for maintained schools established by this Part of this Act, and shall report annually to Parliament on the new arrangements for the supply of school places and admission arrangements, with a view to bringing forward revised arrangements should it be found that the new framework unfairly discriminates against any category of school.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple amendment which draws attention to the desirability of a parliamentary annual review of the new framework for maintained schools established by this part of the Bill. It is undeniable that there has been considerable unease in your Lordships' House about these new measures. I do not intend to refer to any of the arguments that have been deployed. I hope that no one else will use this particular amendment to go through those arguments all over again. However, there was considerable unease. The amendment would require Parliament to review whether the arrangements were acceptable, and any significant trend in the closure or amalgamation of church schools, special schools, grammar schools and so on could be challenged or prevented through revised arrangements.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider the amendment and will be willing to return to it at a later stage. I am particularly encouraged in that hope as a result of the reply of the noble Baroness to my noble friend Lady Maddock during the debate on whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I understand correctly that the issue is parliamentary scrutiny, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary since the Government will monitor how the new framework is bedding down as part of the normal evaluation process of any major policy. It is always open to any noble Lord to ask a Parliamentary Question about any aspect of government policy. I see no need for an annual report to Parliament on these specific aspects of the Bill. I give the noble Baroness, and Opposition spokesmen

123
generally, credit when I say that they will get a lot more mileage in parliamentary terms other than through an annual report.
The new categories of school will be different, with distinctive characteristics to match the aspirations of schools. There is no question of unfair discrimination in favour of or against any particular category, if that is the thrust of the amendment. The new arrangements on school places, planning and admissions will contain safeguards to ensure that all categories of school are treated fairly.
Each school organisation committee and adjudicator must behave reasonably and lawfully. Every case must be considered on its merits. While members of the school organisation committee will be organised in and will vote as groups, all members must be able to show that cases have been considered properly. Reasons for decisions must be related clearly to the case put and the view expressed upon it. There can be no question of a school organisation committee taking a policy decision to treat a particular category of school differently from others.
Those are more effective safeguards than that intended by the mover of the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that with those inbuilt safeguards there will be no need for the Secretary of State to police the new framework for cases of unfairness. On that basis, I hope that she will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must confess to being not entirely satisfied with that response. There is a great deal of difference between relying upon an individual Member in the other place to ask a Question and requiring the Government to make a report to the other place. The two things are completely different. I shall consult my noble friends. I shall read Hansard. I may well write to the Minister on this subject. I do not preclude bringing it back again at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Proposals for establishment or alteration of community, foundation or voluntary school]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 25, line 27, at end insert ("and—
(ii) to the requirements of schools with a different character").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. The amendments are grouped together as they both concern pluralism, but two different kinds of pluralism. One is the pluralism of individual schools, and the second—a more familiar theme of mine—is the pluralism of the governance of the countries and nations of these islands. I shall not speak at any length on that, because that is a subject that will entertain us tomorrow and Wednesday.
With the first amendment we are dealing with the whole issue, which was debated in another place, of the Government's attitude towards schools which have a different form of curriculum. It is important to raise this issue in the Bill, because we need to state a case that
124
schools that deliver the equivalent of the standards of the national curriculum in other forms of schooling can, indeed, form part of the maintained system.
In the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship they have established over 75 years 26 autonomous schools in the UK; 44 kindergartens; 730 schools worldwide; 1,500 kindergartens; and 60 teacher training institutes. They have an impressive track record of educational performance. It is educational performance which is dedicated to international principles and to a specific and proven form and method of teaching.
The pursuit of an international curriculum by these schools is at least the equivalent of what is pursued in terms of the national curriculum in the UK. As someone who was involved in various stages of the Education Reform Act 1988 which introduced the national curriculum, I have always been unhappy about the adjective "national" as applied to school curricula, because school curricula should be about the development of pupils; it should not be about the imposition of state standards, to use the national parlance.
The whole methodology of the Waldorf schools, with the extended teacher/pupil relationship over many school years, and, in particular, the emphasis on the greater integration of curricula which has always been a feature of those school, is now becoming more accepted throughout the school system. We realise the weaknesses of the artificial boundaries between the humanities, language, mathematical skills and science that we have imposed within the existing national curriculum.
For those reasons, it is important to recognise that there should be a method by which such schools can find their way into the maintained sector. Such issues as the integrated curriculum approach, the emphasis on different forms of pedagogical approach to educational provision in schools are relevant. They are issues which the Government addressed when in Opposition, and should address in the context of the Bill.
I do not make a special case for those schools. I emphasise the importance of breadth of curriculum. We need to move away from the forms of national curriculum which are prescriptive into a form which provides for the greater breadth for the development of concepts, attitudes, values, experiences and skills within the educational provision. In debating those issues, we wish to emphasise that the Government have an obligation to indicate to schools which provide for a different curriculum, and are pluralistic schools in themselves within the education provision, how they can progress their position.
We have debated, and will debate again in the Bill, the categories that the Government propose. What ways are open to schools which have a different form of provision within a pluralist education? In what ways can they progress their position within the maintained sector? That is what I seek to discover in moving the amendment.
I refer again to guidelines and the provisions on the face of the Bill. I am concerned that they will be set out in terms of the criteria for the provision of schools

125
within the maintained sector. Those guidelines should be flexible enough to ensure that schools which achieve the equivalent of national curriculum standards by other means should be recognised as equally valid. The department will be aware of the recent statement on the aims, methods and curriculum of the Steiner Waldorf foundation edited by Martin Rawson. The document sets out clearly the way in which that specific curriculum attains the standards of the national curriculum in different ways. I emphasise that the Government should take seriously the issue of pluralism of school provision. Pluralism and the related issue of diversity are not just about religious provision; and I speak as a Welsh Anglican. They are also about the alternative forms of curriculum presentation which is not on a selected basis, but provides a genuine pluralistic structure within the school system.
The second amendment is simpler. If the Minister can give me a satisfactory answer on this amendment, he will have disposed of Amendments Nos. 161, 163, 167, 176 and perhaps a few others. That should provide the noble Lord with a little inspiration. The amendment relates to the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the Bill. I understand that for the words "Secretary of State" in the Bill, I shall read the words "national assembly" when those wonderful transfer orders, of which we have recently had the second draft, are implemented. With the exception of Clause 76 on employment law, everything else relating to the Secretary of State in this Bill relates to the national assembly. If the Minister agrees that that is correct, he will satisfy me. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 114 for several reasons. The amendment has been put forward by the Steiner Waldorf group. No doubt the group hopes that it will open the door to its schools which have a specific character. It would like the opportunity for such schools to become part of the state system. Perhaps there should be some possibility for schools with a different philosophical framework to come into the state sector where local authorities feel that this would enhance their local provision.
The amendment is presumably proposed within this clause because this clause deals with local determination. Although the county would actually have to have this imposed on it, it just extends their possibility to choose to include schools with a different character.
When I was a Member in another place I had in one corner of my constituency Steiner Waldorf schools and also a community that looked after children who had extreme special needs. I know what wonderful communities they are and what a terrific quality of life children have in those communities. I remember going along with perhaps not a positive view of the organisations, and I came away changed by the experience of the whole approach that they have to the human person.
126
It is interesting that in a country that I left because I found conformity too great—Sweden—for some time there has been the opportunity for pluralism within its schools. It seems to work well, and it has been a great incentive to teachers to give of their best in schools. It is worth looking at and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about it.
I conclude by saying that in other areas of life we are looking at alternatives and looking at a more pluralistic approach. We do this in the health service, and perhaps we should look at whether this is the right time, given the nature of this Bill, to look at the possibility of having a more pluralistic approach to the different types of education available. I look forward to hearing what the Government say. There is something behind this that we should not dismiss too lightly. I hope that the Government will not do that.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to suggest what might cheer the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because I believe my understanding of the letter that I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in terms of the reserve powers to the Welsh assembly, is that the amendments are not needed, and that almost everything that the noble Lord wants is achievable.
I say that for two or three reasons. First, under the law as it stands, even without this Bill, and which will not be invalidated by this Bill, there are powers to disapply the national curriculum. Cases need to be put to the Secretary of State, but it is possible to do that. That would allow for disapplication and for something else to take its place.
Secondly, there is provision within this Bill for those schools that are in action zones to disapply the national curriculum and disapply all sorts of other things, so clearly some other diversary provision will take place within those schools, irrespective of the structure of the schools.
The third reason, which, rather sadly, has not been raised in the course of our deliberations, is the Welsh dimension in this Bill. It seems to me, reading the letter that came to me from the noble Baroness in relation to Wales, that the Welsh Secretary, or indeed the Welsh assembly as it will become, has the powers to turn this Bill into something completely different. It could look completely different from that in England because the secondary legislative powers that will pass to the assembly are couched in such a way inside this Bill that they will, not technically, but in effect be equivalent to primary legislation. It will be possible for the Welsh assembly to do their own thing. For example, they do not have to have adjudicators; they do not have to have organisation committees. The Welsh assembly or the Welsh Secretary will, in fact, take on the role of what, in England, is the Secretary of State.
My understanding of both the Bill and the statute as it prevails at the moment, and will continue to prevail following the passing of this Bill, and indeed the effect of the devolved powers to the assembly, is that I do not believe these amendments are necessary.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking very briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, perhaps I may say

127
a word in support of England. There is a recognition that the situation in Scotland and Wales may be different in the future. However, for the vast majority of people in this country, the situation in England will be the basis on which we deliberate.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned that the object of the national curriculum enshrined originally in the 1988 Act was to improve school standards. We would all agree that that is a laudable aim.
We also need to bring to bear the recognition of experience. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples. The first is the experience of Summerhill School between the wars. Four members of my father's generation went to Summerhill. One became a doctor, one became an electrical engineer, one became a teacher and the fourth became a potter. In terms of the positive, successful outcomes, which is the important essence of what we are seeking to achieve in education, one cannot gainsay that Summerhill was successful.
The other example is the flexibility which pertained within the Rab Butler Act of 1944. It enabled the Conservative administration in Leicestershire County Council to introduce the concept of comprehensive education. That has had amazingly beneficial results in education in the past 40 years.
Diversity in education can produce significant positive outcomes. I believe that it was a little ingenuous of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to suggest that such flexibility is already enshrined within the law. That has not been the experience of practitioners in education. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this probing amendment and say that they are minded to believe that pluralism is important.
I was advised tonight that in Holland, which has one of the most successful education systems in Europe, there are seven different educational characteristics. Six, as well as its own national curriculum, are supported by the state and are beneficial to the education of the people of Holland. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the advantage of pluralism and to state support of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I begin by saying some discouraging things about the wording and effect of both amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will not think that I am taking them lightly. I will address the issues which lie behind them.
Amendment No. 114 would not work because it is attached to a part of Clause 27 which enables proposals to specify the establishment of a middle school by extending the age ranges which may be considered as the admission ages for a particular school. If we were to put the provision in there rather than in a more general part of the Bill it would be incoherent and would not achieve what the noble Lord seeks.
As regards what he is seeking to achieve, I am sympathetic to what has been said about pluralism in education. During the chaotic period immediately before and during the early years of the war I attended a number of progressive schools. Noble Lords opposite may think that it shows and that my character has been deeply
128
damaged as a result. I do not regret it, although the disturbance to my family was great. On two occasions I ran away from one school, taking a group of other seven year-olds with me. I did not get very far. However, as a result of connections with central Europe I am sympathetic to various progressive movements in education. Let me say from this Bench that the conditions in which we encourage schools to be maintained schools within the state system are rather different. We are of the view—and I think this has been the view on all Benches—that in order to maintain and increase school standards, there has to be a national curriculum, and, in general, teachers in maintained schools should have qualified teacher status. The Steiner Waldorf schools have chosen not to conform in those ways, and good luck to them. I am not saying anything against the work that they do, but the thrust of this Bill is the improvement of school standards by the means that I have been suggesting. I believe that that view is shared across the political spectrum.
So although one is sympathetic to pluralism in education, we hope that it will continue. It is not necessarily the case that for it to continue successfully there should be a change in the requirement for maintained status and for membership in the state system.
The second amendment has an unfortunate literal effect in the sense that it would enable the Secretary of State to act, as it were, by decree rather than by making regulations, whereas the Bill as drafted would enable him to act in the way that the noble Lord wishes, by regulation in the normal way.
The fundamental answer I can give to the noble Lord—and I am glad to hear that it affects so many subsequent amendments—is that, yes, in the Bill "Secretary of State" will, in due course, mean the national assembly, with the exception that he himself referred to. It is the intention that these powers should be devolved to the Welsh assembly in due course. On that basis, reflecting the seriousness with which the amendments have been proposed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke on Amendment No. 114. It is important that we signal that we should like to return to this matter at a later stage. I feel that the Minister, despite his generosity in describing some of his personal experience, did not respond to the issues that were raised.
We deployed the argument that excellence in the attainment of the equivalent of the national curriculum, as mentioned in the report I quoted, should be recognised and that there is a difference between decreeing certain standards in the national curriculum and being able to deliver the equivalent in pluralistic alternative forms. That is the argument that we deployed and to which there has been no response, either in this Chamber or in another place. We may well want to return to that matter.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and I am grateful to see that there is a wonderful consensus, for once this evening, between both Front Benches about the meaning of the Bill, at least so far as concerns the National assembly for Wales. It may be that the Steiner

129
Waldorf School will have to turn to the national assembly for Wales for some kind of recognition within the United Kingdom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Notice by governing body to discontinue foundation or voluntary school]:
[Amendment No. 114A not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Proposals for establishment, alteration or discontinuance of community or foundation special school]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 114B:
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("special school or a new") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are the batch which survived the late night barrage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the other night and which I withdrew at that point. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to the two opposition Front Benches at some length explaining the whole batch of amendments that we tabled at that point. I shall have to return to some of the others on Report.
I shall quickly explain the nature of these amendments, which are technical and consequential. Amendment No. 114B, together with Amendments Nos. 122A, 129A, 156A, 256B and 257E, deals with the question of clarifying the expressions "community" or "foundation special school". Amendment No. 256B is really substantive and is an addition to Clause 130, which defines expressions used in the Bill. That amendment makes it clear that such references should be read as meaning a community special school or a foundation special school. The rest of the amendments to which I have just alluded are in fact consequential on Amendment No. 256B.
Amendment No. 145A deals with the clarification of property transfers when schools change category. The amendment makes it clear that the regulations under the schedule will govern all property transfers, including transfers to and from group foundations, where a school changes category. Moreover, rights and liabilities associated with property will transfer with the property itself. The term "property" on its own would not cover the full range of rights and liabilities that might be associated with the premises; for example, it would not necessarily cover third party user rights which would, in that sense, be a liability associated with the premises. That is why it is necessary to make those explicit regulations under Schedule 8.
Amendment No. 206B deals with stamp duty. It is an amendment which has had to be approved by the Inland Revenue; and, indeed, it has been. It exempts transfers to local education authorities from payment of stamp duty. That is because transfers to charities do not attract stamp duty, so there is no need to exempt transfers to foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools or foundation bodies. Those are the technical and consequential amendments that I am putting forward tonight. As I said, some of the others which appeared in the rather longer list
130
the other night will, I am afraid, now reappear at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings. I therefore commend those amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I most grateful to the Minister for the long letter of clarification which I found to be very clear. It answered all the questions that I had at that stage admirably. However, I have one further question for the noble Lord regarding the question of stamp duty. I quite understand his explanation but, if it is the intention of these amendments to make transfers from foundation schools to local authorities exempt from stamp duty, why are transfers under paragraph 1(3)(a) of Schedule 22 not included in the list of exemptions?
Lord Whitty: I have to hand it to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I must confess to the Committee that I am not entirely clear as to whether that paragraph relates to the same form of transfers, although I believe that that is probably the case. Therefore, that is something to which we will have to pay attention. So, once again—and, it is to be hoped in a rather shorter letter—I shall clarify the matter for the noble Lord.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to thank the noble Lord most profusely for the letter; indeed, it has been hugely helpful. I certainly do not have anything like the queries that I had when I heard the partial explanation which was given during the previous stage of the Bill. I understand that the amendments which preceded the amendment moved by the noble Lord tonight will be re-presented on Report. Therefore, it might be helpful if I mentioned one reservation about Amendment No. 90G so that I may perhaps be written to in the meantime, thus saving time as regards discussions at the next stage. I should also like to ask a question on Amendment No. 91C.
As regards Amendment No. 90G, I am concerned about yet more accretion of powers to the organisation committees. I should like to know more about why that power is necessary and why it is that the Secretary of State is off-loading yet another power relating to foundation groups.
Where the governing body will be the charity, as opposed to the school being the charity, I am rather anxious on behalf of governors to know what liabilities they will accept in that transfer of power. School governors will take on the responsibility of being the charity for the purposes of the exemption and it is important that they know the extent of their liabilities. I do not ask for an answer now but I hope the noble Lord will be able to supply it at the next stage.
I am rather pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is in the Chamber. When I was a government Minister and my government produced large batches of technical amendments I found that it was helpful and also saved time if I wrote to the Opposition with copies of the amendments and with an explanatory memorandum in advance of discussing the amendments in the Chamber. The Opposition then had an opportunity to study the technicalities of the amendments. Usually I added an apology to the explanatory memorandum as I was often upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for submitting large batches of technical amendments at a late

131
stage of a Bill. I make no criticism of the Government in this regard, but it would be enormously helpful to have the information as we are about to discuss yet more batches of technical amendments. I have pored over the Bill and the amendments over the past week but I am still at a loss to know exactly what they mean. As I said, it would be hugely helpful at further stages of the Bill to be sent a copy of the amendments with an explanatory memorandum.
Lord Whitty: Of course some of the technical amendments arise out of debate in the Chamber. However, we shall consider the possibility of providing the information in the form the noble Baroness requests. As regards the points she made on Amendment No. 90G and the other amendments that will be resubmitted at the Report stage, I would rather deal with them at that stage.
As regards the charitable status of governing bodies, we shall propose government amendments at Report stage which will make clear that it is the governing body of a foundation, voluntary and foundation special school which is the exempt charity and not the school itself. That point will be clearer at that stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 29, line 30, at end insert ("and to the education development plan, the school organisation plan and any proposals for the regional coordination of services for children with special educational needs").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 115 stands in my name, that of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and that of my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth. I am conscious that this is the last amendment I shall move and no doubt it will receive the same short shrift as the previous four. I can see I shall be busy at Report stage but I would welcome the possibility of a meeting with the department before that stage. Perhaps I should send the amendments to the putative Welsh assembly.
I wish to stress that special schools are part of an increasingly complex network of provision for children with special educational needs. If the Government pursue their intentions as set out in the Green Paper Excellence for all Children, special schools will become a non-integrated part of a unified service. The service will also be more than a local service if Green Paper proposals for more regional planning are implemented. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any proposals to open, alter or close a community or a foundation special school take account of other local plans and proposals; namely, the education development plan, the school organisation plan and any proposals for the regional co-ordination of services for children with special educational needs. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the noble Lord want the good news or the bad news first? The bad news is that his amendment would not do what he wants. It relates to the part of the Bill that deals with who should be consulted rather than what regard should be had to the education development plan, the school organisation plan
132
and proposals for regional co-ordination of services. I believe the noble Lord's intention is rather wider than the wording of the amendment.
The good news is this. I believe that the noble Lord wants us to say that the Government intend to put the issues referred to in the amendment into guidance. I can give him that assurance. To put it in the proper words of a speaking note, the guidance provided to the adjudicator and the school organisation committee will be reflected in the guidance on good practice that we shall be providing to proposers wishing to bring forward statutory proposals. It is our intention that the guidance to proposers will identify the plans they should consider when developing their schemes. That would include the local school organisation plan and any proposals for the regional co-ordination of provision for pupils with special educational needs.
There may also be instances when local education authorities or foundation special school governors will need to consider the education development plan when making plans to reorganise special provision. It has always been our intention that the issues raised by this amendment should be covered in guidance. We shall of course consult on the detail of both the guidance and the regulations governing special school reorganisation. That will provide a further opportunity for comment before the regulations finally come into force. I hope that gives the noble Lord the reassurance that he needs.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those assurances. I shall now consult with my colleagues outside the House and return to the matter on Report if required—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Before he withdraws his amendment, I should have said that my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the department will be very happy to meet him between now and Report stage.
Lord Rix: I go home to bed even happier on hearing that. With that assurance ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Statutory proposals: procedure and implementation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 120, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) by the end of such period as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations, the committee have not voted on the question whether to give any approval under this paragraph, and

(b) the body or promoters by whom the proposals were published request the committee to refer the proposals to the adjudicator,

they shall refer the proposals to the adjudicator.
Regulations made for the purposes of this sub-paragraph (or any other corresponding provision of this Act) may be framed by reference to the opinion of the committee.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 122, 127, 128, 130 to 137, 217, 218 and 219.
Let me start by acknowledging that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was right in saying that when she was in the Home Office she took good care to write to me whenever significant numbers of government amendments were tabled, putting them into their right order and explaining in a letter to me what they meant. I gather that she followed that procedure with a number of other noble Lords as well. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will consider that helpful suggestion sympathetically.
All of these amendments are in response to suggestions made by the Opposition in Committee on 10th February in another place. Mr. Dorrell, who I gather has now left his responsibilities for these matters at his own request, criticised (at col. 377) the possibility of delay implicit in the process of consideration by school organisation committees and the need for unanimity in their reaching decisions. He said—I am sure rightly—that there would be great damage to schools, to children and to local education systems if there were excessive delay in the school organisation committees reaching decisions. Estelle Morris, the Under-Secretary, said at col. 377 that she was happy to give the assurance sought; that she agreed with the comments made by Conservatives and Liberal Democrat spokesmen; and that delay was the worst possible scenario. She said:
"I think that we included in the note that my hon. Friend the Minister circulated yesterday the requirement that school organisation committees must make decisions within two months. If that is not in the note, it will be set out in regulations. Committees will have two months to make a decision, at which point, if they have not reached a unanimous decision, the matter will be referred to the adjudicator, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Delay and sitting around waiting for unanimous agreement is not in the best interests of children".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 10/2/98: col. 377.]
All of these amendments seek to provide that assurance, not in regulations as was originally thought but on the face of the Bill. Unless I am challenged, I shall not go through every one of the amendments, but I wish to say something in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about Amendment No. 116.
Basically all the amendments say that if the committees have not voted on a matter, or if they have voted on it and have not reached a unanimous decision, then the adjudicator is called in. But Amendment No. 116 has two other, puzzling phrases. The first is:
"Regulations made for the purpose of this sub-paragraph … may be framed by reference to the opinion of the committee".
That refers only to the school organisation committee. The committee may, for example, express an opinion that two proposals are linked and need to be considered together. In these circumstances, the regulations will have to provide that the proposals whose time limit expires first do not need to be remitted to the adjudicator until and unless the other proposal also reaches its time limit. That is the purpose of the reference to the opinion of the committee.
The second reference which I agree could be confusing is:
"or any other corresponding provision of this Act".
That relates to the fact that in the complexity of drafting we have to insert this into Schedules 6, 7 and 23. There are amendments to all these schedules in this group which will enable regulations to prescribe a time limit for deciding proposals. These are Amendments Nos. 120, 133 and 217. These amendments cover each type of proposal, because there are proposals of this kind discussed in Clauses 27, 28 and 30, with different schedules attached to them. That is the explanation of those particular points which the noble Lord raised.
In general, the purpose of the amendment that I have expressed from the comments in Hansard give the thrust of our arguments. They give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations limiting the length of the school organisation committee's deliberations on proposals for the organisation of schools. These amendments give the proposer discretion to require the school organisation committee to refer a proposal to an adjudicator if the committee has not come to a decision within a specified period. This is preferable to requiring the committee to refer proposals to the adjudicator after a fixed period. It also allows the person who is affected by any delay to decide whether the time taken is excessive and whether referral to the adjudicator would speed things up.
The length of the time limit is something most appropriately dealt with in regulations, although my quotations from Estelle Morris make our intentions clear since we shall need to ensure that, if necessary, the time limit can be amended in the light of experience. Of course, we shall consult on the regulations, but we intend that in most cases the limit will be two months from the end of the objection period. Where several proposals are linked, we intend that the time period for all proposals should be two months from the end of the objection period of the last proposal to be published. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for the sympathetic way in which he explained the amendment, but also for agreeing that it would be helpful to have advance explanatory memorandums of the amendments.
I want to ask a question in relation to the reference to the "opinion of the committee" in the final paragraph of Amendment No. 116. Is that a formal statement? Is the "opinion of the committee" a formal definition? In which case, should not it be upper case "o" in its reference? Does that mean a decision taken by a committee that is a unanimous view or is it an en passant opinion? In other words, is it an informal view that at a particular point in time the committee thinks "X" or "Y"? It would helpful to know exactly the status of the "opinion of the committee".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We intend that it should refer to an informal opinion and that indeed was the thrust of my example of a committee expressing an

135
opinion that two proposals were linked and needed to be considered together. In those circumstances capital letters are not appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 122A:
Page 120, line 16, leave out from ("If') to ("they") in line 17 and insert ("the committee—

(a) have voted on any matter which (in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4) falls to be decided by them under this paragraph by a unanimous decision, but

(b) have failed to reach such a decision on that matter,").

Page 120, line 19, at end insert ("(4A) or").
Page 121, line 40, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)").
Page 121, line 43, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) by the end of such period as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations, the committee have not voted on any matter falling to be decided by them under this paragraph, and

(b) the body or promoters who published the proposals referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) request the committee to refer that matter to the adjudicator,

they shall refer that matter to the adjudicator.").
Page 121, line 44, leave out from ("If") to ("they") in line 45 and insert ("the committee—

(a) have voted on any matter which (in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4) falls to be decided by them under this paragraph by a unanimous decision, but

(b) have failed to reach such a decision on that matter,").

Page 121, line 47, at end insert ("under sub-paragraph (4A) or (5)").
Page 125, line 21, leave out first ("special school").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 117 to 122A en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 125, line 38, leave out ("or buildings (or both)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 126. These amendments correct an error in the original draft. They amend provisions which in some cases put local education authorities under a duty to provide new buildings for foundation, voluntary controlled or foundation special schools on land owned by the school's trustees or governing or foundation body.
The drafting in the Bill provides for the buildings, if that is the case, to be transferred to the trustees. But that is not necessary because the land owner will own the buildings by virtue of owning the land on which they are built. There is therefore no need for the local education authority to convey its interest in the new buildings and the amendments remove that unnecessary duty. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 128:
Page 125, line 40, leave out ("or buildings (or both)").
Page 125, line 42, leave out ("or buildings (or both)").
Page 125, line 42, leave out ("(in the case of a site) their interest").
Page 128, line 19, leave out ("are unable to reach a") and insert ("have failed to reach a unanimous").
Page 128, line 23, after ("paragraph") insert ("3 or").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 124 to 128 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 128, line 30, at end insert—
(""make", in relation to a transitional exemption order, includes (so far as the context permits) vary or revoke,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 129 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 138. These amendments clarify the provisions relating to transitional exemption orders under the Sex Discrimination Act. They will ensure that school organisation committees have the powers to vary or revoke orders where that is necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I should like a more elaborate explanation of this amendment. It says that an organisation committee can vary or revoke orders and that sounds as though a fairly extensive power is being handed to the committees. I should like some examples of exactly what is meant, and the extent of those powers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are of course referring to transitional arrangements. They are nothing like as threatening as they sound. They are traditional exemption orders under the Sex Discrimination Act. At the moment the Bill says that the school organisation committee may make such exemption orders, but it may be appropriate to vary or revoke them rather than to just make them.
Perhaps I may give the example that the noble Baroness seeks. It could happen when a single-sex school wishes to become a mixed school. It will enable it to refuse entry to pupils of one sex in years higher up the school which are otherwise entirely of the other sex. The introduction of mixed-sex education could be allowed progressively through the school which I understand to be quite a common occurrence, rather than it having to be introduced all at one time. If the orders were not made in this way schools would be obliged to accept pupils of one sex into a year otherwise composed entirely of the other sex.
Transitional exemption orders may need to be amended if the associated proposals are amended or revoked. The amendments that we are proposing will ensure that school organisation committees will be able to amend or revoke the orders and therefore operate the system satisfactorily. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that will make the local decision-making system more efficient and responsive to local needs.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I shall have to let this pass and read what the noble Lord has said because I still do not understand his explanation. What I am not sure about is whether the school organisation committee is doing something which is simply technical as a school moves either of its own volition or by agreed proposals. In other words, the school organisation committee is not doing something which may be inconsistent with the wishes of the school or the parents. When the noble Lord speaks of varying or revoking an order, under what authority is that being done? Is it being done under its own authority as opposed to doing it through agreed proposals with the agreement of the school concerned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Certainly the examples that I have given are of the agreed proposals where a school wishes to make a change in its character in the way described and needs the school organisation committee to give it transitional exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act. But if there are examples where there could be conflict between the views of the school organisation committee and the individual school, which is what I believe the noble Baroness fears, then I shall write to her on that point. I hope she will agree that silence indicates that there are no such examples.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Direction requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special school]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 30, line 10, leave out ("special school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Rationalisation of school places]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 138:
Page 130, line 47, leave out ("3(5)") and insert ("3").
Page 130, line 47, leave out ("8(2)(c)") and insert ("8").
Page 132, line 37, at end insert ("under sub-paragraph (4A) or (4B)").
Page 132, line 44, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) by the end of such period as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations, the committee have not voted on the question whether to give any approval under this paragraph, and

(b) the Secretary of State requests the committee to refer his proposals to the adjudicator,

they shall refer his proposals to the adjudicator.
(4B) If the committee—

(a) have voted on any matter which (in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4) falls to be decided by them under this paragraph by a unanimous decision but have failed to reach such a decision on that matter, or

(b) have decided not to give any approval under this paragraph,

they shall refer the Secretary of State's proposals to the adjudicator.").
Page 132, line 46, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(4A) or (4B)").
Page 133, line 9, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(4A) or (4B)").
Page 133, line 25, leave out ("8(2)(c)") and insert ("8(4A) or (4B)").
Page 135, line 48, leave out ("are unable to reach a") and insert ("have failed to reach a unanimous").
Page 136, line 9, at end insert—
(""make", in relation to a transitional exemption order, includes (so far as the context permits) vary or revoke,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [School changing front one category to another]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 31, line 13, after ("categories") insert (", and
(b) in certain circumstances, requiring proposals to be published for a voluntary aided school to become a school within another of those categories;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 142 to 146 inclusive and to Amendment No. 146P. I am sorry that I have not sent a letter in advance about these amendments. I would like to confirm what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that in future we shall try to get out a letter in advance which explains any group of government amendments, whether technical or otherwise, because that is very helpful.
These amendments adjust the change of category provisions in the Bill in three ways. Amendment No. 146P makes clear that the approval of proposals to change category does not authorise the school to change its character in any way.
Amendment No. 146 enables regulations to be made preventing an LEA from disposing of or changing the use of land currently used by a community school which wishes to change its category. This power will enable the Secretary of State to prevent LEAs frustrating a school's wish to change category by, for example, disposing of some of the land it uses. However, regulations under this provision might enable an LEA to dispose of land in these circumstances with the permission of the school and, where appropriate, the Secretary of State.
The remaining amendments ensure that if the governing body of an aided school is unable or unwilling to meet its financial obligations, it must publish proposals to change category. It is in no one's interests if a school is unable to afford essential repairs and maintenance. In these circumstances, a voluntary aided school may need to change to a voluntary controlled school. We are therefore putting it beyond doubt that in that situation the governing body of a voluntary aided school must publish proposals to change category. This reflects the current position set out in Section 57 of the Education Act 1996, under which the governors of an aided school must apply to the Secretary of State to become a controlled school if unable or unwilling to meet their financial obligations. That section is a provision with a considerable history, dating back to the 1944 Act. The amendments introduce an updated version of the provision for the new framework. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 31, line 16, leave out from ("Except") to ("that") in line 17 and insert ("in relation to a change of category from voluntary aided to voluntary controlled school for which proposals are required to be published by virtue of paragraph 2A of Schedule 8,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Changes of category of school]:
[Amendment No. 141A not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 146P:
Page 137, line 8, at end insert—
("Mandatory publication of proposals for voluntary aided school to change category
2A.—(1) If at any time the governing body of a voluntary aided school are unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations under Schedule 3, they shall publish proposals under this paragraph.
(2) If the proposals are published during the period mentioned in section 34(2), they shall be proposals for the school to become a voluntary controlled school.
(3) If the proposals are published after the end of that period, they shall be proposals for the school to become either a voluntary controlled school or a foundation school, as the governing body may determine.
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 shall apply in relation to proposals published under this paragraph as it applies in relation to proposals published under that paragraph.").
Page 137, line 21, leave out from ("able") to end of line 22 and insert ("to carry out their obligations under Schedule 3;").
Page 137, leave out lines 23 and 24.
Page 137, line 31, after ("2") insert ("or 2A").
Page 137, line 34, after ("property") insert (", rights and liabilities (including such a transfer to or from a foundation body),").
Page 137, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, make provision with respect to—

(a) restricting the disposal of land by a local authority which is used or held for the purposes of a school in relation to which proposals to change category are, or may be, published under paragraph 2, as from—

(i) the date of publication of such proposals; or

(ii) such other time as may be prescribed;

(b) restricting the taking of action by virtue of which any such land would cease to be so used or held to any extent:

(c) the consequences of any contravention of any such restriction;

(d) conferring on any prescribed body such functions as may be prescribed with respect to any such contravention.").

Page 137, line 41, at end insert—
("5. A school's change of category under this Schedule shall not be taken as authorising or requiring any change in the character of the school conducted by its governing body (including, in particular, any religious character of the school).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Governing bodies]:
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 31, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body),").
The noble Baroness said: Even at this late hour, I am in an optimistic mood. It gives me great pleasure to move this amendment and to speak to Amendments Nos. 154A to 154G inclusive. The amendment concerns a straightforward administrative matter and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I admit that it appears complicated, but it is really a very simple issue.
All that I am doing is proposing that the Bill maintains the provisions of the 1996 Act to enable two or more schools to continue to appoint a single board of governors. The best way that I can explain this is to give the Committee the background of the school which has enlisted our help and the situation in which it would find itself if the Bill were not amended.
The school in question is the Church of England-aided school of St. Alphege, the church where my husband and I were married many years ago. Therefore, I understand only too well its standing in the area as a centre of excellence. Parents from all over the borough are anxious to get their children accepted in the knowledge that they will receive the very best start in their academic life.
The school has been administered by a single governing body probably since Elizabethan times and certainly since 1862. During its history there have been separate schools for boys and girls while at other times they became amalgamated again. But in 1973, due to its popularity, the school wanted to expand but was unable to do so as the original one-form entry site was too small to cope with a two-form entry. As a consequence, the junior department moved to another site half a mile away. Throughout these changes, there has been one governing body maintaining that essential ingredient, continuity, and highlighting the fact that it is the school attached to St. Alphege Church. The governing body therefore wishes to remain one single body, albeit on two sites, so that it can retain that continuity but also because any child who enters at nursery stage is given the right of attendance through to the end of junior school. The admission rules are administered as for one school. It is felt that any action in the nursery and infant school has a knock-on effect on the junior school. At present due to more parental pressure consideration is being given to a three-form entry. That will obviously affect the junior school that must follow suit.
I have spoken to both the rector and chairman of governors who feel strongly about this matter. They believe that there would be a duplication of duties for those who had to be on both governing bodies. They also feel that the two schools may drift apart; that there will be increased administration costs; and that as it is the school of one parish it should be administered as one. The governors of an aided school are responsible for 15 per cent. of certain costs. As a single body it administers moneys that it has accrued for projects. Their concern is that they will have to set up a foundation or trust to administer that money. In the school there is one parent-teacher association.
The school accepts that change is necessary from time to time but only if it is for good reasons. It is a very successful school whose pupils achieve the highest results. It is also rightly proud of the way that it looks

141
after children with special needs. I believe that such schools—there must be others in the same position—deserve consideration and support. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the amendment. I have also received a letter from the chair of the governing body of the school to which the noble Baroness has referred. As she has said, this is by no means the only school that has this particular concern. There are a number of cases, particularly Church of England schools, where infant and junior schools are on the same site and a single governing body runs both of them, although technically they are separate schools. That is allowed under present legislation. That right is to be removed under the Bill. I find it difficult to see why the Government should not respond positively to this amendment. I welcome the possibilities for governing bodies which this amendment provides.
Baroness Blackstone: Before I respond to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in moving her amendment it may be helpful if I make a few introductory remarks about our intentions on school governance. Our focus is on standards and not structures. We want governors to focus on what is really important: raising standards in our schools. The Government appreciate the major commitment and contribution that governors make in governing the nation's schools. We want to make their lives easier by defining the most important tasks and providing a simpler governance framework.
A new school framework will require a new governance structure. We have seized the opportunity to introduce a more streamlined structure which will get rid of some of the rather arcane and bureaucratic requirements of the present system, including articles of government. The existing school governance arrangements are rather incoherent and inconsistent. They represent an accumulation of previous legislation which has been added to over very many years. Some requirements operate directly through legislation and some are required by legislation to operate through articles of government, but every time there is a change in the law on an issue which operates through articles those documents have to be amended.
A simplified structure will be easier for governors to understand and I hope more accessible for schools and parents. Indeed, our proposals for rationalising the process have been welcomed. The need to introduce new governance arrangements for the new framework has provided us with a unique opportunity to think afresh. However, much of what is existing legislation will remain. The substance remains broadly the same.
Primary or secondary legislation will contain all those requirements that currently apply through articles of government. There will be no articles of government in future dealing with the way the school should be conducted. All of that detail will be in legislation. But all schools will have their own individual instrument. No longer will they be subject to a block or group instrument applying to all schools of their category within an LEA as they are at present. They will have their own individual instrument, which schools themselves will initiate.
142
To reinforce the standards agenda we are honouring our election pledge to give more power to parents by increasing the number of elected parent governors and LEAs will be represented on all schools, including foundation schools.
I come now to the amendments which reinstate the existing legislation on grouped governing bodies. In implementing our standards agenda, one of our intentions is that every school should have its own governing body. A dedicated governing body, which is able to focus, with no distractions, on the performance of its own school, will stand a better chance of promoting higher standards. The amendments conflict with that by reintroducing the possibility of grouped governing bodies.
Two other main aims underpinning the governance provisions of the new framework for schools are strengthening the rights of parents and increasing the accountability of the governing body. The amendments proposed would enable LEAs to continue to group schools under a single governing body. We believe that such arrangements blur the lines of accountability and reduce the influence of parents on the governing body.
The retention of grouped governing bodies is not consistent with our manifesto commitment to increase the number of parent governors, about Which we feel strongly. Under a grouped arrangement far fewer parents are able to serve as parent governors, and parental influence at each individual school within the group is therefore diluted. The reduction in influence is significant. On a grouped governing body for separate infant and junior schools having 600 or more pupils between them, the two schools would have only five parent governors. If each school were to have a separate governing body under our proposals they would be able to choose whether to have four or five parents each.
These amendments are also in conflict with what we see as the basic spirit of the reconstitution proposals, which will allow governing bodies, within the legislative framework provided, to draw up their own draft instrument of government for approval by the LEA. Although Amendment No. 154C provides for the LEA to secure the consent of any voluntary school governing body, it would only be required to consult community and community special schools and could in theory impose a grouped governing body on them. That is undemocratic. It is also against the spirit of delegation. Although I appreciate that the amendments are based on existing legislation in the consolidated 1996 Education Act, the original legislation was framed at least 20 years ago at a time when it was possible for LEAs to set up single governing bodies covering large numbers of schools, which the Committee will agree was not a terribly good system.
I know from letters we have received in the department, how much some schools value being grouped. I understand that. They argue that it provides a better management structure for infant and junior schools sharing the same site, and improves decision making on those issues which affect both schools. They also argue that it provides for a level of continuity and progression across the phases which might otherwise be lost. Again I can understand those arguments.

143
However, I must say this to the schools. The benefits they describe will not be lost under the new framework. That is important. Schools can continue to enjoy the mutual benefits accrued from freely entering into co-operative arrangements and we hope that they will do that. Our proposals would permit some cross-representation as regards governing bodies—that again is important—either by LEAs appointing the same individual to both governing bodies or through the governing bodies' own co-option arrangements. If they wished to co-opt the same person on to two different governing bodies where schools share the same site, that would be wholly acceptable and entirely sensible. Although parents and staff will not be eligible for co-opted posts in their own school, it would of course be in the spirit of wider community interests to enable a parent, teacher or staff governor at one school in a former group to be co-opted to another.
It is also clear from the correspondence we have seen that there is a greater risk that those schools are spending a disproportionate amount of time on day-to-day site management and related issues. Of course the governing body must have a role, but operational matters concerning site management and related issues should for the most part be left to head teachers to resolve together. If there is too much discussion of such issues, they are somewhat of a distraction for governing bodies rather than talking about the real issues of standards and the performance of the schools' targets, and so on. They are important if schools are on adjoining sites or sharing buildings which are run harmoniously. But they should not absorb too much of a governing body's valuable time. Indeed, we have heard of grouped governing bodies where half the meetings are taken up by discussion of these matters. Governing bodies should be left free to concentrate on the really important strategic issues, of which improving standards is the most important of all.
We believe that it is important for every school to have its own dedicated governing body to oversee improving standards within the school. In the light of explaining the purpose and nature of the Government's proposals on school governance, and each school having its own governing body, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: That is probably the most disappointing answer that we have had all day. It seems a case of administrative tidiness gone absolutely mad. Does the noble Baroness say that where the parents, the governors and staff of the school, and the diocese, wish the management of two schools to be under one governing body there is no flexibility in the system to allow that to occur? As my noble friend said, if it were possible to be on one site, this would be one school. It expanded as a popular school and was unable to do that. The Minister refers to governing bodies wasting time on matters which are not concerned with raising standards.
144
It seems almost an insult to say that this governing body is not primarily concerned with the standards of education in these schools.
Baroness Blackstone: The Government do not wish to have administrative tidiness for the sake of administrative tidiness. The point of having a set up in which each school has its own governing body is, as I sought to make clear, to make sure that parents are properly represented on the governing bodies of every school. There will be far more parent representation if each school has its own governing body. I have also suggested that there can be joint co-options so that there are people on the governing body of two schools which share the same site and there is continuity in decisions made between the two governing bodies.
In response to what the noble Baroness was just saying, if the need for a single governing body is so strong, one option would be for the schools to merge and, of course, that does sometimes happen. There is no requirement to do so and I am not suggesting that schools in these circumstances should necessarily do so. But we believe that it should be possible for governing bodies, if necessary, through cross-representation and by working constructively with their head teachers, to deal with common management issues.
The large majority of schools with group governing bodies are county schools. As the LEA is the employer and owns the land, and will continue to do so under the new framework for schools, the management issues involved should be quite straightforward. I do not think it is just a matter of administrative tidiness. It is a genuine wish to give parents in every school their own governing body, and the staff of those schools their own governing body, but with some shared membership.
I am sorry if I have disappointed the noble Baroness, Lady B latch, but I do want to try to explain that our intentions are not administrative, but entirely concerned with parental representation, and each governing body being concerned with the standards of education in the school.
Baroness Seccombe: I thank the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Blatch for their support. I am, of course, disappointed with the noble Baroness's response. She has said much tonight and it is important that I read and study it. I shall also want to talk to those who have given me the information.
At this stage I shall withdraw the amendment with the probability that I shall come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 146B:
Page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 146B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146C, 148A, 148B and 149A.
The Minister has given the most perfect introduction to my amendments. In essence, these are amendments to give greater flexibility. They are quite important amendments, and, therefore, I want to develop them as far as I can, without keeping your noble Lords too long.
Under current legislation the government and management of each school are determined by instruments and articles of government. In the case of the present grant maintained schools—and these are quite important points—these are statutory instruments, and can only be amended after discussion with the schools concerned. The point I make about these particular technical points is that they allow local initiative for schools.
This Bill simplifies, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the instruments and abolishes the articles and, in effect, incorporates many of the provisions of what were the articles into clauses and schedules of the Bill. In other words, it imposes a pattern.
The present situation, as we have seen from the debate that has just occurred, is that articles and instruments are personal to the school, and, as we have seen in this situation, which has aroused considerable feeling in the area, can be adapted to local circumstances, as they have been for the best part of a century or more.
I can give the Committee some examples. Under articles, which are being abolished, governors of certain schools have discretion over issues which will not be possible under the present situation where they have been included in clauses and schedules of the Bill. For example, there are issues like how vacancies are advertised, which the governors and headmaster decide; and whether there is an admission committee. Some powers are delegated to the headmaster; for example, the actual allocation of salaries subject to the overall financial control of the governing body. All this will go, since in schedules, but also in some clauses, all these arrangements are laid down for schools everywhere.
The Minister's answer to my noble friend was negative and I am puzzled by the fact that it contradicts what was said by her honourable friend the Minister of State, Stephen Byers, in the other place. When he was debating this matter he recognised the problem and said that flexibility could occur. He said:
"There is nothing to deny schools the opportunity of adding to these procedures the detail that might at present be included in the articles of government".
The articles of government are personal to the school. I repeat that the Minister's colleague in the other place said:
"There is nothing to deny schools the opportunity of adding to these procedures the detail that might at present be included in the articles of government. Under the present Bill, that is replacing articles by a common instrument and including much in primary education in the schedule. That would provide a narrow and focused set of requirements but there would be nothing to stop schools adding to them".
Since the Minister was in conversation with her colleague, I remind her that he said that there would be nothing to stop schools adding to the articles. Therefore, the Minister seemed to take account of the worries about the loss of local initiative, for which the noble Baroness has recently shown a conspicuous disregard.
The amendments are designed to discover whether the Minister in this House supports the statements made by her colleague in the other place. I remind her again that he said there is nothing to deny the schools. There is a lot to deny them—the Government have denied them.
The Minister of State made a statement over the position of governing bodies where the articles have been abolished, but he is saying, "Don't worry about the articles being abolished. You can include local initiatives". I want the Minister to put flesh on these bones because that is what her colleague said. I cannot understand her comments when concentrating on the overall pattern and paying little regard to local initiative. I am worried whether my amendments will permit the flexibility which the Minister in the other place suggested because things have been written in tablets of stone in the schedules and clauses of this Bill which would deny the local initiative which at present exists. We have a contradiction in government policy between what the Minister of State said in the other place and what the Minister is saying here. I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate.
I shall speak briefly to my specific amendments. Amendments Nos. 146B and 148A remove the straitjacket. Amendments Nos. 146C, 148B and 149A give flexibility guidance. That is what the Minister of State said he wanted, yet the Minister, faced with something that has existed since Elizabethan times, said, "No way." How do we reconcile that? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendment No. 149A is also being spoken to, I should point out to the Committee that if that amendment were agreed to I could not call Amendments Nos. 150 to 152.
Midnight
Lord Whitty: I regret that we cannot accept these amendments. If they were carried they would delete Schedules 11 and 12 which are important provisions on the way in which we give statutory backing to the government of schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, appears to believe that we are engaged in over-bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it is not our intention to provide a straitjacket which could tie the hands of governing bodies unnecessarily. School governors are corporate institutions with their own legal identity and that has always been the case. It is essential that their constitution has legislative backing. That backing is provided for in Schedule 12 to the Bill, which works together with Schedule 9.
We have slimmed down the contents of the instrument of government to the bare essentials. The instrument of government will be a brief factual document setting out the school's name, category of school, categories and numbers of governors and the names of the appointing authorities. We do not intend to go further than that, except that schools with a religious character will be required to include an ethos statement. We regard this as the minimum content for the instrument of government to ensure that there are no difficulties or ambiguities in the membership or constitution.
My understanding of the position with reference to Stephen Byers' comments, although I have not managed to check the context in the last three minutes, is that the

147
provisions which we laid down by statute are the core of the instrument of government, but we specify that schools are otherwise able, provided they meet those core requirements, to regulate their own proceedings. There is, therefore, no contradiction between what we are proposing in these clauses and schedules and what the Minister of State said in another place.
This legislation does, however, abolish the old articles of government. The present position is that these articles govern the way that each school should be conducted, including the respective roles, responsibilities and functions of the governing body and head teachers in certain key areas.
It is essential that there should be a clear understanding on these issues. That is why we shall be addressing them in primary legislation and in the regulations under Clause 37. It is also our intention to issue guidance on these matters. But they cannot be left—as the amendment would suggest—to guidance alone which would have no statutory force. Nor, in our view, given the range and types of school and the lack of uniform experience of governing bodies and of head teachers, do we feel it would be appropriate to go down the path of a formal code of conduct for governing bodies, as has been suggested.
The abolition of articles of government is not primarily a deregulation mechanism, although in a sense it is. It is a modernising one. The provisions currently within articles will be applied directly through primary and secondary legislation. To replicate such legislation in the form of articles, school by school, has proved unworkable and unnecessarily bureaucratic. We believe that abolishing articles of government as a consequence of the new framework will simplify the system of governance for all schools and not put it in a straitjacket.
In future there will be no ambiguity. Schools will rely on what is set out in the primary or secondary legislation and they will have their own instruments of government. These proposals have been widely welcomed by the local education authorities who, in practice, currently carry the main burden of amending school articles of government to conform to successive batches of new legislation, which is wasteful and ties up LEA and school resources which could more profitably be used
148
on other things. The abolition of articles of government, therefore, is a tidying up measure which frees school resources.
If these amendments were carried and the schedules, to a large extent at least, fell, the statutory backing for the instruments of government would fall. And if we were to drop the proposal to require articles of government school by school, the local education authorities in schools would continue to face a substantial bureaucratic burden, which would be unnecessary.
But we do build in the flexibility to which my honourable friend Stephen Byers referred in that schools can add to the core content of the instruments to meet their own particular circumstances. I hope that clarifies the position.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I must confess that I am worried about this. Articles are inconvenient, I will allow that. They are local, they represent large chunks of history and tradition, and this Bill, as I said on Second Reading, is dirigiste. It favours neither local history nor local tradition.
To incorporate a general picture in a Bill destroys not only the limited tradition that you heard recently but quite a lot more. I say again, articles are inconvenient because they represent a local community. LEAs have often found them inconvenient. They have often defended schools against what LEAs wanted them to do. I quote again that some schools have preserved sixth forms. Some schools to which the Minister's colleagues like to send their children are often due to local articles.
I still feel that this Bill is a nationalising, dirigiste Bill. It will impose patterns and I think there will be resentment. I can well accept that local authorities will like it; it eliminates all those awkward little things that stem from history, from tradition and from things like that.
I am not happy. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment but it is yet another mountain that we shall have to climb on Report. I understand what the Minister is saying; namely, that the present provision will make it all nice and easy. It is like a nice little manor house standing in the way of a great highway: "Get it out of the way". It may be pretty, but it is inconvenient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 146C not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Constitution of governing bodies]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 146Q:
Page 138, line 13, after ("preserved") insert ("and developed").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146R to T, 146V to Z, 148C and 246C. The Government are very pleased to bring forward Amendment No. 146Q at the request of the Churches. The addition of the words "and developed" is in line with the original 1944 Act definition of the purpose of a foundation governor. We recognise that the Churches are forward-looking institutions and that "preservation" should not imply that there is no room for any change whatever. The wording has stood the test of time. We are very pleased to be able to reinstate it.
The remaining amendments are technical and are designed to improve the drafting of the Bill. The first set of amendments modify the provisions on additional governors. Amendment No. 146R alters the wording of paragraph 15(1) in Schedule 9 to allow the governing body of any maintained school to make provision in its instrument of government for any number of additional governors to be specified in the regulations. The intention is for the regulations to provide for a specified number of additional governors, or a maximum number to be determined by the governing body.
Amendments No. 146S and 146T modify the wording of paragraph 15(2)(b) to allow the governing body to decide which persons within the category they may seek a nomination from. Amendment No. 146V has the effect of adjusting the number of surplus governor provisions as they apply to additional governors to ensure that only a surplus governor of the type requiring to be removed could be removed, and not any other co-opted governor within the category.
Amendment No. 146Z provides for the dissolution of the governing body to take effect from the school's discontinuance dates or at a later date which the Secretary of State may specify by order. The definitions of discontinuance dates are in line with existing legislation. The new power for the Secretary of State to specify a later date by order will be used in cases where property transactions and other matters need to be dealt with by the governing body after the date on which the school is discontinued. Finally, Amendment No. 246C is consequent upon it and adds the new paragraph 4 in Schedule 10 to Clause 127 under the list of provisions not requiring statutory instruments. I trust that these amendments are in no way contentious and that Members of the Committee will accept that they should form part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to thank the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 146Q and for listening so carefully to the concerns of the Churches that we should be seen both as developing as well as preserving the religious ethos of the schools for which we are responsible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 146D:
Page 138, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Before appointing a governor of a school, a local education authority shall consult any district, town or parish council which covers an area served by the school.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146F, H, J, L and N, all of which deal with minor authority governors. There is great concern that the present practice of minor authority representation on primary school governing bodies will cease if this Bill is passed, unamended, by Parliament. We have received many letters, telephone calls and personal expressions of concern about the new categories of governors as defined in this Bill. All speak of the current close link formed between their local primary school and their village or town community councillor. Yet here we are about to see the ending of this statutory right. Parish and town councillors—properly elected people—who are the closest community link to their school are to have that right removed.
That is even more puzzling as in the foreword to the White Paper the Secretary of State, the right honourable David Blunkett, stated,
"Partnership for change means commitment from everyone: from the family and the wider community".
I am sure the Committee would echo that sentiment. Yet here in this important Bill the Government will end, by right, this closest and most important link. This comes only two months after the countryside rally in March when the Government acknowledged the importance of local communities and specifically included the role of village schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when replying to a debate in this Chamber on the role of grandparents, spoke of the support given by the wider family, friends, neighbours and the community.
I now refer to the comments we have received from schools, parish councils and from the Association of Parish Councils. Mr. Michael Farrar, clerk of Stapleford Parish Council wrote,
"The council was dismayed to learn of this proposal and felt that the present link between a parish council and its local primary school is both mutually beneficial and essential for the maintenance of a proper sense of community".
A letter from the primary school in the village of Stapleford stated:
"We have found the link … our minor authority governor has made between the school and the parish council to be of great benefit to the school…We urge you to reconsider this proposal, to ensure that local schools continue to enjoy good relations with their local communities, a principle which the Government states it believes in".
That letter was sent by the chair and deputy chair of governors to David Blunkett.
Mr. Robin Wendt, chief executive of the National Association of Local Schools, wrote of,
"The key role which primary schools play in the life of local communities and the role of parish, town and community councillors in articulating the needs of these communities".
Under this Bill the parish, town and community councillors can sit on primary school governing bodies only as co-opted members. This position has caused widespread anger and concern among local councils.
At present LEA appointees to governing bodies are made by the political parties, in roughly the proportion of the seats they hold on the county council. To supply an "opening" for a minor authority representation out of those seats implies a political involvement in an area which at parish level has hitherto been apolitical. This could well pose difficulties in deciding who would be nominated to fill this place.
I have raised my next point in previous debates. There are reports of some schools, particularly primary schools, having LEA places unfilled. I mentioned the school of which my husband is a governor which has three LEA places. Some 12 months later two of the places are still unfilled. At the one extreme LEA places are not being filled and therefore a contribution is not made to a particular school, and at the other extreme the Government's proposals on this Bill exclude the most locally and democratically elected personnel from service. Surely that is all the more reason that the present status quo should continue to exist and that minor authority governors should not be excluded by the Bill.
I know that the noble Baroness the Minister is aware of the strength of feeling that has been aroused on this issue. Indeed, she indicated as much in a letter to my noble friend Lady Platt, who is unfortunately not here today, when she spoke of reinforcing opportunities for minor authority representation. When this Bill was debated in another place, Mr. Hain, the Minister, speaking on this issue, said:
"We intend to ensure an opening for minor authority representation … We recognise its value … it can add to the strength and cohesion of governing bodies".
If the Government appreciate and acknowledge the important role that minor authority governors play, and if they wish to ensure an opening for such local councillors to be able to serve on their local governing bodies, why will they not rethink this whole important issue?
The amendments proposed by the Minister go half-way. We on these Benches ask the noble Baroness to reconsider her position and be persuaded by the strength of argument in this Chamber today and the depth of concern expressed by those who serve us outside this House. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Will the noble Baroness say what should happen in an area where there is no parish council but a parish meeting? I happen to live in a village where there is a very active parish meeting which is very interested in local affairs. It seems to me that this amendment would deprive those people of the representation about which the noble Baroness properly feels strongly.
Baroness Byford: Indeed, it was my intention that there should be a representative from the parish council. As I say, the parish council is a democratically elected group and elects a person to serve on the local primary school committee. If I am not making sense, I am sorry.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Without wishing to prolong the matter, I am saying that in some areas there is
152
no parish council, but there is a regular parish meeting. Are those people to be deprived of the laudable provision that is suggested?
Baroness Byford: No, indeed, I do not see why they cannot be represented. If I have erred in some way, then I will bring the matter back at the next stage. The whole idea of these amendments is to be inclusive, so that we can have good representation at local level in schools. I have waited hours to speak in this debate. I wondered whether I should be speaking on the day on which I had thought to speak, or the day after. The whole debate is to make sure that the closest elected body is not precluded. At present, the Bill suggests that those people have the chance to be included and they are open-minded on the matter. But they are not there to serve as of right, as they are at present. That is my understanding. I shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to similar amendments standing in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Tope, who cannot be with us, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I shall not reiterate the arguments as they relate to our amendments because the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has set them out fully and we have heard enough repetition in these debates. We have been heavily lobbied by people outside this House. The noble Lord was concerned about parish meetings. Our proposal is to keep the legislation that already exists. If the noble Lord wishes parish meetings to be included, I suggest that he proposes an amendment. I should be happy to support it. The point is that we do not want to lose the representation that parish councils have now.
Our amendments are slightly different from the Conservative amendments. They include community councils in Wales and give the right to appoint a governor to every school in a parish. The Minister will introduce an amendment which recognises some of the concerns that we all have, and I shall listen carefully to her remarks. However, on examination, and after discussing it with others, it appears not to go quite so far as we should like it to go. It is just a little disappointing. At this time of night, it seems incredibly mean. We have waited until this time to deal with one of the parts of the Bill on which we have been lobbied by many groups. Given the strength of feeling, I cannot understand why the Government cannot go the whole way on this. If I understand correctly, they are saying that they put the matter in the hands of the governors and that minor authorities are given the right to nominate but do not have full nomination rights; the other governors must consider whether they will co-opt the minor authority nomination. I may have got that wrong. This matter was debated in the other place. It is an issue that people care about. Can we have a bit of caring at twenty-five past midnight, please?
Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested, I am aware of the strength of feeling among minor authorities about our proposal to withdraw their right to appoint school governors for some categories of primary schools. We have assured them that there will continue to be an opening for minor authority

153
representation. The government amendments that we have brought forward now enshrine that commitment on the face of the Bill, while allowing governing bodies to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to co-opt a minor authority representative. I shall come later to the government amendments, but first I should like to address the points raised by the two sets of amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the Conservatives and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for the Liberal Democrats.
Turning first to Amendment No. 146D, I am aware that not all LEAs are equally diligent about appointing LEA nominees to governing bodies. It is clearly unacceptable for vacancies to be carried for many months, with the governing body deprived of another useful pair of hands. For this reason, the Government have some sympathy with Amendment No. 146D, which would require an LEA to consult any district, town or parish council covering the area served by the school before appointing LEA governors. But we believe that these matters are more appropriate for guidance on good practice rather than legislation. I hope it is helpful to the noble Baronesses on both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches to say that we intend to encourage LEAs in the strongest terms to be mindful of minor authority links in making their own appointments, particularly where they are having difficulty in identifying sufficient appropriate LEA nominees, as we know they sometimes do. However, we do not feel that legislation would be appropriate as it would impede the ability of democratically elected LEAs to consider freely who should represent them.
It is also the case that the proposed statutory code of practice on LEA-school relations covers appointments to governing bodies. It states that LEAs should publish the process and criteria by which they will identify candidates for appointment as LEA governors and make those appointments promptly. In the guidance we shall issue on reconstituting school governing bodies we intend to give strong encouragement to LEAs to consider minor authority nominees, particularly in cases where they are finding it difficult to fill their places. But a great deal will depend upon local circumstances. To impose a blanket requirement on all LEAs to consult, even in cases where they had no need or intention to open up their lists, would only arouse expectations which could not be fulfilled. Providing another route for minor authorities via LEAs would be confusing and blur accountability at local level.
I should like to turn now to the two different sets of proposals to add minor authority governors or parish or town council governors to school governing bodies. While it is true that we have received a great many representations in favour of maintaining the status quo, both sets of amendments go very much further than that. To accept these amendments would result in minor authorities having considerably more influence on governing bodies than they do at present. Amendments 146G to 146N make no distinction between primary and secondary schools. Maybe that was just a mistake in the drafting. Under existing legislation and under our
154
proposals there is no requirement for minor authority representation on secondary school governing bodies. Secondary schools often take pupils from a very wide geographical area, so a significant number of minor authorities could well be involved. Extending minor authority representation to secondary schools would greatly increase the risk of disagreement about who should represent them as more authorities would need to agree.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, does not suggest that a minor authority governor should be appointed at foundation schools. However, Amendment No. 146J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would require such schools to have a "parish or town" councillor governor appointed collectively by the parish or town councils covering the area served by the school.
It is a bit surprising that a Conservative amendment should require foundation schools to have a parish or town council governor. As Members of the Committee will appreciate, it is not unheard of for either town or parish councillors to be politically aligned—it is particularly likely in the former case. I fear therefore that this would cut across the undertaking we have already given to GM schools that no more than two local authority appointees should be added to foundation school governing bodies, irrespective of size or circumstances.
The Government gauged very carefully the appropriate level of local authority representation on foundation school governing bodies. The amendment would increase that representation and we understand that such a proposal would be unwelcome to the existing grant-maintained sector. The previous government made no provision for minor authority representation on grant-maintained school governing bodies. The Government do not wish to perpetuate unnecessary divisions between different categories of school. That is why we would wish to give all primary schools the right to decide for themselves whether minor authority representation is appropriate for them.
I note that Amendment No. 146F perpetuates the current unsatisfactory position of joint appointments by minor authorities acting collectively which provides no means of determining a dispute if the parties cannot agree. Those decisions should be made locally, but we know from experience that minor authorities are not always able to secure agreement. To rely on local agreements is unworkable and the Secretary of State does not feel that it should continue to be a function of the department operating from Whitehall to determine disputes of that kind.
I turn now to the Government's amendments relating to minor authority representation. Amendment No. 146U amends paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 to place on the face of the Bill the duty for governing bodies of primary schools serving minor authority areas to consider co-opting minor authority nominees. Where a primary school is served by more than one minor authority, it will be open to the governing body to approach any one or more of those authorities as they see fit. Special provision is made for voluntary-aided schools, which do not generally have

155
co-opted governors, to have a co-opted governor nominated by a minor authority if the governing body thinks fit.
Amendment No. 208A is consequential to Amendment No. 146U. Placing the provisions on minor authority representation on the face of the Bill enables this amendment to Clause 78 to allow for a co-opted governor nominated by a minor authority to be an ex officio trustee at a foundation or voluntary school. That follows the spirit of the existing legislation which allows the governors appointed by foundations, LEAs or minor authorities, to be ex officio trustees at foundation or voluntary schools.
Bringing provision for minor authority representation on the face of the Bill now requires the term "minor authority" to be defined in the Bill. Accordingly, Amendment No. 255C inserts a new clause defining the circumstances under which a maintained school would be regarded as serving an area for which there is a minor authority. I point out to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington that a parish meeting will provide the representative where there is no parish council. It provides for minor authorities to be either parish councils or parish meetings where there is no parish council, community councils in Wales or district councils. Town councils are included in the reference to parish councils. Where a school is not situated within a parish or unitary authority, the clause allows for more than one district council to be regarded as a minor authority.
Finally, Amendment No. 257S adds a reference to a minor authority in the index of expressions set out in Clause 131. I would like to assure all concerned that there is no intention to undermine the quality of rural life or indeed to undervalue the enormous contribution which representatives on minor authorities make to their communities or to the schools which serve them. We believe that the majority of primary schools, given the choice, would still wish to include a minor authority governor as a co-opted representative.
We understand the uncertainty that many minor authority interests have felt over the Government's intentions and that is why we have decided, given the very obvious strength of feeling on the issue, to make those intentions clear on the face of the Bill instead of in regulations as originally intended. Alongside those regulations we plan to issue strong guidance urging governing bodies to consider co-opting a minor authority nominee to represent the local community. We also plan to ask LEAs to consider nominating such individuals themselves. We have reflected very carefully on this issue, as I hope what I have said indicates. But on balance we believe that the decision should be left to governing bodies themselves.
As I indicated, we have received a great many representations on this matter although we have received hardly any from the schools themselves and none at all from LEAs. Our proposals for the constitution of governing bodies are consistent with the rest of our proposals for the governing bodies. Our desire is to see schools treated more equitably and to ensure that governing bodies are kept to a reasonable size. By "reasonable size" we mean with sufficient governors to
156
ensure that business is conducted efficiently, but not so many that the governing body becomes over-large and unwieldy.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock: Members of the Committee will know that that was an incredibly disappointing answer. I felt that the Minister was offering crumbs from the table to parish councils. I believe the Minister said that particularly in cases where the local education authority could not find governors itself it might consider asking the parish council. I found that particularly disappointing and surprising. It is not the kind of remark which the Minister normally makes.
She also indicated that we were slightly changing the amendments. I believe that my amendment improves the situation that we have now. We were not even asking for the status quo. If we asked for that, would the Minister look on the matter more favourably? Perhaps she will indicate whether that is so. The noble Baroness then tried to sell the provision to us by saying that it was going to be put into regulations, but we have been very kind and put it on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that anyone is going to be fooled, least of all the parish councils and minority authorities who lobbied us. I feel sure that we shall return to this matter again.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may return again to the Minister's response. I, too, am equally disappointed. It was hoped that the status quo would be allowed to exist. The Minister has moved some way to meet some of our requests. She spoke about co-option; possible openings; recommending the strongest terms; not imposing; and primary schools being satisfied at having someone from their LEA appointed rather than a local person being appointed.
I wish to ask the Minister two things. On looking at the amendments as they stand, obviously we have asked for a place in primary and secondary schools. If our amendment referred just to primary schools, would the Government reconsider? The last comment that the Minister made was about the size of the governing body. We are not changing the size of the governing body. All that we are changing—or rather, all that the Government are proposing to change—is that there may be certain nominees, with appointments being made by LEAs, with perhaps political rather than non-political appointees. The point of our amendment is to ensure that a parish council, which is duly elected and is the closest link to the school, should be allowed to continue to put forward its nominee for election as a governor as of right in primary schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer those two points briefly. It would be an improvement if the amendments related only to primary schools and did not go wider to include secondary schools, but I do not think that confining the provisions to primary schools would solve the Government's problems for the reasons I have explained, relating to an undertaking that has been given to grant-maintained schools.

157
The issue of the size of the governing body is not crucial to the argument. I mentioned it at the end because it is clearly important, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, that governing bodies should be of a sensible and reasonable size to get on with their business.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, I am not happy about it and I expect that there will be great disappointment out there among our primary schools and parish councils. I should like to read Hansard—not tomorrow, but the day after—and to return to the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 146E to 146N not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 146R to 146V:
Page 143, leave out line 20 and insert ("specified in or determined in accordance with regulations.").
Page 143, line 24, leave out ("by whom") and insert ("from amongst whose members").
Page 143, line 24, leave out ("may be made") and insert ("are to be sought").
Page 143, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) If, in the case of any voluntary aided school which—

(a) is a primary school, and

(b) serves an area for which there are one or more minor authorities,

the governing body so determine, the instrument of government for the school shall provide for the governing body to include (in addition to the governors required by virtue of paragraph 14 and any required by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)) one co-opted governor nominated by the minor authority or (as the case may be) one of the minor authorities in question; and the governing body of any such school must decide whether or not to make a determination under this sub-paragraph.
(4) Where any such school serves an area for which there are two or more minor authorities, the relevant governors may, for the purposes of the appointment of any such co-opted governor, seek nominations from any one or more of those authorities as the governors think fit.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) "the relevant governors" means those members of the school's governing body who are not co-opted governors.
Co-opted governors nominated by minor authorities
15A.—(1) In the case of any maintained school (other than a voluntary aided school) which—

(a) is a primary school, and

(b) serves an area for which there are one or more minor authorities,

the relevant governors shall, when making an appointment of a co-opted governor in accordance with paragraphs 9 to 13, consider
158
whether to appoint as such a governor a person nominated by the minor authority or (as the case may be) one of the minor authorities in question (unless one or more such persons are for the time being so appointed).
(2) Where any such school serves an area for which there are two or more minor authorities, the relevant governors may, for the purposes of the appointment of any such co-opted governor, seek nominations from any one or more of those authorities as the governors think fit.
(3) In this paragraph "the relevant governors" has the meaning given by paragraph 15(5).").
Page 144, line 2, at end insert—
("(4) Where the governing body of a maintained school includes any additional governors appointed in pursuance of paragraph 15, this paragraph shall apply to the school as if such of those governors as are nominated by a particular category of person constituted a separate category of governor.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Incorporation of governing bodies]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 146W to 146Z:
Page 144, line 18, leave out ("by") and insert ("before").
Page 144, line 23, leave out ("by") and insert ("before").
Page 144, line 25, leave out ("by") and insert ("before").
Page 146, line 27, at end insert—
("Dissolution of governing body
4.—(1) If the school is discontinued, the governing body are dissolved by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) on the discontinuance date, or

(b) on such later date as the Secretary of State may specify by order made before the discontinuance date.

(2) In this paragraph "the discontinuance date" means—

(a) the date when proposals for discontinuing the school are implemented under Part III of Schedule 6,

(b) the date when the school is discontinued under section 29, or

(c) the date specified in a direction given under section 19(1) or 31(1),

as the case may be.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Membership and proceedings etc. of governing bodies]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 148, line 24, leave out ("they consider") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 147, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. Amendments No. 147 and 148 are an opportunity to ask the Government how they expect local authorities to be held to account for the standards they apply to governor training. Is this one of those wonderful bits of education legislation which leaves everybody powerless and the local authority without any real responsibilities or somewhere hidden in the wording is there something which will allow either the local people or the Secretary of State to impose some degree of guidance or control on the standards of governor training?
Amendment No. 152—a totally separate issue—concerns the meaning of the phrases "high standards" and "educational achievement". Perhaps I can find the

159
right page in the Bill. I am very surprised. I thought that I had found it earlier. Perhaps the Government know where it is. I believe that it should be on page 32, line 5. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, understands that that is where it is supposed to be.
The promotion of high standards of educational achievement is a very noble aim, but it does not appear to be anchored to any ability to turn that into reality. If that is something that a governing body is supposed to do it must know what is meant by "high standards". One could say that the hills in East Anglia were high. By local standards they might be high, but they would not be high by Welsh standards. Educational achievement varies across the country in a similar fashion. I believe that a governing body should have regard to a national measure of "high standards" rather than whether it is doing better than its neighbours.
As to educational achievement, that can be very loosely and differently defined. What is important? What level of educational achievement is satisfactory? By what measures will such achievement be judged? I see nothing in the Bill to enable the Government or anyone else to set out the standards by which the two phrases in Clause 37(2) can be judged. My rather imperfect Amendment No.152 may provide a way of doing that, if it is put in the right place in the Bill. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees: I should point out to the Committee that, as Amendment No. 152 is also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 149A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 150 to 152.
Lord Whitty: It appears from the drafting of the first amendment that the noble Lord aims to do what his Front Bench has argued the Government should not do; namely, to lay down precise formulations and impose a straitjacket on local authorities and governing bodies.
Amendment No. 147 relates to the provision of information. It is clear that at present governing bodies can carry out their functions only if they have the information in a form that they can understand. Most governing bodies will look to the head teacher to provide such information. Clause 41(4) of the Bill places a requirement on the head to provide the governing body with such reports in connection with the discharge of his duties as the governing body may require to enable it to exercise its functions. Clause 41 places a similar duty on head teachers and governing bodies to provide information to the LEA for the purpose of exercising its functions.
These requirements, which reflect existing legislation, are to be further buttressed by the guidance on exchanging information in the proposed code of practice on LEA-school relations. If LEAs, head teachers and governing bodies are to work in partnership they will need to agree among themselves sensible arrangements for exchanging information and the form of that information. The department is providing increasing amounts of information to governors, but it will be up
160
to the LEA to agree with governing bodies what further information it can usefully provide to help governors set their schools' performance in context and understand how it compares with others. The effect of the amendment is to try to establish an objective single form of information that applies in all local authorities, whereas we believe that the information which follows discussion between the local authority and the governing body will meet the circumstances of particular areas and schools.
A similar argument applies to Amendment No. 148 which relates to governor training. Local education authorities are well placed to consider along with their governing body partners the type of information and training which governors need to do an effective job. Given the wide range of interests and individuals represented on governing bodies we do not believe that a single centrally imposed model, which the amendment implies, would be the right course of action. Governors are at different stages of development, and have marked differences in knowledge and understanding.
However, we share the noble Lord's concern, which lies behind the amendment, that there should be an improvement in the amount of training for governors. We have already stepped up that provision. That is why the White Paper Excellence in Schools committed the department to issuing guidance on how governors' training needs can best be met, drawing on the best of existing LEA practice. Officials are working with LEA governor trainers to identify good practice, and intend to publish a document in the autumn. In view of all that activity, amendments which imply that there should be one form of training for all governors in all areas should be resisted. There should be a recognition that the back-up and support which the department is giving to governors and LEAs in the provision of training should be supported.
With regard to Amendment No. 152, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that we should define more closely "high standards" and "educational achievement". If we follow that through, there is a danger that we start to write targets for schools into regulations about governing bodies. That is something we wish to avoid. The regulations proposed in this clause are concerned with things such as establishing the governing body's terms of reference, role and responsibilities, and the respective roles which the head teacher and the governing body should be playing. They are not about setting targets for the school's achievement.
There is plenty of advice in this area. The department has issued recently, for consultation, draft guidance for LEAs on education development plans, which covers pupils' standards of achievement, the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership and management, including support for governors. Governing bodies clearly have a major role to play in the raising of expectations and of standards. To write into regulations the precise educational targets which governors will be required to deliver would be counter-productive and would not gell well with what is required under the regulations which state the more basic requirements for governing bodies.

161
The raising of educational standards is clearly shared by us all. That statement does not pretend to be a defined objective target against which the performance of a governing body can be measured. It is a description of the role which we see governing bodies having in driving up standards in schools in general. We do not wish to be restrictive or prescriptive in the way in which we define that in regulations, as the amendment implies. I understand the noble Lord's anxieties in this area. I hope that he will accept that his amendments would not achieve his objectives.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply to the amendments. I accept what he has said. I am delighted to have his assurance about guidance on governor training and information for governors. That answers the question underlying those two amendments. I accept his strictures on Amendment No. 152. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what he has said, and if I have any further questions I shall write to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Instruments of government]:
[Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Instruments of government]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 148C:
Page 149, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert—
("(ii) the categories of person from amongst whose members nominations for the appointment of any additional governors required by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 are to be sought,
(iii) the number of such governors for whose appointment nominations are to be sought in the case of each such category of person,
(iiia) where the school is a community special school, whether it has a representative governor by virtue of paragraph 10 of Schedule 9, and").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to.
Baroness Blatch: I have given notice of my intention to oppose Schedules 11 and 12. I said "not moved" to Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B. I did not say "not moved" to Schedule 11. Schedule 11 has not been called. I am sorry, but I did not hear Schedule 11 called.
Noble Lords: Yes, it has.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has just called Schedule 12. Therefore I shall oppose Schedule 12 and put forward the same arguments as I would have done to Schedule 11.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): Schedule 12, Amendment No. 148C, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Baroness Blackstone: It has already been moved.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 12 stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is being allowed to backtrack on having said "not moved" I find that extraordinary. I have been told that I cannot speak to Schedule 11 and go back on what I thought was an omission.
I rise to oppose that Schedule 12 stand part of the Bill. I shall be brief because the arguments were made earlier by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. This really is a straitjacket. The Government have made much of the importance of local flexibility. They have made much of the importance of attending to the wishes of local people and of local schools. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Pilkington suggests that by cancelling out Schedules 11 and 12 we should remove the straitjacket that every school shall be bound by the one single stricture: the one single set of procedures for governing bodies; the one single set of instruments; and the disappearance and abolition of the articles of government. It is the articles of government which give schools their distinctive character. Some schools may not wish to avail themselves. A large proportion of schools in the country may well settle for model guidance and there will be no problem.
However, the Government go for the administrative, tidy solution, because some schools may want distinctive, characteristic, idiosyncratic articles of government which conform to all the laws but nevertheless reflect the distinctive nature of the school and which might give local education authorities more work. Local education authorities are there to serve schools. They are there to serve governing bodies. A number of governing bodies would lament very much the passing of the articles and the fact that they are bound by the single regulatory framework which is offered by Schedules 11 and 12.
It is administratively tidy. It offers no flexibility. It panders to one of the worst notions I can think of: dull uniformity. How can we accept the proposition that dull uniformity should persist? Even the school which the Prime Minister's children attend has distinctive articles of governance which will not be allowed under the Bill because they will be subject to the strictures of the regulations set out in Schedules 11 and 12.
The words "control freaks" have been used about the Government. When one considers the Bill, that is what it adds up to—central control throughout. Membership and proceedings, instruments and articles of government should be a matter for guidance from government. We think that Government should take an interest in it, but the idea that those matters should be hidebound by strict, monolithic sets of regulations flies in the face of what we would all want to see, which is distinctive characteristic diversity at a local level.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene. My understanding was that Amendment No. 148C was moved but not called by the Chairman of Committees,

163
so that the Committee did not have an opportunity to make a decision on that amendment. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke on whether the clause shall stand part, but I wonder if the Committee could prevail upon the Chairman of Committees to call Amendment No. 148C. That would enable the Committee to make a decision on that amendment, prior to the Minister responding to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on whether the clause shall stand part.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 148C had already been debated and I simply said "not moved".
Lord Monkswell: My understanding was that the government response to Amendment No. 148C being called was that it had already been spoken to, and by implication that they were moving it. The difficulty we are placed in is that, for fairly understandable reasons, the amendment was not called in terms of a Division, so it would seem to me that it would put matters right, if I can put it like that, if the Chairman of Committees could ask whether Amendment No. 148C is agreed. The Committee could then make a decision on that and the Minister could then respond to the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made about the clause stand part.
The Chairman of Committees: Perhaps the matter can be resolved in this way. I understand that the question on Amendment No. 148C was not put. Perhaps I may put it now. I believe it can be moved formally.
Baroness Blackstone: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty: Returning to the Question that Schedule 12, as amended, shall be agreed to, the noble Baroness has spoken against the Motion. Perhaps I could reply to her before we take a decision on it.
As the noble Baroness said, much of this was debated in the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The noble Baroness claims that the abolition of articles of government and the provisions relating to the instruments of government form a straitjacket. The instruments of government are not a straitjacket; they are a modernisation. They provide for certain core information that will be required, detailing the name of the school, its category, the composition of its governing body and, where applicable, those entitled to appoint foundation governors, and, for schools with a religious character, a statement of the school's ethos. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, there will be additional provisions to those provided by individual schools, which will build in the flexibility to those instruments of government.
As far as the old articles are concerned, I understood the romantic notions of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that these often archaic documents were great defences of freedom. Nevertheless, they were very outdated in
164
many cases, and schools as well as local education authorities found them difficult to work to, requiring regular updating as legislation or regulations changed.
If Schedule 12 were deleted it would delete all reference to instruments of government. The instruments of government are necessary. Some uniformity of part of those instruments of government is necessary; other parts will be agreed between the governing body and the local education authority; and other parts can be added by the individual school. I think that gives adequate flexibility, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her opposition to this schedule standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: That is a deeply disappointing answer. There is one set of regulations for all 25,000 schools in the whole country, with no flexibility for idiosyncratic characteristics to be reflected. I would like the noble Lord to point to where in the Bill, either in Schedule 11 or Schedule 12, it is spelt out that governing bodies can be additionally flexible.
Lord Whitty: It sets out the basic information that is required. It then requires that the instrument will be completed by the governing body using a model pro forma. But it will be possible to complete it in the light of the circumstances of that school.
It is interesting that few GM schools wanted the amendments to the standard instruments because it was so difficult to keep them in line with regular updatings of the regulations. That will be even more true with community schools, as we will be calling them.
We are not imposing a straitjacket. We are tidying up the situation and making it a little more modern than the manor house of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Nevertheless, we are preserving the essential ethos of that manor house in a new context. I trust that the destruction of the schedule, which would remove all statutory backing for instruments of government, would be regarded as a deregulation too far, even by the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Blatch: It would not remove the need for instruments or articles of government; it would insist that all schools need to have instruments and articles. It would leave flexibility for them to determine their nature. The noble Lord has wheeled out the old chestnut that because not many schools do it none should do it. That is a policy of despair. Regardless of how few schools want to do it, if they have good reason for doing so they should be supported.
The school which the Prime Minister's children attend cedes powers to the head under articles of government which are agreed by the governors. Under the Bill, that will not be allowed. If the noble Lord is saying to me that under the Bill powers can be ceded over and above the regulations set out in Schedule 12 I shall be a much happier bunny as I go to bed tonight—or this morning.
Lord Whitty: The basic provisions cannot be altered because they are standard provisions. But there can be flexibility over and above those standard provisions

165
relating to the particular ethos of the school. That is the context in which my honourable friend Stephen Byers was speaking in another place.
Baroness Blatch: I am not talking to the honourable gentleman Stephen Byers, I am talking to the Minister in this House. I am not talking about the basic regulations. They are already here and the noble Lord has made it clear that they cannot be altered and will apply to all schools. Beyond that, can he assure me that over and above the regulations in Schedule 12 powers can be ceded within the governing body to the head? Can matters over and above what is in regulations be ceded? Accepting that Schedule 12 stands part of the Bill, will there be flexibility to exercise some of the powers which are now exercised under present statutes?
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that the term "over and above" is correct. It is in addition to what is provided; they cannot alter what is laid down as standard provisions. There can be additional provisions, but they cannot alter the standard provisions.
If the noble Baroness wishes, I will clarify the matter in writing. However, I am suddenly advised that they can build in extra procedures and rules, but not ones which contradict the basic requirements of the instrument. I repeat that if the noble Baroness requires further clarification I shall be happy to provide it in writing.
Baroness Blatch: I certainly do need further clarification. If I remove my words "over and above" and say "additional to", so that I use the same language as the noble Lord, can he assure me that the powers that are used by, for example, by the Oratory School under its present articles of government can be translated under the new Bill'? In other words, can the things it does not do, which are not included in Schedule 12, be done in addition to what is laid down in Schedule 12
Lord Whitty: I regret that I am not sufficiently aware of the precise provisions of the London Oratory School. What I am saying is that schools can provide, under their own standing orders and procedures, additional arrangements for how they conduct their affairs. What I am also saying is that they cannot contradict what are the basic requirements for the instrument itself.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [General responsibility of governing body for conduct of school]:
[Amendment No. 149A not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 32, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendment No. 151 were moved by the Liberal Democrats in another place. We want to see, not that regulations may set out terms of reference, but that they shall set out the terms of reference for governing bodies of schools and define the respective roles of governors and head teachers, etc. Amendment No. 151 also provides for them to make standing orders to regulate
166
the conduct of their business. I think it is important to stress that although we want to ensure that their respective functions and relationships are spelt out, we are not setting out to prescribe from the centre what they should be.
I shall quote from my honourable friend in another place, Phil Willis. I think he put the case very well from his own experience in saying:
"The relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is crucial to the effective running of a school. Nothing is more important, particularly if we consider the relationship between the head and the chairman of governors."
I can say that from having been chair of governors in a school.
"Most head teachers would value knowing exactly where their operational responsibilities lay. … It is crucial that each school should know exactly where it stands. We want to see that enshrined in regulations."
He went on to say:
"The governing bodies in all GM schools have operated under standing orders. Again, head teachers value enormously a good relationship with the governing body".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 10/2/98; col. 438.]
The Minister, Estelle Morris, in another place, understood the point of what we were saying and pointed out that they were in the process of consulting on the regulations and that they were happy to include these ideas in the consultation. If the Minister has anything to report tonight, we should like to hear it. If not, perhaps we shall have to wait for a further stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The Bill already provides the necessary scope to regulate on the terms of reference for governing bodies and the respective roles and responsibilities of the governing body and head teacher and to confer responsibilities. These are powers which we fully intend to use. But we do not want to be tied to legislating on every detail set out in Clause 37(3). The powers are intentionally permissive in order to give us the latitude to cover in regulations only those matters which we consider most helpful in clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities.
Our aim is to produce regulations which provide genuine clarification on the framework within which governing bodies and heads should work together. We plan to consult widely on the draft regulations. Prior to that we will test the views of the key partners so that what we do produce is workable.
Much of the content is likely to be familiar territory. For example, some provisions are already in existing articles of government. However, we plan only to regulate on key roles and responsibilities. We do not want to be drawn by this amendment into producing a long list of governing body and head teacher responsibilities which would repeat much of what is in existing legislation or proposed by this Bill.
Our particular concern regarding standing orders is the additional burden that producing them would impose on governing bodies. We fear that it would divert governing bodies from concentrating on the key issue of standards if they were required to spend time discussing their own procedures. Such procedures as we consider

167
essential for the smooth conduct of governing bodies will be contained in regulations to be made under Schedule 11. Beyond that, governing bodies should be free to choose for themselves with what degree of formality they should conduct their affairs. Governing bodies vary greatly, and what is appropriate for a large secondary school may feel quite wrong in a small primary school. However, we have indicated in another place that our minds are not closed on the issue of standing orders. The Bill, as currently drafted, would not preclude a requirement for standing orders in the regulations if a consensus for their support emerged on consultation. Any school will be able to adopt standing orders if it wishes as Schedule 11 allows governing bodies to regulate their own procedure and that of any committees subject to what is set out in regulations. We will be seeking practitioners' views on whether governing bodies should have standing orders, and what they might contain.
It is neither necessary nor desirable to have every detail of what regulations may include on the face of the Bill. The regulations will be fully consulted upon and a decision taken about the inclusion of standing orders. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that response. I shall read very carefully the Hansard report of what she said. At this time of night it is not always easy to take in such a response and interpret exactly what it means. However, I picked up the fact that the Minister is of the view that we want to put everything in the Bill. We have indeed been very specific here. We were concerned about the relationship between governors and head teachers. I believe that the Minister is accusing us of seeking to do more than we actually intended. Nevertheless, I shall study her response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 32, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The first regulations under this section shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 154, 160, 162, 166, 199, 200, 224, 225, 227, 228, 248 to 251 and 253 to 255. These amendments are coupled with two government amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 255A and 246A. Our debate so far on the Bill has more than convinced me of the need to take a very close interest in the secondary legislation which will flow from it. As we all know—and this is certainly true of all legislation—the devil is very much in the detail. Indeed, when one looks at part of this Bill, it is clear that we shall find a very real devil as regards the detail, especially in connection with the four action zone clauses. A great deal of activity will flow from them,
168
much of which is still only a matter of speculation. My reason for tabling this raft of amendments is to ensure that any regulations produced will be subject to approval under the affirmative resolution procedure of both Chambers.
I have two brief points to make. First, on reading the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness—Amendments Nos. 255A and 246A—it seems to me, from my limited technical understanding of them, that it could just be possible that they subsume all of my amendments in toto; in other words, that every one of my amendments where I call for affirmative resolution for regulations that flow from the Bill will in fact be subject to that procedure. I would not only welcome confirmation of that, I would also be very pleased to hear it.
Secondly, I have a question for the Minister. I suspect that it is more a case of ignorance on my part. I cannot really blame this on the lateness of the hour, it is just that the information has gone from my memory. Can the Minister confirm that Amendment No. 247 was agreed to on either the first or second day of the Committee stage of the Bill? It actually relates to Clause 1, so I presume that it must have been discussed on the first day of Committee. I ask that question because I should like to couple it with my amendments. My dim, distant memory of the early stages of the Bill is that Amendment No. 247 was in fact accepted by the Minister. If that is so, I would appreciate her confirmation in that respect. I feel strongly that we ought to give Parliament an opportunity to see some of the detail that we would like to have had before us in discussing the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: As I said when the Committee met for the first time on 5th May, the Government will respond in a positive manner to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report. In answer to the noble Baroness's question, Amendment No. 247 concerned class sizes. I said that we would return to the issue of class sizes on Report. During our previous debate I proposed amendments which clarified the Committee's concerns in respect of Clause 21(7). I shall be delighted to move the two government amendments in the group of amendments we are discussing, Amendments Nos. 246A and 255A.
Amendments Nos. 246A and 255A give effect to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendations in respect of the resolution procedures to be used for those provisions covering governance, local management of schools, admission and exclusion appeals and grammar schools. The particular drafting employed by parliamentary counsel means that only these two amendments cover recommendations of the committee over much of the Bill and cover the same issues as the 19 amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am not sure how they have done it, but I am assured that these two amendments cover the same issues as the 19 amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled for discussion today.
Regulations made under Sections 37(3), 38(1), 45, 46, 47(1), 100 or 101 (2) will all be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure on the first occasion

169
that those regulations are made. That is consistent with what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee suggested. In addition, orders made under paragraph 19 of Schedule 18, paragraph 16 of Schedule 24 or paragraph 14 of Schedule 25 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not know whether the Committee will find it helpful if I discuss each of the committee's recommendations in turn.
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Blackstone: In that case I hope the Committee will welcome the Government's amendments. They meet the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendations in all the areas that I have just listed. The Government will propose more amendments in due course.
Baroness Blatch: I do not think anyone would want an even longer technical explanation, but I want an answer to my question. I understood the noble Baroness to say that she is responding to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendations. My amendments go rather wider than that; they ask for affirmative resolution on a number of regulations which are additional to those recommended in the report. Are any of my amendments not subsumed by the noble Baroness's amendments? I need to know whether that is the case. If they are not, I shall want to make my arguments in the context of particular sections of the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 247, I thought we had addressed this matter when we discussed class size pledges. The noble Baroness simply said that she would return to the matter. Will she bring forward an amendment that meets my request; namely that the regulations which flow from Clause 1 of the Bill will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Chambers?
Baroness Blackstone: As I said when we discussed class sizes, we shall return to the issue on Report. This evening we are not discussing the part of the Bill that relates to class sizes. I cannot therefore give the noble Baroness the positive answer that she requires. As I said, I shall return to this matter on Report. I am hopeful that I shall be able to give a positive response, but I cannot confirm that this evening.
I was not aware that the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness went beyond the proposals in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I thought that the amendments reflected the committee's recommendations. The two government amendments are entirely responsive to the committee. They do not go beyond that. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Blatch: It does partly, and I am grateful for that. However, when I was a Minister I had a response for every single amendment that came before the House. I simply wish to know from the noble Baroness whether or not all my amendments to which officials have given
170
a response are consistent with the proposals of the scrutiny committee, or whether they are subsumed by the noble Baroness's amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: The advice that I received was that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. If that advice is wrong, I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness on those amendments which are apparently different. I hope that reply is helpful.
Lord Lucas: I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain to me what dangers of hybridity arise under Clause 100 which she is seeking to evade.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord. I cannot answer that question at this time of night.
Baroness Blatch: This is positively the last time that I shall speak tonight. Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, as I promised my noble friend Lady Young I would, for acceding to her request that she might go home earlier—she was not feeling too well and she has a heavy day tomorrow—and for accepting that the last amendments tabled for debate tonight might become the first amendments for debate on Thursday. There was another point that I wished to make; however, I shall leave it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Additional functions of governing body]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 32, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body of a maintained school shall have a duty to facilitate and give reasonable assistance to parents who wish to establish an organisation within the school to represent parents.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to clarify the role of governors to assist parents who want to set up an organisation for parents based on the school. This section in the Bill which confers additional powers on the governing body provides an opportunity to clarify what has been a confused situation.
Although the 1986 Education Act gave the right to parents to elect parent governors to the school governing body, the right of parents to set up an organisation to meet together in the school is not clear in law. If parents are to be treated as partners, it is essential that, if they wish, they should be able to form an association based on the school. This subsection would clarify the right of parents to form an association if they wish. It would not require such organisations to be set up, but would establish a climate so that such organisations would be encouraged.
Governors have an overall duty for the running of the school. It seems sensible that it should be the role of the governing body to assist parents if it is clear that the parents want to have such an organisation. It would give the governing body a clear role in encouraging parental participation.
This change would not be by any means a cure-all to ensure perfect home-school relationships. Parent involvement involves individual parents working with individual teachers to help their child learn. It also has a wider perspective which includes how a representative parental voice can be heard in the governance of schools.
This subsection is based on one which will be included in a Irish Education Bill. The Irish Bill will also enshrine the right of parents to be consulted on education policy.
This clause also reflects one of the functions of Scottish school boards, which is to promote contact between the school, parents and the community and to promote the formation of parents associations. Surely we do not want to be left behind other parts of the UK.
Also, many European countries have class meetings and parents' councils in schools. Parents' councils or associations allow parents to consult and be consulted on school policies in a democratic way. They establish an expectation that parents will be, and should be, involved in schools. Are we to do less?
Despite the great deal of rhetoric about parental power in recent years, so-called power is in fact limited almost entirely to parental choice at the time of choosing a school. In fact, it is not always parental choice; it gives the parents the chance to name their preference, but they may not get their choice. Parents do have rights to information through the prospectus, the annual report from governors and an annual meeting. Influence within the school once the "choice" is made can in fact be fairly minimal. Parents do not want power but to be consulted and to have their views taken seriously.
The amendment has the support of the PTA for Wales, the UK Education Forum, Family Education and Playwork in Devon, which has been doing splendid work in involving families, and the Alliance of Parents and Schools. In response to a letter to my noble friend, Lady Blackstone, from Mrs Tulloch, the chairman of CASE, the civil servant responding for my noble friend said in her letter:
"Parents' associations can provide an important underpinning for effective partnerships and the Government would certainly encourage governing bodies to ensure their school has one".
I am now giving the Government the opportunity to do that. I beg to move.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David for raising this important issue at this late hour. The Government believe that parents should be more involved in the education in their schools. We have brought forward in the Bill proposals for home-school agreements in Clauses 103 and 104. We are increasing parental representation on governing bodies and parent representatives on education committees. We are providing better procedures to protect parents by ensuring that governing bodies take their complaints seriously, and that will be laid down in regulations. We also propose to retain the annual parents' meeting.
172
The amendment clearly goes further than that in requiring governing bodies to facilitate the establishment of a parent representative committee in some form, leaving it to the parents as to what form that representation would take. I am aware that, as my noble friend said, this proposal has widespread support. We are mindful that existing arrangements at school level are not always very satisfactory. However, I ask my noble friend to allow us to reflect further with colleagues on the issues raised and to return to the matter, I hope, at Report stage. I hope that in the light of my remarks, which are intended to be positive, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response, which, on the whole, was fairly satisfactory, although it did not go the whole way in saying that governors would have the possibility of having parents' associations in the school. However, it was quite a decent response and I hope it means that the Government will come back with an amendment at Report stage. On that assumption, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154A to 154G not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Control of school premises by governing bodies]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 152, line 43, at end insert ("and shall reimburse the governing body for any expense necessarily incurred by the governing body solely as a result of such directions and not otherwise recoverable by the governing body").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 13 gives the local authority an absolute right to,
"give such directions as to the occupation and use of the premises of a community or community special school as they think fit".
The kind of things I would expect to see happening under this provision are the after-hours use of theatres or other premises within the school for the local community, youth clubs or other groups. I do not seek to raise any objection in principle to that but simply to say that, if that does happen, a school can face considerable costs in terms of security equipment and other provisions to ensure that its premises are secure at a time when there are not pupils and staff to keep a watch on what is going on in the place. I can think of several examples where large sums have had to be expended to accommodate the results of such a decision and to deal with the problems of vandalism and theft which would otherwise arise if the school was not properly secured.
It is not reasonable that a school should have to meet from its own resources the costs of providing the security which is only required because the local authority gave a direction that the school should be used out of hours. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the local authority bears the costs of its

173
decisions in that regard. I am comforted by the Government's decision to group some of their amendments with this one and by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, to the last amendment. I hope that this may be similarly greeted. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall speak mainly to the government amendments which deal with an issue slightly different from that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The amendments are straightforward. They deal with the power of governing bodies to transfer the control of their premises to a third party during school hours. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 155A to C. The Bill provides that the governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school will have control of the premises both during and outside school hours and that the governing body of such a school may transfer to a third party control of the premises outside school hours. The governing body of a foundation or voluntary school may also transfer control of the premises during school hours. The Bill as drafted leaves uncertain the powers of the governing body of a community school to transfer control of the premises during school hours—for example, access to a theatre or whatever.
The amendments will make it clear that the governing body of a community school has the same powers as those which are enjoyed by foundation and voluntary schools: that is, the power to transfer control of the premises to a third party at any time while the premises are under the control of the governing body. Those amendments all deal with that issue.
We consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to be unnecessary as it is already covered by existing legislation. As he says, a local authority has the power to give directions to the governing body of a school about the use of the premises, and the LEA may give such instructions as it sees fit. At present, the governing body may spend its budget share only for the purposes of the school; it may not subsidise non-school activities. If a governing body therefore is directed by the LEA to make the school premises available for non-school activities, under existing provisions the LEA must separately compensate the governing body or else ensure that the school is compensated directly by the user. That will include any additional expenditure on security mentioned by the noble Lord. Guidance is already given on that in existing departmental circulars.
Under the revised local management of schools framework, which we will be discussing, that basic position will remain. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a power under Clause 49(3) to prescribe other purposes for the expenditure of school budget shares. Regulations will allow conditions to be attached and those conditions may include a requirement that costs arising from non-school activities be taken into account in calculating school budgets. Therefore under existing provisions and under the proposed change under LMS which we will be debating on Thursday, we consider that those provisions together cover what the noble Lord intends by the amendment. In the light of that, I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can ask one question of the noble Lord. What about the use of schools by
174
organisation committees? My understanding is that local authorities could use schools to enable the committees to meet. How would they stand in relation to what the noble Lord has just said?
Lord Whitty: Local authorities using premises for their own non-school purposes would have to compensate the school for the cost of the access. I assume that the same applies to the use of those premises by the school organisation committee. However, I shall take further advice on this matter to ensure that I can give the correct answer. I assume that the same applies as at LEA meetings, but I am not entirely sure.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that explanation. I feel sure that the noble Lord will feel able to write to me and point out where these powers are in existing legislation so that I may review the full position in time to table an amendment at Report stage, if necessary. With that nod indicating assent, I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 155A to 155C:
Page 153, line 2, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2),").
Page 153, line 3, after ("agreement") insert ("with any body or person").
Page 153, line 4, leave out ("school premises outside school hours") and insert ("whole or any part of the school premises").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Carter.)
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Chief Whip will forgive me, but I have another point which I forgot. Someone has changed the system for numbering amendments. I was told by the clerk to the Chief Whip this morning that that had happened. I do not know why that was. The Chief Whip's office apologised for it this morning. It caused confusion earlier when we were discussing amendments. The order is now askew and we do not understand the system. It would be helpful to know whether we can revert to the old system, but if we are to have a new system it would be helpful to have it explained to us.
I was quite surprised when my noble friend Lord Swinfen made remarks about the groupings. I am sorry, but these are important points when we come to the next stage of the Bill. I had my copy of the groupings at about 11 o'clock, but I cannot be precise: it may have been about twenty past eleven. It was always the practice when we were in government that not only both opposition Front Benches had the groupings, but anyone who had an amendment down in the Marshalled List

175
was asked whether they would like copies. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen did not see the groupings. It may well be that there were others who had tabled amendments. When suggested groupings are circulated it would be helpful for everyone who has tabled amendments to receive a copy.
Lord Carter: It is unusual to have a debate on the Motion that the House do now resume. I certainly
176
undertake to investigate. I was told earlier this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about the problem with the groupings. I shall investigate that and also the other points that the noble Baroness raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before two o'clock.