Lords Sitting of 10 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 Ripon.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before today's business begins, I should like to take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be hosting a luncheon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for the President of South Africa on Monday, 15th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Falkland Islands: Oil and Gas Exploration
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their responsibility for the Falkland Islands includes devising systems to license exploration for oil and gas in the Falklands' exclusive economic zone and to license production, should commercial quantities be discovered, or introducing an associated tax regime.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Falkland Islands Government are responsible for granting licences for exploration and production of oil and gas in Falklands' waters, and also for the introduction of a suitable tax regime. However, they were assisted during the drafting of the relevant legislation by the DTI, the Inland Revenue and the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As exploration drilling has just started in the Falklands' designated sea-bed zone, has it yet been decided, if oil and gas are discovered, how any tax revenue will be divided between the Falklands Government and the British Treasury?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although it is clear that any such revenue would accrue to the Falklands Government, revenue sharing was discussed with the islands' council during the recent visit of my honourable friend Tony Lloyd to the Falkland Islands in April. Both sides agreed to take forward discussions on arrangements for the sharing of potential revenues.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government will make sure that the Falkland Islands
998
Government receive all possible assistance to ensure that environmental considerations receive a very high priority?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords; part of the advice received from British departments covers precisely those points.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the Government's reaction is to a recent statement by the Argentinean Government that they would charge a 3 per cent. revenue tax on any oil and gas found in the Falkland Islands?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are aware of that proposition and there is some draft legislation before the Argentinian congress. We do not believe that the Argentinian Government have the right to charge such revenues. Therefore, we hope that they will not proceed with such legislation. If they do, we would not regard it as acceptable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this particular agreement concerning the Falkland Islands bears any relation to the deep sea mining agreements of some years ago when the USA was the only major power which would not sign them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would need greater technical advice to know whether this related to the deep sea mining operations. However, I do know that the geology of the Falkland Islands area is very similar in many ways to that of the North Sea. Therefore, much of the expertise which was gathered by British companies and British Government agencies during the North Sea exploration is being made available to the Falkland Islands Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as far as concerns the special co-operation area, which is administered jointly by the British and Argentinian Governments, can the Minister tell the House whether the discussions which are being pursued have got as far as deciding what the tax revenue will be in that respect?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; not conclusively. The special co-operation area lies, I believe, to the south-west of the Falkland Islands and the co-operation between Britain and Argentina in that area sends a strong signal to the oil industry that we can co-operate. However, the technical details of both the tax and licensing regime have yet to be finalised. Indeed, discussions are still going on.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, while the Government can give very wise advice about the tax regime and its structuring, can the Minister tell the House what provisions will be made to pay for our military presence on the islands out of the revenue, if it materialises?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already referred to the possibility of sharing revenue. However, that is not in any sense directly related to our continuing military

999
presence. Whatever the revenue from oil exploration—and we must recognise that actual production of commercially usable oil is many years away—Her Majesty's Government retain a commitment as regards the defence of the Falkland Islands.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the limit of the sovereignty of sea territoriality claimed by the Falklands?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the territorial waters, there is a 200-mile limit around the Falkland Islands, subject to the joint co-operation area to the south of the islands which is run by agreement between Britain and Argentina.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the assurances that he has just given the House are most welcome? Can the noble Lord give us a further assurance that the brief from which his answers have come has been copied to other Ministers in the Foreign Office and been read by them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret the way in which we have a cheap intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, which will not be appreciated by the Falkland Islanders. However, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that all Ministers who have responsibility for the Falkland Islands are aware of everything that I have told noble Lords today. That will continue to be the case.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that he is replying to this Question because his noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean is in North America? If that is so, will my noble friend assure her on her return that absolutely no one who knows her or anything about her work could ever accuse her of misleading the House?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I warmly endorse the sentiment expressed by my noble friend. No Minister in this House in my time has shown greater diligence and respect for the requirements of this Chamber than my noble friend Lady Symons.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the designated area now been accepted internationally? In the area of special co-operation, agreed with Argentina, has the system of drilling licence applications yet been agreed with Argentina?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's second point, these are subject to continuing technical discussions. However, as regards the joint co-operation area, there is a willingness on the part of both Governments to state their sovereignty claims, to put them to one side and to co-operate in that area. The Falklands' territorial claim stems from the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Argentina has not accepted that claim. However, the British Government continue to assert it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that everything he has said about the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, may well be true, but some serious accusations have been made which reflect both on her and on this House? Will he comment on whether or not she will be able to come to this House as soon as possible to make a Statement to clarify the situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friends that those comments have little to do with the Question. However, the House should know that my noble friend has been in North America and is in North America today. She will obviously have seen the headlines and I am sure she will consider carefully what has been said. On her return she will, as always, take the appropriate action to respect the views and requirements of this House.

Health of the Nation: Government Policy
2.44 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, and at what cost, the Department of Health has dropped its logo which states "improving the health of the nation" from its stationery and whether that statement remains the policy of the Government.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is concerned more with reckless expenditure by the Department of Health or a basic change of philosophy. I hope that I can reassure him on both points. The stationery on which the previous government's logo was printed is being phased out. However, I am delighted to show your Lordships' House an envelope which I picked out of my letter rack today which still has the old logo. Replacement is taking time and no additional costs have been incurred. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government certainly have ambitious policies to improve the overall health of the whole population which go well beyond those reflected in the previous government's slogan. To retain the stationery logo over a long period would be as inappropriate as to use one which states,
"Improving the NHS internal market".
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am delighted to hear that she still considers it is necessary to improve the health of the nation. That is definitely marked on the envelope I have in front of me. However, that is rather peculiar when one considers that one of the main planks on which this Government were elected was national health. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government are doing everything possible to reduce waiting lists, which have now increased by 100,000 when the Government said they would cut waiting lists by 100,000? Will she take

1001
this opportunity to advise us of the average waiting time for treatment which is important? Has that increased or decreased?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord's questions are rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The answer to his first question is yes. The answer to the second is, "It varies".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what logo will the new stationery have, if any?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as regards stationery that is used by Ministers, letter paper will contain the relevant Minister's name. That is convenient and usual. I do not think even those most concerned about public expenditure would have expected the incoming Government to have tippexed out, for example, Mr. Dorrell's name to replace it with Mr. Dobson's name. The envelopes will be plain.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister has not made clear whether the policy remains to improve the nation's health. It has been said that the old logo has been removed from the stationery as it equated to the internal market. However, there is no parallel whatsoever between the internal market and improving the nation's health.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister must agree that through the internal market we discovered which procedures were unnecessarily expensive or badly carried out. That was a valuable form of clinical audit which—as we have discussed at Question Time in the past few days—is to be replaced next year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope I made it clear in my response to the Question that improving the overall health of the nation is the Government's continuing policy. The slogan has been replaced by the title of the new public health document, Our Healthier Nation. I reassure the Opposition Front Bench that this decision was taken collectively by all the health Ministers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, was not this slogan dropped out of deference to the record of the previous government, who far from improving the health of the nation increased wide-ranging inequalities?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend has given me the opportunity to expand my original Answer. The public health document of this Government, Our Healthier Nation, devotes much attention to reducing inequalities of health. That is an important subject.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Government's policy of improving the health of the nation not rather stultified by the Chancellor's policy of conserving the wealth of the nation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if the noble Lord looked at the increases in public expenditure directed towards the Health Service in the two Budgets of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not possibly ask that question.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister realise that this question arose because she sent me a letter on the back of which the words, "Improving the Health of the Nation", were scored out. I asked the department why it had scored the words out. I was told simply: "It is no longer government policy".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I should need to know the source of that scoring out. I think that it is at about the same level as the tippexing out of the Secretary of State's name to which I referred in answering a previous question from the other side.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how delightful it is to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his place in such obviously good health?

Local Government: Public Participation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they welcome the steps that local authorities are taking to encourage greater participation by the public in local government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government very much welcome the creative and innovative steps taken by many local authorities, including that led by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to increase public participation in local government. As set out in a recent consultation paper on local democracy and community leadership, the Government want every local authority to be closely in touch with the needs and aspirations of those they serve.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the range of activities undertaken by local authorities last week as part of Local Government Democracy Week? Does she agree that public participation schemes may do much to improve the level of turn-out at local elections?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are aware of the very wide range of opportunities being taken by local authorities across the country. The week has been immensely successful. We wish publicly to congratulate the Local Government Association for what it has done to underpin the work of individual member authorities.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that often it is common sense which dictates people's attitude to the way in which local government performs?

1003
If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, would allow me 10 minutes of his time, I could give him any number of examples of how the population of Brighton is very discontented with its current Labour rulers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it would not be reasonable for me to answer for my noble friend as to the amount of time he has available for discussion of the matter. Suffice it to say from my own contact with local government and my experience as a councillor, it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, as the previous Conservative Government found.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome the innovative and exciting steps taken by many local authorities which, I agree, have not required any change to the legislative structure. However, do the Government accept the recent findings of a Local Government Association survey which indicated that 36 per cent. of people do not believe that voting in local elections makes any difference to the levels of local taxation or services? Do they further accept that the only way to encourage greater participation in local government is to return real power and financial freedom to our town halls?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is precisely because of the Government's concern about the pattern of treatment of local government they inherited—matters had reached an all-time low ebb—that they initiated wide-ranging consultations on the role of local government and the powers necessary to local government to enable it to meet the wishes of the people it represents.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, how do the Government view the introduction of an executive mayor and cabinet-style government in Hammersmith and Fulham? When considering the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, they appeared to accept that legislative changes were needed before such a system could be introduced.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government welcome the developments in Hammersmith and Fulham. We welcome the fact that many local authorities are developing innovative management structures and seeking to change the way they work without legislation. However, legislation is necessary. Hammersmith and Fulham is going as far as it believes it can within the current legislative framework to adopt a modern decision-making structure and policy. It is essential that the opportunity is provided as soon as possible to broaden the scope of those decisions.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that it is still part of government policy to encourage democratic participation through the development of regional assemblies?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I assume that the right reverend Prelate refers to the issue of assemblies in the English regions. It is government policy to move initially through regional development agencies and then towards directly elected regional assemblies as it is demonstrated that the people in those regions desire them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of her welcome for the new pay structure for the leader of Hammersmith council, is the Minister saying that she would like to see all authorities move towards a situation in which there is a well-paid elected executive instead of the system that has existed for so long?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, to my knowledge it has been recognised since 1991 at government level that different models may be more appropriate for different authorities depending on the circumstances of those elected. A pattern which allowed a split in terms of an executive role, with a smaller number of full-time councillors, would permit the election of other people with fewer demands on their time during the day. They would be able to represent their communities in a different way. That could be a very good model for encouraging more women to become active in local government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the question put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, does the Minister agree that, pending the abolition of capping, central government limits leave local authorities no more control over their spending than Conservative spending limits leave this Government over their spending?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is because of the concerns we have that we have undertaken consultation on good financial management and arrangements between central and local government. I shall not trespass on national Treasury questions in the context in which the noble Lord invites me.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the trend over 50 years of diminishing electoral interest in local government is almost precisely reciprocated by a trend in the opposite direction of increasing moneys coming from central government so that there is less and less of a direct relationship between a local councillor and the taxes he raises? Does she agree that that is a deep, indeed fundamental, problem? I am aware that the Government are examining the question of capping in a marginal way. However, is there any strategic ambition to do anything about that fundamental problem?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I congratulate and compliment the noble Lord. I am aware of the many hours, indeed years, of his time that he has personally devoted to local government. It is precisely because of those concerns that the consultation

1005
on the future financing of local government is taking place. An evaluation will be made by the Government at the end of the consultation process.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness reconcile the answers given so far about power being in the hands of local government and the creation of organisational committees and an adjudicator as set out in the School Standards and Framework Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Baroness is aware, the heresy—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Inheritance, my Lords. The inheritance and legacy of the present Government from the government of the noble Baroness was a fragmentation of the education service. The purpose of the proposals for the new committees is to bring together at local level all partners in providing education for children in that locality. My experience in Lancashire leads me to believe that the local partners will wish to work well together in the way suggested in the government proposals.

Feature Films: Lottery Funding
3 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the performance at the box office of feature films which have received lottery funding towards part of their production costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware that there has been criticism of lottery film funding on the basis of box office performance, but I take the opposite, more positive view. Films which do well at the box office return money to the National Lottery, which can be re-used; films which have been less successful at the box office still extend the range of what is on offer to the public. In addition, films which have not attracted many UK cinemagoers may yet reach larger audiences through international sales and video and television exploitation.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree with most of what he said. Does he agree that the present programme of funding of film through the lottery is a complicated and long-term business, although the funding is obviously very welcome to the industry? It is probably inappropriate at this stage to comment on the success or failure of individual films. However, as the noble Lord said, there has been some critical comment in the press. Will he therefore reiterate the long-term aims of the Government in supporting the film industry and tell us how the Government would monitor that over that long period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could make a long and positive speech in response to that question. The noble Viscount is right that we have yet to see, after less than two years, the full fruits of the lottery funding. But the thrust of our policy, through the film policy review, as the noble Viscount knows, is not so much support for production as support for distribution, which is the weak link in so much of the British film industry.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is part of the duty of government to supply finance for any area of the arts which is unable to sustain itself by box office alone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the film industry is a curious industry, in the sense that it has enormous economic and commercial importance, as well as very considerable cultural importance. To that extent, my noble friend is right. It is right that, for both commercial and cultural reasons, we should continue to find ways to help the British film industry. These need not necessarily be directly through government funding.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that, implicit in the noble Viscount's Question, and in my noble friend's Answer, is the extraordinary chaos and confusion which exist over the collection and analysis of statistics related not just to the film industry but to many other related areas, and the equal chaos and confusion caused by ill-informed press speculation on matters which the press truly does not understand? Can the Government reassure me that a much better statistical base will be created for these industries so that the press can be dealt with effectively and policy can be created in an intelligent manner?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right, to the extent that the press comment about the success of lottery-funded films has been about the UK box office receipts. As has been clear from the previous questions and answers, they are only a very small part of the total receipts. There are also international sales and video and television exploitation. In many cases, receipts from those areas greatly outweigh the UK box office receipts, which are all that are available to us for the moment. In due course, because of the agreements which have been reached between the film producers who have received lottery funding and the Arts Council for England, we shall know more about the total receipts because returns will be made to the lottery funds. In that way, we shall achieve the objective to which my noble friend rightly draws attention.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the lack of diversity of films available to the general public in the United Kingdom, the films available being predominantly American blockbusters, can my noble friend tell the House what action the Government are considering to introduce more diversity in the distribution and availability of films for the British public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, my noble friend is right, in the sense that a good deal of film production and a very high proportion of film exhibition in this country is in other than British hands. Even though there are more screens than previously, and box office receipts in this country have increased and our film industry is going through a very successful phase, it is still true that a large number of British films fail to find a distributor. That is why, as I indicated earlier, the film policy review is working urgently on the distribution side, to help with the production of copies of films and with advertising and marketing, which appear to us to be the greatest areas of weakness.

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (132) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 2, page 1, leave out from the beginning of line 21 to the end of line 10 on page 2 and insert—
("(2) In this Act "contract for the supply of goods or services" means—

(a) a contract of sale of goods; or

(b) a contract (other than a contract of sale of goods) by which a person does any, or any combination, of the things mentioned in subsection (3) for a consideration that is (or includes) a money consideration.

(3) Those things are—

(a) transferring or agreeing to transfer to another the property in goods;

(b) bailing or agreeing to bail goods to another by way of hire or, in Scotland, hiring or agreeing to hire goods to another; and

(c) agreeing to carry out a service.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt a contract of service or apprenticeship is not a contract for the supply of goods or services.
(5) The following are excepted contracts—

(a) a consumer credit agreement;

(b) a contract intended to operate by way of mortgage, pledge, charge or other security; and

(c) a contract of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6) An order under subsection (5)(c) may specify a description of contract by reference to any feature of the contract (including the parties).
(7) In this section—
"business" includes a profession and the activities of any government department or local or public authority;
"consumer credit agreement" has the same meaning as in the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
"contract of sale of goods" and "goods" have the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act 1979;
"property in goods" means the general property in them and not merely a special property.")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 7. Amendment No. 1 to Clause 2 is technical and the other amendments in the group are consequential. The changes ensure that contracts which are part service provision and part supply of goods are covered. We had been relying on the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 for our definition of
"contract for the transfer of goods"
and
"contract for the hire of goods".
However, we were advised that the 1982 Act did not foresee the possibility that a contract might be for supply of a good or goods, in the singular or plural, and the provision of a service. The amendment makes clear that such contracts will be covered by the legislation.
We also took the opportunity, in redrafting the clause, to make clear that contracts where the consideration is part money and part something else are covered. It will, of course, be only the money element of the consideration that will bear the interest. This idea is already in the Bill, expressed at Clause 2(3)(a). I think, however, that it is important that the Bill be as transparent as we can make it.
Amendment No. 7, in light of the amendments made to Clause 2, revises Clause 16, which provides definitions of terms used in the Bill. The definitions are now more free-standing and less dependent on other Acts, which makes for clarity.
Amendment No. 3 to Clause 4 and Amendment No. 6 to Clause 11 reflect the fact that the term,
"a contract for the hire of goods",
is no longer defined in the Bill.
Although the amendments are somewhat lengthy, their effect is technical and they help to clarify the extent of the Bill. I hope the House will agree the amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I am not surprised to see that some fairly major changes were made to the Bill during its passage through another place. Despite quite lengthy and good discussion in your Lordships' House, the Bill was perhaps not a perfect document when it left us. I fear that it is still not a perfect document. We had hoped, for instance, that the Government would listen to the points, which were not at all party political. However, that was not to be. I am

1009
pleased that they have obviously listened to some of the practitioners, as far as Amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendments are concerned.
We on these Benches agree that Clause 2 now provides further clarification and covers more eventualities. One would perhaps have hoped that, with all the drafting skills at their beck and call, Ministers might have come up with something akin to this clause in the first place. I know that it is hard to legislate for every eventuality. My colleagues in another place described in Committee other situations which might occur. From the Hansard report of that debate, I do not believe they received proper answers. I therefore feel that the Bill may still not be quite as complete as it might be.
I come from north of the Border and draw some personal comfort from the amendment to Clause 2. It indicates that the Government now recognise that Scotland actually exists. Perhaps it has something to do with a rather important fixture that Scotland has in Paris in around one-and-a-half hours. I am sure that your Lordships will want to join me in wishing the Scottish team well this afternoon.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Home: My Lords, we will not oppose the amendment, particularly as it is supported by the bodies representing both small and medium-sized industries. Of course we wish to support them as well.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having the courtesy to write to us in regard to these amendments and to explain their background. I find the amendments entirely reasonable in that we want to make the Bill as watertight as possible. If it was suspected that contracts which comprise both goods and services would have escaped the intentions of the Bill, it is right that that should be corrected.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Home, that perhaps the amendment could have been introduced at an earlier stage when we would have had an opportunity of expressing our opinions on it in this House. Nonetheless, I welcome the amendments; I believe that they improve the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for their comments. Listening to the noble Earl, Lord Home, one might be tempted to think that no government in the past on either side had ever introduced amendments to their legislation. My memory does not accord with that.
The amendments are narrow in scope. However, I join with the noble Earl—though I have not consulted with the Scottish Office about this—in wishing the Scottish team every possible success, right through to the final when, of course, they will be playing England.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 4, page 3, line 4, after ("debt") insert ("or (where that amount is unascertained) the sum which the supplier claims is the amount of the debt")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
This is a single technical amendment which seeks to improve the transparency of the text. It makes clear from when interest would run where the contract did not stipulate a price and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 supply a duty to pay a "reasonable price". An example of such a contract would be where someone was called out to fix a boiler. No price would be agreed ahead of the service being rendered but there would be a duty on the customer to pay a "reasonable price". The amendment provides that the default credit period should start to run from the time that the debtor has notice of the amount the creditor claims. This is so even if the debtor turns out to have good cause for disputing the amount. Interest would only run on the reasonable amount. If the creditor's conduct caused delay, Clause 5, on remission of interests, could then be used by the debtor to remit any undeserved interest.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
The Earl of Home: My Lords, the Minister gave an example of someone being called out to fix a boiler when no price had been agreed before the service was rendered. That is a rather unfortunate example as anyone who ever comes to fix my boiler invariably says that it is unfixable. In those circumstances, no service is rendered and yet a call-out charge is levied. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to give me the name of his boiler fixer.
The Minister in another place, Mrs. Roche, said that the amendment was not a charter for suppliers to start claiming out of order. With that assurance, we accept the amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we too accept the amendment. Perhaps I can respond to the problem posed by the noble Earl. I am in the boiler business. If he has any difficulty—we deal with large installations and no doubt he has a large installation in his home—we shall be pleased to help.
I should like to ask the Minister one question in relation to the amendment. Where the price is not stipulated beforehand and the interest runs from the time when the account is rendered, the recipient of the services might well say that the amount is somewhat excessive. It appears that the only recourse the recipient then has is to resort to court proceedings. Is that the case?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that is right. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, so nobly volunteering his services to the noble Earl, Lord Home,

1011
the man I had in mind was Augustus Horatio Bloggs—with whom noble Lords will be familiar. I thank noble Lords for their response to the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out from ("sum") to end of line 7 and insert ("due in respect of a period of hire of goods")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 11. page 5, line 23, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 29 and insert—
(".—(1) A qualifying debt created by virtue of an obligation to make an advance payment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it was created on the day mentioned in subsection (3), (4) or (5) (as the case may be).
(2) In this section "advance payment" means a payment falling due before the obligation of the supplier to which the whole contract price relates ("the supplier's obligation") is performed, other than a payment of a part of the contract price that is due in respect of any part performance of that obligation and payable on or after the day on which that part performance is completed.")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. This is a technical amendment.
Following the Committee stage in the other place, we reviewed the Bill to ensure that none of the amendments made during the passage of the Bill had inadvertently caused things to fall outside the Bill which should be covered. This amendment picks up the one issue that we identified. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill operates on stage payments; that is, interim payments in respect of work actually done.
During discussion in the Moses Room, the Government brought forward an amendment to clarify the operation of Clause 4 on the period for which statutory interest runs. Inadvertently, however, the amendment put stage payments into a state of limbo as they are caught by the definition of an advance payment in Clause 11, but the clause does not stipulate from when interest will run.
Rather than invent a "rule" in Clause 11 for genuine stage payments, we feel that the best approach is to take them out of Clause 11 altogether. That is achieved through Amendment No. 4. The effect of the amendment is that stage payments, where the payments are for work already done, are dealt with under Clause 4(3) and (5) as appropriate.
Amendment No. 5 is consequential to Amendment No. 4. The new wording for Clause 11 requires a change in the word structure in Clause 11(4). It also serves to
1012
remove an element of ambiguity as the obligation to pay the price is, in one sense, always present in a supply contract. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
The Earl of Home: My Lords, as the Minister said, this clause has been rather chopped and changed in the course of attempting to get it right. An amendment as important as this shows that despite the claims that they consulted widely on producing the Bill, the Government did not understand the implications. The alternative is that the Government are playing fast and loose with Parliament. Had I thought the latter, I would have created more fuss. However, the Minister was kind enough to write to me explaining the reason for the amendment. As he said, the previous amendment inadvertently put stage payments into a state of limbo.
I am sure that what the Minister said to the House was said in good faith and I accept it in good faith. We shall watch carefully to see how this and the other clauses work in practice and will no doubt return to the matter in due course. In the meantime, we will not oppose the amendment from these Benches.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, stage payments are an important part of certain contracts. I am glad that the situation has now been clarified. We support the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their constructive comments. The Government did understand the implications; they simply got the wording wrong.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 11, page 5, line 38, leave out ("the obligation to pay it arises") and insert ("is payable")
6 Page 5, line 42, leave out from ("sum") to end of line 43 and insert ("due in respect of a period of hire of goods")
7 Clause 16, page 7, leave out lines 12 to 31 and insert—
(""contract for the supply of goods or services" has the meaning given in section 2(2);
"contract price" means the price in a contract of sale of goods or the money consideration referred to in section 2(2)(b) in any other contract for the supply of goods or services;
"purchaser" means (subject to section 13(2)) the buyer in a contract of sale or the person who contracts with the supplier in any other contract for the supply of goods or services;
"qualifying debt" means a debt falling within section 3(1);
"statutory interest" means interest carried by virtue of the term implied by section 1(1); and
"supplier" means (subject to section 13(2)) the seller in a contract of sale of goods or the person who does one or more of the things mentioned in section 2(3) in any other contract for the supply of goods or services.")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.19 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 99 [Designation of grammar schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 231E:
Page 74, line 30, leave out ("at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year").
The noble Baroness said: We come now to a part of the Bill which really does show the present Government up in their real colours. The agenda is not difficult to detect. One has only to go back a little way in the record to establish the thinking behind these clauses. The current Secretary of State, when interviewed by the Daily Mail in January 1996, made clear his approach to the question of grammar schools. He was quoted as saying on that occasion:
"It is 30 years since Crosland embarked on this. I don't think anyone should expect me to complete his work in the first three months of a Labour Government".
Implicit in that statement is that if he cannot do it in three months, he will certainly be doing it at some time—perhaps the timescale will be a little longer.
More recently than that, in fact just days before the election was called in 1997, when visiting the Wirral, the current Secretary of State made absolutely clear that grammar schools "are safe with us" and he went on to say that there was no threat to their continuance or to their ethos or to their quality. There is a threat to their continuance; there is certainly a threat to their ethos, because of the instability that will be created by these clauses and the activities that will flow from them; and definitely, if they go, there will be an impact on the quality of education.
My first amendment is on a very narrow point. It concerns the designation of grammar schools, which is a prerequisite for setting up what I believe is a pernicious system of petitioning and balloting. My point is that if a school is wholly selective and is a grammar school, at whatever period in time that is, that school should be available for designation. Why have the Government chosen the beginning of 1997? I do not know whether any schools have been created since the beginning of the academic year 1997–98 or whether one will be created between now and Royal Assent. I merely say that if a
1014
school is selective at the time the order is placed, I do not believe a date should be put on it other than the date at the time of the order. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: In response to what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her remarks, I should make it clear that our policy on grammar schools was set out in our manifesto. There will be no return to the 11-plus. We believe that selection at the age of 11 divides children into successes and failures at far too early an age. But we have said that in relation to existing grammar schools we are letting parents decide whether selection at these schools should continue.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment because it appears to the Government to be redundant. The amendment would remove the reference to admissions during the 1997–98 academic year for the purposes of designating a school as a grammar school. This would have the effect of allowing a school which later operated as a grammar school to be designated as such. This would only be necessary for any school which introduced fully selective admissions from September 1998 onwards. As the clauses in the Bill do not allow the introduction of new grammar schools—indeed, as I have said, the Government made it absolutely clear from the start that they are opposed to their introduction—there does not appear to be a need to allow a mechanism for later schools to be designated other than in the case where a new grammar school is established to take the place of an existing grammar school, something which is not likely to occur very often and for which in any case Clause 99(5) makes provision. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It will be no surprise to the noble Baroness that I am disappointed by her reply. If she has looked at the amendments on the Marshalled List she will know that it is our plan to try to persuade the Government that there should be a two-way traffic. If parents are to be asked whether they wish selection to cease in their area, why should they not be given an opportunity to consider whether selection should continue in their area where it does not exist now? We have tabled an amendment to the effect that if parents wish it—in other words, if they vote for it—they should be allowed to have selection.
We do envisage grammar schools being created beyond the academic year 1997–98, hence my wish to remove the date from the Bill. I have no desire whatever to agree with the Government that a line is drawn in the sand and that from that moment on there shall be no question of a grammar school ever being created again.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am a little puzzled by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said. I take it from the quotations she gave from Labour Party documents that she is concerned about the word "threat". There is no threat. If there is a threat at all, as I understand what she said, the threat would come from the parents as the onus is now on the parents. Would she consider it a threat to grammar schools if parents

1015
decide? Through all the education debates we have had for many years now the Opposition have placed the emphasis on the wishes of parents. That is all the Bill is saying. Does she consider it a threat if parents decide to have a non-selective school instead of a grammar school?
Baroness Young: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. He is not comparing like with like. When schools were asked whether they wanted to have grant-maintained status there was a vote of the parents of the children in the school. Those who were most directly involved were asked to vote on the matter. The 20 per cent. margin was therefore established. Perhaps I may say in passing that nothing was more disgraceful than the sustained and extremely unpleasant campaigns which were conducted against the heads, the staff and the parents in those schools which wished to become grant-maintained. The record of it in education is a disgrace. In this Bill what is being called for is not a ballot of the parents of the children at the school; it is a ballot of parents in feeder schools and in quite large areas around. We are therefore asking all kinds of people whose children are not in the school and who do not have a direct interest to vote on the matter.
Perhaps I may make a final point. To trigger the ballot, as I understand it, there has to be a petition of 20 per cent. of the parents. Anyone who has had experience of petitions knows that it is a fairly easy job to get up a petition.
So I think it is perfectly true that all grammar schools are under threat and that the net effect of this unpleasant part of the Bill is that a lot of children in grammar schools, which achieve some of the very best academic results in the country, particularly in science and mathematics, will not be so well off in the future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am interested in what the noble Baroness has said but in fact my question was addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps she will respond. She may well agree with what has just been said. But that contribution went much wider, if I may say so, than the specific question which I asked.
Baroness Young: I am quite sure that my noble friend—
Lord Orme: Oh!
Baroness Young: The noble Lord will not, I hope, just sit and interrupt me like that. I entirely accept that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, addressed his question to my noble friend Lady Blatch. It is the normal procedure during the Committee stage of a Bill—perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Orme, that I have been in this House for a very long time—that people can intervene to respond. If one supports what one's noble friend on the Front Bench says, it is quite normal to stand up and say so. I quite agree that I widened the point but the narrow point made by the
1016
noble Lord, Lord Dormand, was not in fact accurate. I am perfectly entitled to have my say. I have not the slightest doubt that my noble friend Lady Blatch will say what she thinks about the matter.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not only delighted with what my noble friend said, but I am also delighted to have her intervention at this point. The Committee stage is a less formal stage than Report stage. Any Member of this House may intervene before I or the Minister sits down and join in with other Members of the House. That is entirely within the rules of the House and no convention has been broken.
The points that my noble friend made are pertinent. Why are the Government asking parents to vote on whether a grammar school should exist, or in one ballot getting rid of every single grammar school in the whole of an area—for example, in Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford or Buckinghamshire? Why not have a ballot of parents to see whether they want comprehensive education in their area? Why not have a ballot of parents to see whether they want specialist schools or whether they want voluntary-aided schools?
This is a vindictive policy. It started with Crosland. Almost every Labour Party manifesto and every old Labour activist has pursued a vendetta against selection, grammar schools and the collegiate system of Oxford and Cambridge. There is now what is called, and what is reputed to be, new Labour and enlightened Labour, with old Labour policies. This Bill is old Labour writ large.
In the previous debate the noble Baroness took us back to the glories of ILEA. Those of us who remember ILEA have some pretty painful memories of the standards that it produced. It spent the most money on children and produced the worst educational results of the whole country. I have said it before: as long as I have breath I shall fight for what is good in education. I believe that our grant-maintained schools and our grammar schools have added immeasurably to the quality of education in this country.
What we have before us is a licence for those who are disgruntled, disaffected, bigoted and philosophically opposed to good education. If we do nothing else we shall make sure that it is more difficult to bring about the end of these schools which, in many cases, have been established not just for decades but for centuries. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, this question: what is democratic about giving a vote for a raft of schools to cease to exist when there is not another vote given to ask whether we want non-selective education in our area or specialist schools, CTCs or anything else? Why single out grammar schools? I believe that this is pernicious and politically bigoted. It is old Labour and we oppose it most vigorously.
Lord Peston: Some of us have listened with great tolerance to the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench for several days now. We have listened to her speaking wide of any amendment down in her name or that of any other Member of this House. On the whole,

1017
we have not objected because we believe very much in the tolerance of your Lordships' House. But on this occasion I believe that she has overstepped the mark beyond anything that I find tolerable. I disagree with her, but I do not use words like "bigoted" or any of the other words that she has used.
I fought for 30-odd years for comprehensive education. We believe that it is desirable on educational grounds. Some of us sent our children to comprehensive schools. In my case, and in many others, that was highly successful and the children had a very good education. I am not willing to sit here and listen to the noble Baroness making such disparaging remarks about the majority of children and schools in this country.
We disagree about selection. I am implacably opposed to academic selection and the segregation that results from it. I have intervened in these matters over the years with a modicum of restraint and intelligence. I shall not be here for the next few hours, but those who have to sit it out should not have to suffer the kind of remarks that the noble Baroness has made. On reflection she may feel that she does not want to make such remarks.
Perhaps I may add that she made her remarks not merely about one or two Members of your Lordships' House. I take them personally because she knows that I have been involved with comprehensive education for a very long time. She has made remarks about my honourable and right honourable colleagues, one or two of whom are no longer alive. They were reputable people and held sincere views on education. We should not have to sit and listen to the suggestion that we are not committed to education. To suggest that those of us who sent our children to comprehensive schools were not committed is not acceptable. The noble Baroness should think about the language she is using, especially as my noble friend Lord Dormand asked a fairly innocent question. How we have got to this stage I do not know, but it must not be allowed within the self-governing nature of your Lordships' House and permitted to continue in this way.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord can point to any single statement that I made about individuals when speaking to this amendment I shall consider an apology. I referred to the policy that we are talking about here. I make no apology for that. The noble Lord accuses me of making disparaging remarks about all other forms of education and comprehensive education in particular.
My children went to a comprehensive school and they did extremely well. Like my party, I believe in the full tapestry of provision for education. I believe in grammar schools, comprehensive schools, specialist schools, city technology schools, voluntarily controlled schools and voluntary aided schools. I have no philosophical objection to any one form of education, but I do have a philosophical objection—and this is where my remarks were directed—to a fully comprehensive system. That has been the policy of the Labour Party over the years since Crosland. It is also the policy of the party today.
1018
My comments about philosophical objections and a bigoted and pernicious Bill have everything to do with the policy and nothing to do with personalities. If the noble Lord is irritated by what we do my answer is that we are doing a job in this House, just as the noble Lord did when he was in opposition and I found it tiresome to have to listen to people taking Bills apart. The truth is that we shall fight this Bill vigorously. I shall fight with all the enthusiasm that I have and use every technical facility I have at my disposal. I am fighting for the survival of a category of schools and I will be joined by some of my noble friends. We shall fight until it is over. With the might of the vote in the other place the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has not long to wait. Because of the might of that vote he will get what he wants, and that is the disappearance of some of the best schools in the land.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness still goes too far. I am fully committed to comprehensive education and I have never resiled from that. But I do not use words like "bigoted" about the noble Baroness and her views. I use words such as, "I believe that she is mistaken". When I was in opposition I did not use such words as "bigoted". I do not find it acceptable. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to say that she has not named an individual, but she knows perfectly well that people like me were involved with my late and much missed right honourable friend Mr. Crosland and many others in pursuing comprehensive education. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded on that or any other matter that I am mistaken, but I am not willing to have the word "bigoted" used about me or, directly or indirectly, about my friends or my noble friends on the Front Bench.
I have no objection to vigorous opposition. As the noble Baroness is aware, that was what I most enjoyed doing. It is much more enjoyable than sitting on this side of the House. But there is still a form of language that we use and we have responsibilities in that regard to your Lordships' House. I do not believe that we should debate these matters about which we disagree with language as intemperate as the noble Baroness used.
Lord Shepherd: As an elderly hereditary Peer, perhaps I may seek to calm the waters. Unless the fire brigade is called out to calm the waters, then heaven help us by the time we finish the Committee stage this evening. That will not be to the benefit of this House nor the benefit of the legislation that we are considering. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have spoken with considerable power and very deep conviction. Perhaps we should now seek to proceed with the Bill. If we cannot be so persuaded then it is open to noble Lords on either side of the House to decide what to do. In the interests of this Committee and the Bill, I do not think that we should continue to have a great argy-bargy at the moment. Perhaps it would be appropriate later at night, but now, at the very beginning of this business, I think that we should call it a day and get a move on.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I rise to speak with diffidence, as a new Member of your Lordships' House,

1019
but I feel that I can justify taking a minute or two of the Committee's time because I come from a county in which we have the good fortune to have about one-quarter of the grammar schools that survived the attentions of the 1970 Labour Government. There are four grammar schools in my former constituency, and they are strongly supported. While paying every respect to what has just been said by noble Lords opposite, I want to defend the care with which my noble friend Lady Blatch is addressing this issue. We are now down to about 160 grammar schools in the country. I think that we are entitled to know whether we should be looking at the arrangements relating to petitions for triggering ballots and to the ballots themselves. We are entitled to know whether those arrangements are motivated by something that could properly be described as a "threat" to the grammar schools, by which I mean an antipathy to the survival of grammar schools on the part of Ministers.
It is entirely proper for my noble friend Lady Blatch to refer, as she did at the outset of her remarks this afternoon, to statements which are on the record and come not only from the present Secretary of State but also from Mr. Crosland, whom the noble Lord, Lord Peston, invoked. Incidentally, I was surprised to find Mr. Crosland invoked as an exemplar of emollient language in this context. Nevertheless, we are entitled to know whether those citations, which we have relevantly heard today, represent the thrust of the Government's policy.
I agree that the Government can say, "We are leaving this to ballots'', but the question with which we shall be dealing later today is how those ballots are to be triggered and operated. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say whether the remarks made by the present Secretary of State, to which my noble friend Lady Blatch referred, represent the thrust of the Government's policy—that is, that we cannot be expected in a few weeks or even a few months to complete the policy begun by Mr. Crosland.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may intervene. I must admit that I am considerably puzzled as to which of the amendments to speak. That is partly because when we reach the next clause, we find that all the regulations that will affect ballots and selective schools—
Lord Whitty: I intervene because I believe that the noble Lord has touched on precisely the point. Many of the matters to which I believe that he is about to refer, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred, relate to later amendments. I go along completely with my noble friend Lord Shepherd who said that we should take the heat out of the situation. Noble Lords should recognise that some of the points now being made relate to later amendments and not to Amendment No. 213E. Both on this amendment, and subsequently in this Committee, we should concentrate on the provisions in hand.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend
1020
Lady Blatch were discussing, it is necessary here to make a slight incursion into ideology because later amendments are close, tight and important, but they spring from the motive behind the issue now under consideration. Grammar schools exist—albeit in a minority form in England—and, as we know, selection is not a dreadful sin. It occurs in Europe and in many parts of the world. People are not stunted by it; they do not turn green; they continue to exist where there is selection. About 20 per cent. of entrants to the finer universities come from that small number of grammar schools.
When my noble friend Lady Blatch looks at the ideology behind this Bill, in answer to the simple question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, the question that we are posing is whether the ballots are fair or whether they are really directed in order to manipulate the situation. I believe that I can use the word "manipulate" without accusing anyone of being a manipulator. Are the ballots directed to achieve the result that the Government want? The questions which my noble friend were asking will recur again and again, like the theme of a symphony throughout the next hour or so. In a way, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, supported my argument because he said that he definitely wants rid of grammar schools.
The point is that the Executive is preparing the ballot. Are we in the position of Napoleon III who, whenever he held a ballot or plebiscite, knew what the answer would be? We are saying that the ballots may not really be asking parents what they want. We shall prove that the ballots will be so arranged that the answers produced will be those which the Government expect. Basically, that is all that I want to say.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Shepherd who is no longer in his place. It would be helpful to the Committee if we tried to keep the temperature down, so I do not want to respond now to some of the more ideological points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If the noble Baroness wants to make such points, they would be more appropriate in relation to later amendments. Furthermore, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just made about ballots can be better answered when we reach the specific amendments on balloting.
Perhaps I may answer one question asked by the noble Baroness. She asked why we are not in favour of extending selection and why we are having what I think she called a "one-way process". The answer is clear: we were elected on a manifesto commitment that made it absolutely clear that we had no intention of extending selection. We had a huge majority—indeed, it was the biggest landslide of this century. It is obvious that the electorate accepted that manifesto commitment and, having been elected on it, it would be quite wrong now if we went back on that commitment and included in this Bill proposals to allow the expansion of selection and the creation of new grammar schools.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister either believes in selection or she does not. If the Government really

1021
meant what has just been said, they should have included in this Bill clauses to dispose of grammar schools. Instead, the Government have chosen to leave selection in the Bill—selection by aptitude; selection by aptitude and/or ability and in many other forms, including for banding. We shall return to that subject.
The rationale behind the plans of the Minister and her colleagues for grammar schools is, "Let the parents speak". However, in another part of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Young said, having spoken and having voted school by school to become grant-maintained, those parents will be denied the right to vote to cease to have grant-maintained schools. Those schools will, by edict, leave the status of being grant-maintained. They will have to choose any colour of car as long as it is the colour dictated by the Government. In other words, such schools will have to lose their complete autonomy and move back into the arms of the local education authority. It seems wholly inconsistent to use the argument, "Let the parents speak", in this instance under this very rigged system, but not to allow those parents to express their view on any other category of school. I make no apology for using the word "inconsistent".
This debate has opened up as a result of the Minister's answer to my question. The date is on the face of the Bill to ensure that there shall never be another grammar school. We suggest that there could be other grammar schools if that is what parents wish and that they should be allowed to apply to have selective schools. Therefore, removing the date has some meaning. It is difficult to confine our discussions to this point simply because of the way in which the Minister herself opened up the debate by saying that there shall be no more grammar schools. I shall reflect upon what the noble Baroness said. The inconsistencies are piling up historically and currently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 75, line 30, after ("schools,") insert—
("(bb) to any grammar school of a religious character, provided that the ballot arrangements made by regulations under this section make provision for restricting eligibility for the purposes of both petition and ballot to those parents of pupils registered at such a grammar school and those parents of pupils at primary schools of the same religious character in the catchment area of the grammar school,").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is very sorry that he cannot be here. His university is drawing towards the end of term and he is very tied up. He much regrets not being here. Amendment No. 232 seeks to restrict some of the proposals in the Bill. It applies to a grammar school of a religious character. The proposal is that eligibility for the purposes of both the petition and the ballot should be confined to parents of pupils in the particular grammar school and/or parents of pupils at primary schools of the same religious character.
This is a very serious and important point. There is no doubt that parents greatly value grammar schools or comprehensive schools that are voluntary aided or have a definite religious character. Clearly, even if the school itself is to change they will want that particular character to be retained. The proposal is that those who vote will have committed their children to schools of a similar character. The scope is somewhat narrower.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill but it appears to me that in the case of ballots for grammar schools there may be circumstances in which the parents of all the feeder primary schools can vote about the future of the school. This amendment would restrict voting to the parents of children in a voluntary aided school or a school of a religious character that fed into a grammar school which was voluntary aided or of a religious character. It is a very important distinction that I hope the Government will consider seriously. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Churches through their formal structures do not support this amendment. The number of selective Church grammar schools is very small. There are seven Roman Catholic grammar schools and an even smaller number of Church of England grammar schools. Both Churches believe that a wider ballot is necessary than is provided for in the amendment. We do not believe that different treatment should be give to Church schools from that given to other schools in the maintained system. We adopted that stance in relation to grant-maintained schools and we adopt it in relation to this proposal. Neither Church sees its schools as being in isolation from the total provision in the neighbourhood. Therefore, we do not agree with the narrowing of the petition and ballot community. The Churches must have regard for all schools, not just grammar schools.
Referring to Church of England schools and its tiny number of selective grammar schools, it is inappropriate that petition and ballot should be limited to feeder primaries of the same religious character. I take as an example St. Olave's, Orpington, which is one of the small number of such schools. Its feeder schools exist not only in the catchment area of Orpington but in a wider historic area that extends through to Southwark. Moreover, those feeder schools are not simply of a religious character. There is a variety of primary schools, both voluntary and county, that feed both that grammar school and other grammar schools. Therefore, the ballot should at least include all feeder primaries of any secondary school and not just the Church feeder primaries.
The Roman Catholic Church takes an equally strong line. Perhaps there have been some crossed wires. I am aware that the Catholic Education Service has been consulted about this amendment and expressed concern. Neither the cardinal nor the bishop, David Constant, chairman of the Catholic Education Service, supports this amendment. Two Roman Catholic dioceses are particularly affected. Both believe strongly that a more general ballot within the authority is necessary, not one restricted on religious grounds. Their reasons for maintaining that position are quite simple; namely, if Roman Catholic schools are to be the only ones voting

1023
on the future of Catholic grammar schools there may be a difference between Roman Catholic and LEA provision. There could be Catholic selective schools with the rest of the provision non-selective. If that happened Roman Catholics would be extremely worried. Both the dioceses concerned and the formal structures of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England oppose the amendment.
The noble Baroness moving the amendment made one point that I did not understand. I thought I heard her say that the ballot might result in the school losing its religious character. I do not see any such possibility in the Bill. Surely, even if a ballot were to be successful and a school ceased to be selective it would remain an aided school. I do not see any possibility of its religious character being lost.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Is it not somewhat odd for the right reverend Prelate to speak for other Churches? Are there not enough Roman Catholics to speak for Roman Catholics? I am slightly surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate speak as though he is the spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It was the Catholic Education Service who approached me to ask that I make this point forcefully. Therefore, I speak with its authority. That body mandated me to make reference both to the chairman of the Catholic Education Service and to the cardinal.
Lord Northbourne: The amendment confuses me. I believe that there are two completely different points at issue. The noble Baroness can perhaps clarify the position. Does a Roman Catholic grammar school subject to a ballot in which the parents vote to cease being selective automatically and without question become a Roman Catholic non-selective school? If so I would have difficulty supporting the amendment. On the other hand, if there is any doubt on the matter, I strongly support the very important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I might immediately respond to the point just made in order to clear up any possible misunderstanding. It is essential that the Committee is clear that a ballot cannot change the religious character of a school. Even if the parents balloted that it should become non-selective it would remain a Catholic school.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to protect the life of a school once it has ceased to be selective. Perhaps the noble Baroness when she replies will identify the part of the Bill which provides that protection. I run through what happens in practice. If a single ballot takes place in a county such as Kent—a county with the most schools and one with schools of religious character—it will be incumbent on the local education authority to reorganise education in the whole of Kent, because a very large number of schools will
1024
cease to be grammar schools, on a comprehensive basis. We know that many of those schools are relatively small compared with comprehensive schools. All involve a relatively narrow band of ability range, so they will have to change dramatically. Nothing in the Bill states that the school shall exist following reorganisation. Those schools may be merged with one, two or more schools in the area. The non-selective system may take out some schools—both buildings and eventually children. They will be reorganised on a regional basis throughout the county, or an area basis where there is an area ballot.
Let us consider a relatively small school with a religious character which is joined with a comprehensive non-selective school which does not wish to have a religious character. No provision in the Bill restrains local education authorities so that existing schools with grammar school status may survive in their new guise as schools with religious character. I have been through the Bill page by page and word by word. There is no constraint on the LEA. There is no provision on this issue in the regulations. We know that local authorities will be obliged to produce their own reorganisational plans to introduce comprehensive education in the whole of Kent, for example.
I understand the arguments put on behalf of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church in opposing my noble friend's amendment. I am deeply surprised that there has been no attempt by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church at least to preserve the existence of a school with a religious character under the non-selective arrangement. If the noble Baroness can tell me that that provision is in the Bill, and that constraint on LEAs when making their reorganisational proposals is codified, I shall withdraw my objections.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer that question immediately. It is clearly specified in the Bill under Clause 27(11)(a)(i) and Clause 32(2). I do not know whether the noble Baroness would find it helpful for me to state what Clause 27(11)(a)(i) provides. It makes absolutely clear that,
"'alteration', in the context of a prescribed alteration to a maintained school, means an alteration of whatever nature, including the transfer of the school to a new site but excluding any change in the religious character of the school".
That is repeated in Clause 32(2).
Baroness Blatch: If a school is to be merged with a school of a non-religious character—the grammar school may be too small to be a fully comprehensive school—and it is not possible to find another school in the immediate location with a religious character, does that mean that whether or not the school likes it, because of the constraints of Clause 27(11) (which I believe refer to something else) that school will have a religious character—Catholic, Anglican, or both?
Baroness Blackstone: I think it highly unlikely that any school organisation committee would want

1025
to make a merger between a denominational and a non-denominational school unless it had been agreed with the Catholic Church and its diocesan representatives.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee must forgive me for pressing the noble Baroness. We are making legislation here. A school may not be viable in size and ability range and therefore needs to become a comprehensive school. When one has a reorganisation as large as that in Kent, Trafford or Buckinghamshire, the likelihood is that there will be mergers. It is the only way to cope. If a school is not viable in size as an all-ability comprehensive school and has to be merged with another school, or closed and the children dispersed around schools in the area, what can an LEA do?
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness asks questions of a very hypothetical nature. I think it highly unlikely that where the parents of children in a Roman Catholic grammar school chose for it to become non-selective, it would then not be viable. There are many small comprehensive schools around the country. Some are in inner city areas, and in small towns. I am absolutely clear that even though the school is small, if it is what the parents want the school will be able to survive as a non-selective school. There may be some question about whether it should continue to be a school for 11 to 18 year-olds if the sixth forms are small. But changes would be made only in dialogue with the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Catholic Church would be the authority that would take the main view about the future of the school in those circumstances.
Baroness Blatch: That is helpful. I shall bring forward an amendment to make the position clear. It will be helpful if the noble Baroness will again confirm this. A school may be deemed to be smaller than is desirable for a fully comprehensive school. The point is not hypothetical; the situation will occur in some of the counties deemed to be whole ballot counties. It may not be convenient for good educational purposes to merge it with another school of the same religious character. Will that school be protected? Will the school continue to exist as a school with a religious character, however inviable the numbers, but in a non-selective form as opposed to a selective form?
If the noble Baroness will give me that guarantee, I shall ensure that an amendment is tabled at the next stage of the Bill to ensure that the protection spelt out by the noble Baroness is built into the Bill. It will be a material constraint on local authorities when they reorganise their schools.
Baroness Blackstone: I have said that the school organisation committee, on which there is Catholic representation, will make decisions about this kind of issue. It will be up to the school organisation committee. In a certain area, the Catholic Church, the local education authority and other bodies involved in deciding the nature of educational provision may decide that there was a case for a merger. I shall not give an absolute guarantee that they will never make that decision. It would not be right for me to do so. We
1026
have set up provisions in the Bill for school organisation committees to resolve those questions. We should be flexible. For me to say now that that will not happen would be incredibly inflexible. It would go against the proposals in the Bill for the new school framework.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise again to the Committee. I am not in a mood to be flexible. I am arguing for the survival of a school which may have had its grammar school status taken from it but which is nevertheless a school with a religious character. In the light of the earlier answers given by the noble Baroness, we wish to be certain that those schools would survive in some form with a religious character.
The noble Baroness's final answer worries me even more. Let us consider that those on the organisation committee who represent the Churches vote that the school should survive and retain its religious character as a non-selective school, but the remainder of the committee, or even one other body on the committee, votes to the contrary. The local education authority may vote to the contrary because it will have financial constraints placed upon it. In the case of Kent, they will be severe. Unlike the understanding that the Church had originally, there is no veto for the Church; we tried to achieve that provision. Therefore, that case will go to the adjudicator, who can overrule the Church and ensure that the school is merged with another school, in the process losing its religious character.
We need some guarantee from the noble Baroness that the school which loses its grammar school status will not lose its religious status in any new arrangements. If the noble Baroness does not do so, we shall bring forward an amendment to protect the religious character of a school under the reorganisation proposals.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall certainly not bring forward an amendment. The noble Baroness said that she cannot be flexible. We think it is sensible to be flexible and to have legislation that is flexible enough to take on board possible substantial changes in the population of an area where there may be a big decline, for example, in the number of Roman Catholics.
I should remind noble Lords that we are talking about seven schools. There are only seven selective Catholic secondary schools in the country. I cannot give a guarantee that every school will continue for all time even if it were felt that it was quite the wrong size, or that it did not have enough pupils to fill its places.
The great majority of Catholic schools is expected to be either voluntary aided or foundation schools so they will be able to publish their own proposals for change. The local education authority cannot publish them.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young: We have had an interesting, short debate on this matter. I should like to make two points about this issue. I am disappointed that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon did not feel able

1027
to say anything in support of this. It is not, I regret to say, the first time and no doubt not the last time, that that will be the case. Nevertheless, one soldiers on in this difficult world. I am reminded of a local example of something rather similar to this and it does not give one confidence.
It is a good idea when discussing these schools to go back to what would happen on the ground. Almost certainly, most of these grammar schools will be either two-form or three-form entry schools. They will be small schools. That is therefore a relevant factor in whether they convert into a viable comprehensive. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, but many educationists think that that is too small. It is certainly too small to support a sixth form. So one is looking at something very different.
I had not appreciated that Clause 27, which was referred to, applied in this circumstance. I thought that that clause was about mainstream schools and their alteration of status. That is rather different from these particular grammar schools and the voting procedures. I am bound to say that the way we have understood that the school organisation committees will operate, as we debated last week, with the final decision being taken by the adjudicator, with no redress for anybody, does not inspire confidence in every case.
I am very sorry that the right reverend Prelate and the Government feel that they cannot move on something which really matters. However, I shall read in Hansard what has been said, and I shall consider whether to come back to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZA:
Page 75, line 31, at end insert—
("() Before any ballot under this section takes place, the local education authority or authorities within whose areas the relevant grammar schools referred to in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) are situated shall prepare and publish fully costed proposals for the reorganisation of schools consequent upon a successful ballot and such proposals shall include capital expenditure, setting up costs and predicted annual revenue costs.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 233AE. We talked, in passing, on the previous amendment about the work that a local education authority will have to do under the regulations if a ballot is successful. Kent will probably be the largest re-organisation and the one which will cause a great deal of anxiety to the local authority. Equally, I take a small local authority like Trafford, which will also be a whole LEA ballot. Should one ballot be successful, all the grammar schools in that area will cease to exist. It will be important for the local authorities to set about producing proposals almost immediately, which will reorganise schools in such a way that there will be a fully comprehensive system in those areas.
We all know just how costly that will be. We also all know that local education authorities will have their programmes and their priorities already determined, and
1028
not just for the current year, because most local authorities plan well ahead. They will have their plans laid down for one, two or even three years. The re-organisation proposals resulting from a decision by a ballot to cease selective education in the whole of an LEA area or part of an LEA area will pre-empt all their capital programmes, and indeed revenue programmes, because there will be revenue costs also.
A parent, who has not had much to do with grammar schools in Kent may be stopped in the market on a Saturday morning to sign a petition. That parent may happily sign away that he would support non-selective education in the authority. He may be blissfully unaware that in doing so he has put his signature to the demise of a large number of schools in that authority, at a stroke and that the local education authority will incur substantial expenditure.
We are compiling information at the moment about how many of these schools own their own land and their buildings. Local education authorities will need to buy into their properties and their land. In areas where the land is held by trustees, it may well be that local authorities will have to make other provision. Mergers are costly; reorganisational plans are costly and the costs will have to be met. It seems to me to be important that when being asked to vote, parents should know that they are not just voting for a fanciful philosophical idea; but that they are voting also for some very substantial costs that will fall upon that community as a result of the decision.
It is incumbent upon the local authority to place before the parents either an options paper, or certainly the proposals that would ensue from a successful ballot, so that as the signatures are called for, the parents know the full picture.
The other important issue is the academic and other achievements of the schools. Now that the information is readily available and in a form that is publishable, the achievements of the schools affected, directly or indirectly, including the grammar schools and all other schools around, should also be made available in a form that is understood by the parents. They will then have some understanding of what the achievements are in the area and what may be at stake. They can make their own judgments about what to do with the information. But it is information which is material to the question that will be asked of parents. They will need to consider the repercussions of signing up to a petition that will trigger a ballot if the requisite number of signatures is achieved. In the case of Kent that would result in the cessation of education in a large number of schools, which would give rise to a set of proposals which would be costly to the local education authority.
There is no case for arguing that that information should not be made available in outline form. No one can produce it in detailed form because clearly consultations will have to follow. It is important that parents have the full information in outline form before they sign up to the death of the grammar schools. I beg to move.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I shall not speak for too long because I know that Members of the

1029
Committee opposite do not like to hear two voices from the Front Bench. However, mine is a gentle voice and I ask the Committee to bear with me.
This is perhaps one of the most important amendments in the Bill because it deals with the very practical point of the expense of reorganisation. The only reason that I am standing on my feet is to speak in detail about one city, Canterbury, which would be drastically affected by the Bill, and it bears out the points made by my noble friend.
Ofsted—and the noble Baroness knows this—and most people in education say that the ideal comprehensive should have a sixth-form entry. I can assure the noble Baroness that that is what Ofsted says and if she would like me to, I can write to her about that. In Canterbury, there are seven schools showing the whole gamut of the English history of education over the past 40 years. There are the girls' and boys' grammar schools; there is a former secondary school; there is a Catholic school; there is a former secondary modern, now grant-maintained; and there is one other school which I believe used to be a single sex girls' school but which is now co-educational.
There is no doubt that there will have to be amalgamation. This morning I have spoken to the chairman of the Kent education committee. Parents have asked for a costing to be prepared for the whole county. Obviously, that is in its early primitive stages, but he said that I could quote him in this House in saying that it is in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds.
In their ideological thrust to get rid of grammar schools, the Government have forgotten the enormous costs of reorganisation, especially in those counties where grammar schools comprise the normal system; that is, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Trafford. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say how she can produce good education in those counties without reorganisation.
I was not happy with the noble Baroness's answer that the small comprehensive can work quite well. In other words, they get what they get, so to speak. My view and the view of many in education in Kent is that a large capital cost will be laid on the county; the burden will fall on all schools; and even those who would rejoice in the streets at the abolition of the grammar schools would not wish to see the devastation that resulted unless the noble Baroness can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be extremely generous.
The point that I make to support my noble friend is that this ideology will cost money. I say to the Government that I hope where their mouth is there is their heart and their pocket.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I was quite amused to hear the noble Baroness insist that local education authorities should publish all sorts of information, because my impression has been that where education authorities have informed governing bodies of the effects of changing from being an ordinary school to being a GM school, that effort has been resented on the part of the noble Baroness's party.
1030
However, as regards this amendment, there may be some merit in having some sort of regulations governing those ballots. It does not do any harm for people to understand, when they take a vote, what are likely to be the consequences of that vote. Perhaps the Minister will respond on the subject of regulation for those ballots.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I add my voice in support of the first amendment in particular. The Government are taking credit for leaving the decision as to the future of grammar schools with the parents. At face value, that is very commendable. It reflects that they should know what will be the character of the schooling and that they should have a say in what it will be in the future.
However, the question will be limited solely to, "Are you in favour of a non-selective system or do you prefer that a selective system should continue?" I suggest that it would frequently be the case that unless the cost consequences and implications are brought specifically to the attention of parents, they will be neglected. At first instance, they will suppose that there is no cost implication. Is that satisfactory? I suggest very strongly that it is not because it is the parents who will be paying, along with everybody else.
Therefore, since it is right—and the Government accept that it is right—that the parents should have a say in the future of the schools, and the question is put to them, it must be right that they should be informed of a cost implication. As my noble friend Lady Blatch makes clear, that should be done in outline terms at least, and, as my noble friend Lord Pilkington said, in Kent the cost is likely to run to hundreds of millions of pounds.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is minded to accept the amendment, but if she is not, I hope that she will explain how, in principle, she justifies withholding that information as part of the question which will be put.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support this amendment. On occasion, I may seem to drift slightly from the specific point of the amendment. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that, but I do not wish to burden it too often with interventions this afternoon. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will understand if I stray slightly from the very specific point.
In Essex, we are fortunate to have a very small number of grammar schools left. In the county as I knew it, we had eight grammar schools serving perhaps 4,000 out of 100,000 secondary pupils. That is a very small proportion. In the north of the county, we have the Colchester Royal Grammar School and the Colchester County High School, operating in competition with an extremely successful sixth-form college, I might add. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to what is a comprehensive system. It is perfectly possible to have a comprehensive system of education which does not consist exclusively of comprehensive schools. There is a very clear distinction. In fact, I suggest that a comprehensive system which does not include a wide

1031
variety of schools, including some selective schools, probably ceases to be comprehensive because it loses its centres of excellence.
I return to the relevant point of this amendment. Those schools are perforce very small. The largest will have at most four forms of entry and some will have fewer than that. Early in my day, we had to do a great deal in Essex because we had a very rapidly expanding population. When there is a rapidly expanding population, it tends to be the younger sectors of the community who move. That meant that we had a huge child population. Therefore, we had to have a vast building programme for schools. We had to build those schools under the utterly pernicious Circular 10/66 which required—and it may be uncomfortable—that if an LEA were to have a capital building programme, it could build only comprehensive schools. I paraphrase slightly. It was not worded quite like that but that is what it meant.
In those days, the received educational expertise required that an effective and efficient comprehensive school, able to give the breadth and depth of education that was required for all pupils from the ablest to the less able, should consist of eight to 10 forms of entry.
Thank heavens, we have come away from that. But even so, the point made by my noble friend that for a comprehensive school you need a considerable size is valid. You really cannot operate very effectively in comprehensive education with fewer than six forms of entry, albeit you can draw the line in by going down to 11-to-16 schools and then there is not a problem provided that there is somewhere else to send the children—either the FE sector, a tertiary college or a sixth-form college.
What will be the future of a redundant grammar school if we go through the ballot procedure? We will have a strange situation because we will have a small set of buildings taking three or four forms of entry with an intense concentration of high quality, specialist facilities such as laboratories which would not normally be provided. If exclusively unselected children are put in the school the use of those buildings will be partly redundant from the first day and over time they will no longer be used. The real question is how to fit into that small set of buildings a non-selective entry group of pupils to try to make them part of a comprehensive system. To be frank, it is extremely difficult and the cost is likely to be extremely high.
I turn to the practicalities of who makes the decision, assuming we provide all the relevant information. In my county of Essex, for example, the Colchester Royal Grammar School and the Colchester County High School for Girls in the north of the county draw pupils from the whole of that area. Unless one polls every parent across the north of the county one will not be testing a valid area. Places in either school are greatly prized. Both appear regularly at the top of the list of state schools in performance terms.
There is an even more complicated situation in the centre of the county. The King Edward VI Grammar School and the Chelmsford County High School for
1032
Girls draw across the whole of the county. The county comprises 1.5 million people, with 1.1 million electors, a high proportion of whom are parents. It is an extremely difficult, not straightforward, issue. I sympathise with the people who will have to deal with the decisions at local level.
The issue of resources is important. There has not been generous provision in local authorities for a long time. Where provision has become more generous—and I pay tribute to those areas—it is properly devoted to additional teaching, wherever that is possible, and so forth.
The amendment deals with capital resources. Referring again to that county of mine, there are large areas of development and the population is rapidly expanding. The capital burden is difficult to meet under existing circumstances, and if we impose an additional burden it is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is a serious situation which neither the LEA nor anyone else will find it easy to live with.
I support the amendment. One of the dangers we face is that insufficient information will be before those who must make the decisions. The debate might have been easier had we had draft regulations. They may exist and I may have missed them. However, I sympathise with the Minister because had draft regulations existed they might have had to be amended in the light of the points raised during this discussion. I am in considerable sympathy with the difficulty in which the Minister finds herself. We are discussing a Bill which enables something to take place. But it is something which does not exist, and we do not know what it will be. That is always difficult.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The two amendments seek to add compulsorily to the range of information available to parents. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Amendment No. 233ZA, is proposing that LEAs publish in advance of a ballot proposals for the reorganisation of schools, with full costings, should the outcome of the ballot be in favour of change. In Amendment No. 233AE, she is proposing that LEAs be required to send parents details of test and exam results. The debate has not focused on those issues: it has focused more on the issue of costs. The noble Baroness also suggests that the costs of an LEA's proposed reorganisation scheme should be made available to parents in a ballot.
I am afraid to say that the proposals are unacceptable for several reasons. Amendment No. 233ZA, which requires the LEAs to publish fully costed proposals in advance of a ballot, is unworkable because the costs cannot be known in advance. Furthermore, in my view, it is unnecessary. Let us take, first, the apparent underlying assumption that any vote for change will necessarily and inevitably involve massive costs. There has been a great deal of hyperbole about that, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, talking about costs running into hundreds of millions of pounds and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggesting that they will be huge for a local authority such as Essex. I dispute that.

1033
Incidentally, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I sympathise with him for not knowing that draft regulations have been published and are available. I also draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to that fact. The regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So we shall be able to debate them when they are in their final form.
I return to the issue of costs. The Government recognise that there may be costs in some cases. It may be that some retraining of teachers is desirable to prepare them to teach all-ability classes. It may be that some remodelling of premises is helpful to accommodate new patterns of the curriculum. It may even be that some reorganisation is desirable if it is concluded that once the grammar school becomes comprehensive it should become a different size. Much of the debate has focused on that issue.
None of that is in any way automatic. Equally, there may be some savings; for example, on transport if more pupils can attend their local school. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned that some pupils in Essex travel long distances. We should remember that over the decades the move from selective to comprehensive education has taken place in most areas of the country without fuss, without disruption and without massive reorganisation. Indeed, a great deal of reorganisation took place under the Conservative Government of Mr. Edward Heath between 1970 and 1974. More grammar schools disappeared during the period when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education than during the occupancy of that position by any other Member of the other place. Therefore, this is not a new experience. Some of the interventions of Members on the Conservative Benches have given the impression that the proposal is new or has never been undertaken successfully.
Moreover, the change will take place gradually. The effect of a ballot will not be to change the whole of a grammar school's current pupil population; for the most part, it will affect only the new pupils admitted in the first year of an all-ability intake. That will be more than a year after the ballot result is known. All existing pupils admitted on a selective basis will remain in the school. So change will happen gradually; indeed, in an 11 to 18-year comprehensive school over a period of 11 years and in an 11 to 16-year school over a slightly shorter period of time. That gives ample time for the implications and any associated costs to be considered and phased
While I am mentioning 11 to 16-year schools, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that I am not aware of Ofsted having said that every comprehensive school should, ideally, have a sixth form—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should point out to the Minister that I said six form entry, like three or four form entry.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise to the noble Lord. I have to say that that might be the ideal situation, especially if they are going to have a sixth form.
1034
However, many areas of the country have an 11 to 16-year structure where a somewhat smaller comprehensive school can do a very good job. Indeed, some comprehensive schools even have a sixth form with a smaller intake in terms of the number of classes. However, in those cases, I admit that they would probably need to have some sort of consortium arrangement at sixth form level if they were to do the best possible job for pupils at that stage.
I return to the question of costs. The scale of any costs will depend on the circumstances of each case. That will be best worked out locally once the outcome of the ballot is known. When it is clear that there will be change, various mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the consequences are properly worked through. In particular, we are setting up in the Bill new mechanisms for local decision-making on school organisation matters, as Members of the Committee know because we have already discussed them.
Following a ballot for change, if it is felt desirable in a particular area that there should be some reorganisation of the pattern of schools, that will be properly handled through the publication of proposals for consultation locally and for decision in the local school organisation committee. Only that committee, with the adjudicator if needed—and we hope that in most cases an adjudicator will not be needed—will be able to take final decisions. The committee's remit will include looking at the capital costs associated with reorganisation proposals, and considering how those costs can best be met.
Therefore, it would be most misleading for the LEA on its own to be preparing proposals and costings and presenting them as the only solution to the possible changes ahead. I do not believe that that would be helpful to parents. There are of course a number of other parties involved locally, not least the grammar schools themselves, who have their own views. In the new framework the LEA will not be the only body which can publish proposals. Foundation and voluntary schools can also publish proposals in their own right. I imagine that the noble Baroness would not want the LEA asserting plans when, in law, this is properly a matter for schools to publish their proposals on.
There is nothing to stop LEAs or others undertaking contingency planning and telling people what range of consequences might flow from a ballot for change. It is possible that parties locally will want to explain their view of the options and that they will propose to do so in the event of such a ballot. However, I believe that that is best left as a matter for local discretion before a ballot. After a ballot, the implications and options are best examined in the forum which is being specifically set up for the purpose; namely, the school organisation committee. It would be quite wrong to pre-empt all that before a ballot has even taken place on the basis of speculation and hypothesis.
Perhaps I may move on and say something briefly about the noble Baroness's second amendment, which has not really been touched upon in our debate. The amendment says that the ballot administration company will have to get LEAs to prepare a statement to be sent

1035
to all eligible parents, detailing tests and exam results for all the schools directly or indirectly involved in the ballot, together with,
"a summary of the recurrent and capital expenditure which would result".
from a ballot for change. I have already discussed the cost question, but the new element in the amendment is the reference to exam results and key stage 3 results. However, I should point out that they are already in the public domain. Indeed, the information is published every year. It is published both nationally and locally and receives an enormous amount of publicity, especially locally. Any parent can obtain that information easily if he or she believes that it will be relevant. Therefore, what possible justification can there be for putting LEAs to the extra time and expense of publishing information already published?
I realise that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that parents have information upon which to make an informed case in a ballot. I am sympathetic with that aim. We are certainly not planning to stop any party to the debate issuing information which it thinks relevant to the choice that parents will make, as long as it is factual and objective. However, there is no need to make that a statutory requirement. It is a matter best left for local discretion, drawing on the very wide array of performance information already required to be published. In the light of that response, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We now know officially from the department that the information parents will have at the time of being asked for their signatures, and certainly at the time of the ballot, will be pretty sketchy. In fact, they will not know physically, even in outline, what is likely to happen to their schools and their children. Some of the Minister's remarks have given me more cause for worry and will certainly give parents more cause for concern, especially those whose children attend grammar schools.
At this point, perhaps I may address the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as regards the read-across to GM schools. I should point out to her that those schools were not being closed or reorganised; they were there before and after the ballot in the same form. In other words, a school was not allowed to change its status or be reorganised at the time of the ballot.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not really want to pursue the issue, but the noble Baroness must accept that a number of schools went grant maintained in order to avoid being closed. I could give the Committee several examples. I really think that these arguments are well wide of the mark.
Baroness Blatch: Those schools certainly had a time-scale which was better than the one now proposed and they also had a more democratic system in operation. Having been involved in that policy, I can confirm that a great deal of information was made
1036
available to them. Indeed, even if it was a closure proposal, that information was before the local community and those concerned knew what the alternatives were. However, in this case, the local community will not know anything. Those concerned will not know whether there might be a closure or a reorganisation; whether the children will just be dispersed among other schools in the area; or whether they will fill up vacant places in poorer schools. We simply do not know. That is the point I am trying to make.
It would be helpful if the Minister could give one piece of information; namely, the time-scale envisaged. I read both the background paper to the Bill and the regulations, but I cannot discern from that reading the time-scale in which the department is expecting the proposals to be finalised, nor indeed the time-scale over which they will be implemented. It seems to me that the Minister is now talking about the proposals taking up to eight, nine or even 10 years to be implemented. It would be most interesting if we could have that confirmed.
The costs which will result from a ballot to end existing grammar schools will be considerable. I am surprised that the Government are prepared to allow this use of money at a time when every pound is needed, both by LEAs and by schools. To see it dissipated in this way seems unbelievable.
The Minister says that our proposals are unworkable. I agree with the noble Baroness to some degree in that fully-costed proposals may well be difficult to produce, although not in every case. Therefore, I would be entirely happy to see outline proposals on the sort of ideas that an LEA might have if suddenly, overnight, and as a result of a ballot, it had to make reorganisation proposals for what, in the case of some authorities, would be a large number of schools.
The Minister referred to the move to comprehensive education and the reorganisations in the 1970s. I do not know where the noble Baroness was at that time, but I suspect that she was in ILEA and, therefore, would not have had any idea of what was going on in the rest of the country. I can tell her that the most awful reorganisations were proposed. There were proposals to link former grammar schools with secondary modern schools on the other side of a town which would result in children "snaking" through towns and cities. Many schools had to wait for decades for proper reorganisation proposals. Many of the proposals involved heavy costs. However, what was even worse was that bad reorganisation proposals were accepted which did not involve spending a great deal of money. Schools situated great distances apart were merged. Far from transport costs being saved, they rose quite dramatically. Such reorganisations meant that either children "snaked" through a town from one building to another, or staff did so in minibuses. That was an unsatisfactory state of affairs altogether.
We are now getting a hint of what lies behind the Government's thinking. It appears that Kent will have to carry out these proposals on a shoestring. That will be unsatisfactory. If the Government will not allow certain information to be made available to parents when

1037
petitions are drawn up and before ballots take place we shall have to try to help grammar schools to make that information available in the public domain. Are the Government now saying that three or four forms of entry will be acceptable for a comprehensive school? That appears to be the case from some comments that the noble Baroness has made. Will grammar schools remain small and compact but with all ability entry rather than selective entry? I find it difficult to believe that that is what the Government intend. They ought to make that matter clear.
The noble Baroness referred yet again to the organisation committees and the adjudicators. They constitute probably the most undemocratic proposal that has ever emerged from any government. The organisation committees are not accountable and they are not elected. They comprise placemen. The adjudicators are all powerful. They can override the wishes of any single group on the organisation committees. If an unsatisfactory proposal is submitted, an adjudicator can make a decision on it. The right reverend Prelate is not in the Chamber at the moment. However, it is conceivable that a school with a religious character could disappear from the system altogether.
The noble Baroness said that this matter is best left to local discretion before a ballot takes place. That is precisely what my amendments are concerned with. I want the information to be made available before a ballot takes place. However, it appears from what the noble Baroness has said, that that will not be the case. I partly take the point that a great deal of information is available, but I seek much more specific information. There may he information available for an entire LEA area, but as regards a group of two, three or half a dozen schools, I believe there is a need for succinct information to be made available, drawn from the enormous amount of information that is available for the entire LEA area. I believe that would be helpful.
As regards the information that is permitted to be made available to parents, the noble Baroness has said that provided the information is factual it will be permitted. As the noble Baroness is aware, under the terms of the Bill schools will not be allowed to fight their corner. If the permitted information must be entirely factual, will grammar schools be allowed to produce their school prospectuses which promote their schools and laud their achievements? Such prospectuses may well compare a school's achievements with those of other schools in the area. They may even contain information about other schools in the area. All of that information will be entirely factual and will comprise data that is published by the DfEE and/or the local education authority. Will such information be permitted under the terms of the Bill in relation to a grammar school defending its right to exist as a grammar school?
Baroness Maddock: I have listened patiently to the debate wondering when it was most appropriate for me to speak to this issue. We got into rather deep water earlier. I do not wish to speak at length but I was moved to speak by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on reorganisation. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
1038
The Government and the Opposition Benches face a difficulty in this area because they approach the matter from different angles. We have before us this afternoon a series of amendments from the Conservative Benches which seek to delay getting rid of grammar schools. They admit that they want to keep grammar schools. That is quite clear to all of us. The Government are in some difficulty because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said earlier, they have in the past always been against selection. I believe that most of them still oppose selection but they do not talk about that quite so much these days. The Government—perhaps for understandable reasons—do not wish to reorganise education further as it has undergone many reorganisations over the years. The Government have tried to listen to what people have said in that regard. However, that makes their position a little difficult.
I have no difficulty in saying that I and many of my colleagues are not in favour of selection in schools. I attended a grammar school and I taught in a secondary modern school that became a comprehensive while I was teaching there. I have two daughters who both attended what I call truly comprehensive schools. They are quite difficult to find these days because in some areas children are "creamed off' and schools are not always true comprehensive schools. One of my daughters is now at Cambridge and the other is about to go to university. Therefore I do not speak from a background of ignorance. I have been a chairman of governors at a school and I have fought school closures. However, nothing has convinced me that it is reasonable to have a great deal of selection. I have noticed that it is always the average children who receive the least resources. In this country the majority of the population are at the middle of the ability distribution curve. All my experience shows me that those in the middle range of ability—the majority of the population—who make our economy work, lose out in terms of resources. Over the years I have seen the money allocated to education cut dramatically. As we go into the 21st century we need to educate people as well as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that in many cases reorganisations had been awful. I cannot remember who was in control of the city of Southampton when reorganisation took place there as control of the city has changed from one side to the other. However, it had a good education department, whether the city was run by the Conservatives or by Labour. We had good education services. During my second year of teaching the school where I taught, which was a girls' secondary modern school with a grammar stream—a rather strange beast—became a comprehensive school. That was a good reorganisation. It went smoothly and there were no problems. Admittedly that was an urban environment and therefore travel to various schools was quite easy. However, much thought and care went into the planning of the reorganisation. That can be done.
I am not saying that I think people want massive reorganisation in schools today. What comes across to me—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, put her finger on it—is that at the previous election two

1039
of the three parties that stood for election discussed resources for education in their manifestos. They were resoundingly rewarded at that election.
What people most care about is that there are resources in a school for their child, whatever his or her ability. That is what we have been fighting for. Over a number of years, I have seen that it is costly and expensive to provide grammar schools. In some areas less money has been available for other, less able children. I want to see enough money made available to provide good opportunities for all children. I know that I had more money spent on me in a grammar school than did children in secondary schools in the area. I know how much more they could have achieved had they had the same opportunity. That is what we are talking about. I do not intend to speak at great length on all the amendments. However, I wanted to make our position clear. We should not listen to scare stories about reorganisation. It can be done properly.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her remarks. They were based on her rich experience as a teacher, a mother, a pupil, a governor and a member of a local education authority. I cannot disagree with anything that she said. She is right to say that what people care about is that their children have adequate resources spent on them in a good school, whatever their ability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised various questions. First, however, I wish to respond to her point about the dissipation of capital spending as a result of parents in some areas deciding through a ballot that they favour a move towards a non-selective system, or from a grammar school to a non-selective school. We are talking about a ballot for a single school and the potential for the school to change to be non-selective.
I believe that parents will welcome some spending for that purpose. I do not think that they will disagree with it. Moreover, if reorganisation is needed, funds are available. We are spending well over £1 billion on schools capital. I believe that the figure in Kent this year is some £18 million. I do not accept the noble Baroness's point about dissipation. There are bigger and broader objectives here. If parents are committed to the idea of a non-selective system in their area, I do not think that they will object to reasonable spending to ensure that, with all the improvements that are likely to follow from it for their children.
The noble Baroness asked about three or four-form entry and whether we accept that as adequate from the point of view of a comprehensive school. Again, it is a matter for local decision and for the school organisation committees. Many small comprehensive schools are doing a good job. We should not denigrate those schools. In urban areas they are likely to be rather larger, and that, too, has some advantages.
The noble Baroness asked about timing. Draft Regulation 18 covers that question. We are allowing at least 18 months from the ballot result to the introduction
1040
of all-ability entry to a school. Reorganisation proposals can be pursued in parallel through the school organisation committee.
The noble Baroness asked also whether grammar schools can produce prospectuses and information of that kind in the course of a ballot. The answer is yes, so long as the information provided is factual, fair and objective. If the noble Baroness has further questions on the matter, perhaps we may deal with them in response to Opposition amendments under the relevant grouping.
I believe that I have answered all the noble Baroness's questions. In the light of this debate and my remarks as to why these proposals are unacceptable, I hope that she will be able to withdraw her amendments.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Will the Minister clarify her observation about the £18 million allocated by the Government this year for schools capital expenditure in Kent? Is she suggesting that there is some surplus available there, over and above what is already planned by the education authority, to meet what she described as the reasonable expenditure that will be occasioned by foreseeable reorganisation following upon the ballots? Is that the significance? I understood the Minister to say that some local authorities had a reasonable amount of money—£1.5 billion was the figure cited for all England and Wales, and £18 million for Kent.
In the case of Kent, how much of that £18 million would she regard as being reasonably available in the event of ballots resulting in a change? What estimate has been made by the Government of what "reasonable" costs might be? The noble Baroness described my reference to hundreds of millions of pounds in Kent as "hyperbole". It was perhaps fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was not in his place. Otherwise she might have received the kind of lecture that he gave to my noble friend. Has the Minister taken on board that that £100 million or more was mentioned by the chairman of the education authority in Kent. That was made clear by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. I am sorry to have taken up the Committee's time, but perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to answer those questions.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise if the noble and learned Lord felt that the term "hyperbole" was unacceptable. Perhaps I should have said, "a little exaggerated". I simply do not know how the chairman of the education committee arrived at that figure. I cannot see how he or she could possibly know. We have no idea what parents in Kent will decide. They may be in favour of retaining the existing system; or there may be a move to a different one. But merely observing that, year after year, substantial sums are available for schools capital is reasonable. How the money is spent will depend on the LEA's judgment as to priorities each year. If parents in Kent vote in favour of moving to a non-selective system, I should have thought that the Kent local education authority would take seriously the wishes of parents and want to allocate

1041
whatever sum of money is necessary to meet those wishes so that Kent can have a viable and sensible non-selective system.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness misses three points completely. First, should that happen, the parents will have no idea what the costs will be. If the ballot is successful and schools in Kent have to cease being grammar schools, parents are just saying that they want non-selective education. They are not asked to vote "at any price", or "on whatever it is going to cost". If the ballot goes against the schools, the change will have to take place.
The second point arising from my noble and learned friend's intervention which the noble Baroness misses completely is that the LEA will have no choice. Whatever the spending priorities of the education authority, those moneys will be pre-empted. The LEA's own priorities will have to be set aside. Schools that are presently non-selective but which are high up in the capital programme are likely to lose their place in that programme as a result of having to attend to this pernicious policy.
Thirdly, if I were the chairman of an education authority in Kent, Buckinghamshire or Trafford, I should not want to wait until a ballot goes against an LEA decision to say that there should be a major reorganisation in the authority. From the moment the ballot has taken place, on one single day, and the result is announced, a local authority will have to set about the work it will have to do. A sensible local authority will be looking now at its schools. Kent will have to look at the kind of reorganisation proposals that it would need to put in place in this eventuality.
I hope that this is one point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will agree with me. Reorganisation proposals are a very long time in the making. There is a mass of consultation to take place and an enormous amount of work to do. A good local authority will do that now. That work is being done at the moment in anticipation of the Government, with its great majority, getting its way with this policy. An assumption is being made. We shall all know about it because there is to be a demonstration outside this place by the group for the advancement of state education, which is ready to begin campaigning against grammar schools. Those people will be active. The local authorities know that and are sensibly beginning to work out the outline costs of reorganisation proposals. We shall bring some of those costs to the attention of the Minister at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZB:
Page 75, line 31, at end insert—
("() The governing body of any school for which provision is made under subsection (2)(a) or (b) for that school to be included in a ballot under this section shall, in the event of a dispute, have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment and Amendment No. 233AB, with which it is grouped, are relatively straightforward. The noble Baroness has
1042
sent me a copy of the regulations, and I am grateful to her for that. In the schedules at the back of the regulations all the grammar schools in the country have been allocated either to whole LEA areas or to areas within local education authorities. It is possible that some of those schools, especially those which have been grouped, may disapprove of a particular grouping. I think it is unlikely that there will have been a mistake, but it seems to me that, where a school is unhappy about its grouping, it should be given an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State that it should be put in a more appropriate group and one which is more consistent with its wishes.
Amendment No. 233AB is a very important amendment. If this policy is to be persisted with, we would want the Secretary of State to publish, first, a list of schools (and an attempt has been made to do that); secondly, the relevant groupings (and an attempt has been made to do that); and, thirdly, the geographical areas to which the ballot relates. The latter point is very important. The geographical area will have to be very specific as to houses in streets. It is important for parents who reside in the area and who will be eligible to vote that these lists are all published well in advance of petitions being initiated. When petition signatures are being gathered, it is important to know whether or not someone is eligible. I hope that these lists are now being prepared by the DfEE, in conjunction with local education authorities, who will know the catchment areas of the various schools.
I wish to leave the noble Baroness with a question, which relates to this amendment but also to later amendments. Am I reading the regulations correctly, and is it the case that, where the ballot is an area ballot rather than a whole LEA ballot, it is only the parents of children in the feeder schools that have been announced—as long as those feeder schools conform to the threshold of children who finally transfer to a grant-maintained school—who are enfranchised and not, as with a whole LEA ballot, parents who live within the catchment area of those feeder schools, who may have children aged nought to 16? I accept the nod.
We therefore have the most absurd distinction. Where there is a whole LEA ballot, all parents of children aged nought to 16—and there is some confusion about whether it is 16 to 19, as well—will have a vote; yet in an area where there is only a group of schools—for example, the King Edward Schools in Birmingham—it is only the parents of children in the feeder schools, and therefore the parents of children aged nought to five, who will have a vote, and parents of children aged up to 16 in the areas of those schools will not have a vote. How on earth can the Government justify that distinction? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think I can give the noble Baroness 95 per cent. satisfaction that what she is asking for will be achieved; and I think I can explain the 5 per cent. which is the matter relating to feeder schools.
These amendments ask the Secretary of State to do what he is already doing. The information that they request, as the noble Baroness generously

1043
acknowledged, has already been made available—the noble Baroness has seen it—and the opportunities for discussion already exist.
Amendment No. 233ZB would allow governing bodies of grammar schools to appeal to the Secretary of State against their grouping with other schools for the purposes of a ballot. The draft regulations which we published last week are for consultation. They contain the proposed groupings for all grammar schools. But the key word is "consultation". With the exception of those schools in a selective area, where the ballot is about all schools in the area, ballot groupings are open to discussion. If schools present a system for grouping in the area which offers a better alternative—and this is the direct equivalent of an appeal to the Secretary of State—that will be considered by the Secretary of State in framing the final regulations. I put it to the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.
I turn now to Amendment No 233AB, which asks that the Secretary of State publish the lists of schools and the relevant groupings and areas to which ballots will relate. Again, the noble Baroness has acknowledged that we have already published the lists of schools and the relevant groupings. But there is a difficulty about geographical areas. As the noble Baroness recognised, there is no difficulty in selective areas, such as Buckinghamshire, Kent, Trafford and others. The difficulty is where the geographical area will be determined by the feeder schools.
The noble Baroness is right in saying that the geographical area which will be affected—that is to say, the schools whose parents will be enfranchised by ballots based on the feeder school model—will not always be known in advance of a petition or ballot and therefore it will not be possible in advance to define the geographical area of a ballot on the feeder school model. It will be the responsibility of the ballot administration company to identify the feeder schools, but it can and should do that only when a petition is known to be in circulation. If that were not the case, work would be done in advance of a petition which might well be unnecessary. Feeder schools could change each year, and that would change the area affected. The amendment would require grammar schools to complete this exercise every year, even if there were no local interest in a petition.
We are not using school catchment areas on the feeder school model. We identify specific schools in whole area ballots and we enfranchise the parents of those schools. Whatever the catchment area of those schools may be, that is subsumed in the fact that the parents, wherever they come from, are enfranchised under the feeder school model.
With the exception of identifying in advance a geographical area when the model for the inclusivity or otherwise of the ballot is the feeder school model, everything that the noble Baroness seeks in these amendments will be achieved.
1044
The noble Baroness suggested that there was some confusion over whether parents of 16 to 19 year-olds could vote. There is no confusion. The ballots are for parents of children up to the age of 16.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord on two counts: first, for what he said in regard to my first amendment. My assumption is that, if a case can be made, groupings can change and the schools will be grateful for that. I am grateful also for the last point made by the noble Lord. But perhaps I can ask the noble Lord a question.
In an area ballot, only the parents of children who attend feeder schools are enfranchised to vote. Why, in the whole LEA ballot, is it not possible to have the same; that is, that only parents of children in all of the schools in a local authority area that feed into the grammar schools be enfranchised?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is for the reasons identified by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when he was speaking in relation to Essex. He was talking of Essex, where only 4,000 out of 100,000 children are in grammar schools. We are talking of Kent, Buckinghamshire, Trafford, the Medway towns, Torbay and other areas where the selective system is more than 25 per cent. of the intake.
If what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says is true about Essex—that the catchment area of the grammar schools in one case covers the whole of Essex and in another the whole of the north of Essex—and it seems, a fortiori, to be the case that the catchment area of the grammar schools in the selective areas where selection is, in some cases, not just the dominant but the only form of secondary education, then the whole area of the authority should be the area of the ballot. That stands to reason, as Worzel Gummidge would have said.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord answered the wrong question. Why is it that, where there is an area ballot, only the parents of children in the primary feeder schools that qualify under the regulations are enfranchised to vote? In a whole LEA ballot, not only the parents of children in every single primary school—that is what I am suggesting—but also the parents of children aged nought to five and the parents of children up to the age of 16 in all the secondary schools, are enfranchised to vote.
Why is it that the electorate for an area ballot includes only feeder schools? Why does it not include all the primary schools in the whole of the LEA that feed into the grammar schools? Why should it include parents of children aged nought to five? And why are they not included in the area ballot?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry if I misunderstood the question of the noble Baroness. There is a real difference between area and whole LEA ballots. The difference is that the whole of the structure of the

1045
secondary school service is affected by the ballot and therefore it is appropriate that all parents should have a vote.
Baroness Blatch: That is absolutely no answer. If one takes Southend, and the schools all around the King Edward school area, all the schools, all the parents and the structure of schools in that area are affected by the presence of those schools. If it is right that parents of children aged nought to 16 in a whole LEA area are enfranchised to vote, why does not that pertain in the area ballot?
In fact, I would wish the situation to be the other way round. If only the parents of children in primary schools which are feeder schools are enfranchised to vote in an area ballot—a large part of Birmingham, Southend and large parts of Essex—why is it that only the same category of parents can vote in a whole LEA ballot?
I shall return to the amendment because the noble Lord gave no answer to the point I was making. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZC:
Page 75, line 32, leave Out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 233ZC, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233AA, 233AC and 233BA.
This is no ordinary ballot. The petition that will take place in local education authority areas and whole local education authorities will give rise to considerable activity. Some of it will be entirely benign. Some people will go peaceably about their business. Some people believe philosophically that selective education should end. But on behalf of other people there will be much more aggressive campaigning. We know that CASE is already girding its loins; it is extremely active. We will see something of that on the day its members choose to demonstrate. Other active organisations are simply waiting for Royal Assent so that they can get under way with providing a network of activity in all areas where grammar schools exist.
The activity is going to be extremely disruptive. The sadness is that it will impact on the stability of the schools, on the staff of those schools, on the parents of the children in those schools and, more significantly, on the children in those schools. That activity can take place over many months. I am hoping that the noble Baroness will agree that the period should not be more than one year. At the end of that time, if the required signatures are insufficient, then the whole thing starts again.
This relentless war of attrition will continue until, in one year, the requisite number of signatures are found and they will go for a ballot. If the ballot is not successful, then the whole dreadful activity starts again. If the ballot is successful, it gives rise to the closure of the school as a grammar school and, in the case of the whole LEA ballot, the closure of the group of schools in the whole LEA area. Every single grammar school in
1046
the area will cease to exist as a grammar school and plans will have to be made to introduce comprehensive education.
I do not underestimate what the amendment will do and the divisiveness that will occur in those areas. Amendment No. 233ZC therefore says that the regulations "shall" make provision to include and they are not simply permissive. Given that the result of this one ballot in a whole LEA area may mean that all the schools will go out of existence, it is a serious ballot. I cannot think of another example of such a serious ballot. Where the result is so serious, the threshold should be considerable. That is why I suggest that 50 per cent. of the eligible parents should be required for a successful petition to trigger off an automatic ballot. However, the petition should be completed within the year.
If the requisite number of signatures are not secured within the space of a year, then there should be an interregnum. The noble Baroness, or whoever responds to the amendment, may well have some fun with what looks like an inconsistency between this amendment and the interregnum that I suggest for the ballots. The reason for the inconsistency is that, if the Bill survives in its present form, then the five-year interregnum makes sense; it is consistent with the five-year interregnum suggested in the ballot. However, if we were fortunate enough to extend the interregnum between ballots, we would want to change the figure in the amendment. I hope that that explains the inconsistency.
Five years is not even the lifetime of a child in a grammar school. A child joining a grammar school in its first year will undergo all this disruptive activity for the space of a year and perhaps some months more while the ballot takes place. The child will then go through all the organisational proposals. In the case of the ballot not succeeding, there is all this disruption in the first year and by the time the young person is hardly ready to go into the sixth form, it starts all over again. If a brother or sister joins the school two or three years later, the disruption begins again.
I make no apology for the way I describe the disruption. It will be a relentless, bitter war of attrition on the part of the disgruntled, the disaffected and the bigoted—I use that word again in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because there are people who will be bigoted on this issue—and those who are extremely antipathetic to the existence of selection. Worse still, if they are in the minority, they can simply worry away year after year. If the noble Baroness is advocating that as a way of a school existing on into the future, each five years winning against the odds, I really wish to know where the noble Baroness and her colleagues are coming from. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I strongly support the amendments. This is almost the first occasion on the clause when one has been able to discuss the principle underlying it. There was a valiant attempt by my noble friend on Clause 99 at the opening of business to bring up the principle underlying it but the Committee

1047
decided—I do not think necessarily in its wisdom—to move on to other matters. The debates we have had on the amendments so far have been on important details.
Clause 100 ends grammar schools. There is no doubt about that. That has the support of the Liberal Democrat Party, and I shall come on to its shared guilt later. The Labour Party wants to end grammar schools. It is being a touch deceitful, if that is not an unparliamentary word. The party is being deceitful. I am not suggesting at all that any of the Ministers are full of deceit, not half! In its manifesto, as the noble Baroness said, the Labour Party committed itself not to extend selection. That was the golden phrase used in the manifesto. The noble Baroness will know, as she had responsibility for education in the run-up to the election, that several of her colleagues who are now in the Government had gone much further than that. They had said, "We will abolish grammar schools", but they were reined back by Tony Blair. They were told not to say it and so they did not say it. They said that they would not extend selection. So what they have devised in this clause is a way of using democracy to destroy grammar schools. It will be done in such a way that their fingerprints will not be on the dagger. Polonius is going to be stabbed behind the arras and no one is going to be guilty. Democracy has done it.
I believe that the system devised by the Government is an abuse of democracy. They are going to put the matter to a wide electorate. We discovered only this afternoon that the electorate will be different for an area ballot and different for a whole local education authority ballot. The arguments put by the Minister to defend that were totally implausible. Two fancy franchises will be created. What in effect will be used is the voice of the majority against a minority. That is what will happen. It is likely that in most areas and in most LEAs, as a minority of pupils go to grammar schools, only a minority of parents are likely to support them. That is what the Government want to bring about. I think that they should be much more open and explicit about it.
Tony Crosland in 1966 was quite explicit. He used a very forceful and memorable phrase. He said it. It was the actual policy of the Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s to end grammar schools. I was very much aware of the vindictive nature of the destruction of the best school in my constituency when I represented St. Marylebone. St. Marylebone Grammar School, which had been founded in 1791, was destroyed. It was the best school in my constituency and probably the best in inner London. It was destroyed by rigging the governing body. ILEA did it and it was approved by the then Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It killed off a school of real excellence. We fought but we lost. In many cases the grammar schools will fight after the Bill goes through but I fear that they will lose because the electorate has been rigged against them.
I am very surprised by the Liberal support. One of the founding philosophical figures of Liberalism was John Stuart Mill. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will have read On Liberty. What does John Stuart Mill argue mostly in On Liberty? He argues
1048
against the tyranny of the majority. I do not expect the modern Liberal Party to pay much attention to John Stuart Mill because it has become a satellite of the Labour Party—the old Labour Party. That is what John Stuart Mill argued against, but this is what we are going to see exercised either in area ballots or in local authority ballots if these clauses are passed. I very much hope that the safeguards my noble friend has built in—
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may—
Lord Baker of Dorking: Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene? I am happy to give way.
Baroness Maddock: I do not know whether the noble Lord was present when I was speaking about these issues. He has quoted John Stuart Mill at me. Perhaps I may quote back at the noble Lord one of the tenets of Liberals and Liberal Democrats today. We want to ensure that everyone has equality of opportunity and that the opportunity of one person should not be detracted from by the opportunity of someone else. That is precisely the point I was arguing earlier. I also made it clear that I thought the Government were in some difficulty on this matter. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says about the slightly devious nature of what the Government are doing. I made two points in my contribution. One was about where I stood on the issue of grammar schools and selection and where my party has stood for some time. The other point I made, from experience, was about reorganisation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing what is really a rather long intervention.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Baroness know that some Liberal Democrats support some of their local grammar schools around the country? Does that sit easily with what she has just said?
Baroness Maddock: The noble Baroness will know that we support different things locally from what we do nationally. We believe in local democracy. I know that in other places we have had a ballot of people to see whether they want grammar schools. Where they have said yes, we, as their representatives, have allowed that to happen. But it does not alter the fact that I happen to think that it is not the right thing to do.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I am very glad to be back at the wicket. The noble Baroness said that she thought that the process was devious. That was her word, not mine. I do not agree with her is when she says that the Liberals believe in that type of equality. I do not believe that one makes poor schools better by destroying the better schools. That is not the principle. I give her another basic founding principle of Liberalism—choice. There is choice now: choice between religious schools and non-religious schools; between single sex and non-single sex schools; and at the moment between grant-maintained schools and grammar schools. That choice is to be restricted. Choice was one of the great founding principles of Liberalism. So I think that the party has abandoned fundamentally quite a lot of the things for which the old Liberal Party stood.

1049
Perhaps I may continue by supporting the amendments. I believe that the Government's proposals are very damaging. The Government are disguising their real intention, which is to end grammar schools. Why do they not say it? Will the Minister say that he wants to see the end of grammar schools, because that will be the consequence of Clause 100? Say it! Say that that is the purpose of government policy! In this era of greater frankness and modernity of the Labour Party, may we just have a flash of truth occasionally as to the motivation of the Government? I believe that my noble friend's proposals build in certain safeguards.
When the Minister comes to reply he may well chide me and the Conservative Party on our record as regards grammar schools. It may well be uppermost in his mind that in the days of Mr. Heath's Government when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education, she closed grammar schools. I reminded her of that on two occasions, and I ducked! She was rather ashamed of it, not that one would expect the noble Baroness to admit such a thing. She thought that it was a rather bad passage in her career, and it was. The point I would make is that there are 167 grammar schools. They are good schools for the most part. Nearly all of them are very good schools. It would be very unwise for any government to set up a system to bring those schools to an end. I very much hope that we shall be able to build in safeguards. I assume that the Government are going to press ahead with ballots. I do not believe that they bring distinction to their party or to the Government by abusing democracy in this way. This is an abuse of democracy and we should oppose it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may deal with one small and narrow point; that is, equality of opportunity. It would be easy to conceive of the county of Essex not having a small proportion of grammar schools. In large areas the system is comprehensive and there is a small creaming effect. But equality of opportunity?—never! Some schools are good; some are very good and some are not. The remarkable thing is that those who know and who research these matters will move, if at all possible, into the catchment area of the successful comprehensive school. There is a quite remarkable premium on houses in those catchment areas. Under this wonderful, equal, flat, superb, everybody-the-same system, the fact of the matter is that those who can afford it still get what they want.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I intervene in this important debate because I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Baker. This is the crux of the Bill. The big issue of principle is embodied in the part of the Bill which this group of amendments seek to alter. My credentials are probably different from some of those that have already been given. I was not educated at a comprehensive school or a grammar school. I was educated at a public school and so were my children and grandchildren. But my constituents in Gloucester had the opportunity of being educated at one of five grammar schools and that with a population of not much more than 100,000. I fought and strove to keep those grammar schools and four of them are still in existence.
1050
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place. I would be very happy if he were to return and call me bigoted, if it is being bigoted not to be committed, as he said, to one particular form of education, but to be committed to the best possible education, and to the best possible educational opportunity right across the board. We are not talking about the very high echelon of academic education, but those marginal children in selection who get into a selective school or a grammar school. They might be at the very margins of those selected, but they have educational vistas open to them by stimulating their imaginations. They have the competition from their peers which they would never have had if that type of education had been denied them.
In addition there are regional considerations. Throughout the whole period that I was in my constituency we had below-average unemployment. I do not know what the position is today. Companies from all over the country wanted to build their factories and bring their businesses to the constituency because of the educational opportunities offered. I apologise for intervening so forcefully, but I feel very strongly that this particular clause will wreck the education system and everything that is good in it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say why, if the grammar schools were so good, she sent her own children and grandchildren to private schools?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: They would not have qualified because they did not live in the constituency. I should have been very happy for any of them to have been educated in any of those grammar schools. When I visit them and I go to their speech days my heart swells with pride at the achievements of those schools and what they have done for the benefit of the children who have been fortunate enough to be educated there.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I wish to reinforce one of the points that my noble friend Lord Baker made on these amendments. This is the nub of the Bill. We are not going to convince the Government that grammar schools are worthwhile and they are not going to convince us otherwise. We have been round this course many times in our lives. What is so deplorable about the arrangement is that the Government have not the courage of their convictions to say that they wish to end the remaining grammar schools. They are having devious ballots which are very damaging to the schools.
One has to think of the individuals involved, such as the teachers in those schools. What are the Government thinking to themselves now? Perhaps the Members on the Government Benches believe that the teachers can move on and get a job somewhere else. Not everyone necessarily wants to do that if they have been long-established in a school and imagine that—as they probably are—they are doing an extremely good job. They will be subjected to this kind of devious, unpleasant balloting every single year until the schools are finally destroyed.

1051
When this kind of thing was applied to housing I believe it was called Rachmanism. Tenants could be got out by putting an unpleasant person next door until the neighbour was driven out. There have been various examples of that in public life. What we shall find now is a way of dealing with schools year by year so that they are got rid of. As we all know with new Labour, the reason why it does not come out and say that it is going to destroy the grammar schools is because it is hoping to hang on to the Conservative votes which it managed to collect at the last election. It has also its own supporters, like Mrs. Harman who is sending her son to a grammar school. Ironically, she was quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon at an earlier stage in the debate. The Prime Minister himself sends his children to a selective grant-maintained school. They have all these inconsistencies and they are very much afraid that that will upset Middle England.
This is all in the name of the wonderful new Labour words "transparency", "clearness", "co-operation", "friendship", and everything else. Just before the by-election in the Wirral and shortly before the general election, it was made quite clear by Mr. Blair that the grammar schools "are safe with us". He must have known perfectly well that these measures were in his mind. So it was a complete con on the electorate. It is rather like the hospital service saying that it is going to reduce waiting lists when they have almost doubled.
So the whole thing is a con of a very unpleasant character. When one has not the courage of one's political convictions—and that is what this is about—it is a weakness and a failure. One has not the courage to stand up for what one believes. The Government may not think we are right, but we at least have the courage to stand up for what we believe and to do that publicly. We are seeing this con on the electorate and on the local education authorities by the appointment of the adjudicator. The Government Ministers can then hide behind the difficult decisions which someone else has to make. That, too, is a con. We have a Government who fail to take a single difficult decision of any description whatsoever.
At the end of the day, by all these fiddles, about 170 schools will go. That will be their epitaph. I hope that they will be pleased with themselves. I hope they were pleased with the triumph when the direct-grant schools went. In fact, at a stroke more independent schools were created than ever before. I hope that any grammar school that can do so will become independent. That is what they should do because it is the only way to survive. In that way a school gets out of this outrageous system of fraud.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should like to offer the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, an opportunity to avoid the wounding charge of being slightly duplicitous in being a proponent of the Government's policy, which was levelled at her by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Earlier this afternoon I invited an answer to the question of whether the remark made not very long ago by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Mr. Blunkett, that he could not be
1052
expected within a few months to complete the work begun by Anthony Crosland represented the Government's policy. After all, most people who are anxious about the future of the grammar schools can be forgiven for supposing that those words represent the Government's policy. We know perfectly well about the policy of Mr. Crosland back in the 1960s and here we have the Secretary of State saying, "I cannot be expected to complete that within a few months." The natural inference is that he wishes to complete it, but that it will take a little longer. If that is the Government's policy, the noble Baroness will be able to avoid the charge of duplicity if she frankly says, as my noble friend Lord Baker invited her to do, "Yes, it is our policy; we should like to get rid of the grammar schools. It is true that we shall not bring an axe to bear on them, but we shall resort to what we hope will be a thousand cuts." What other explanation can there be for permitting a ballot year after year? That is what will happen if a ballot does not produce what many of us believe to be the desired result from the Government's point of view. Why should the triggering petitions be permitted year after year?
Does not the Minister, or whoever is to reply to the debate, recognise the virtue of stability in education? I understood the noble Baroness to say earlier that she did, indeed, recognise that virtue. However, does she recognise that anything but stability will be the consequence of petition after petition? Does she recognise the character of the campaign that in the past has been waged against the grammar schools and which we shall certainly see again in the future? Does the noble Baroness recognise the appeal that will be made to very emotional considerations? Does she believe that allowing that to happen year in, year out—and it will—will induce stability? Does the noble Baroness recognise my fear that the very instability that it will induce will lead some parents to say, "We don't want to send our child to this school, although it is the best in the area, because we recognise that sooner or later the thousand cuts will bring about its demise"? Many people see that as a duplicitous approach to an objective which is not explicitly declared.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity now afforded to answer the question of whether it is the Government's hope and purpose that the grammar schools should go. That would enable us to look in a much more realistic light at the various arrangements which are the subject of further amendments both tonight and later.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer one question. He has properly laid great stress on stability in education and I concur with that view. In those circumstances, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many Bills of fundamental importance to education his government introduced in the 18 years in which they were in power?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: When I first became a Member of your Lordships' House, many people told me that party points were not at the head and forefront

1053
of noble Lords' considerations. I am quite prepared to acknowledge to the noble Lord that I very much regret the fact that many grammar schools were abolished under the Conservative Government in which, as already mentioned, my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education. However, remarkably sound achievements were also made in those years and stability has been gravely damaged by the undermining of some of those achievements. We have already referred to grant-maintained schools.
It should be possible today to say whether stability is an objective, although perhaps not the sole objective. We are having a grown-up discussion in which I have ventured to ask whether it is still the Government's objective to encourage stability. I have also asked whether, if stability is an objective, providing for petitions year in, year out until the thing comes "right" actually does encourage stability.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I seem to have two tasks. One is to respond to the amendments and the other is to deal with the "Question Time" atmosphere on the Conservative Benches. I approach both with equal relish.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, should not be put forward to start such a circus. This is the man whose government wanted to get rid of local education authorities. He wanted to stop their having any say in secondary education. His government were quite clear about it. They wanted to have 19,000 grant-maintained schools. They did not say so, but that is what they wanted. To achieve that, they set up a system allowing schools to opt into grant-maintained status and out of the control of the local education authorities. The noble Lord himself established a system whereby all abstentions in a ballot were counted on his side. There were many variations on that system as it became clear that parents did not want it. Only a tiny minority wanted to opt for grant-maintained status, despite the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, reminded us, it was used as a way out of the sensible reorganisation that was necessary because of the declining school rolls. Even so, the noble Lord's government wanted to distance all secondary schools from their local education authorities. They did not dare say so, but they tried to rig the ballot system accordingly.
Those are the people who have the nerve to stand up this afternoon and to say that we are being duplicitous—
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I am not giving way for the moment. I am referring now to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. When I am being told that I am duplicitous, I want to be told that I am duplicitous. I do not want to be told, as the noble and learned Lord said, that we are seen by "many people" as being duplicitous. I call that duplicitous. I gladly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that when parents voted for grant-maintained status, they voted on and for their own schools? In this case, the
1054
Government are enfranchising people who do not have an interest in grammar schools and allowing them to vote for or against the existence of those grammar schools. The Government are giving the vote to those whose children are not pupils of those schools.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The reason why we have local education authorities and a local system of education rather than a centralised system is that in the cities, towns and rural areas of this country the education system consists of more than just one school. That is why we have to have ballots of all those affected by any proposals. That is the fundamental reason why we object to the system which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and his colleagues introduced in an attempt, which they never admitted openly, to deprive local education authorities of a say in the running of secondary schools. Of course, they then tried to do the same with regard to primary schools. In the first place, however, they tried to drive local education authorities out of existence and we then had a centrally controlled system under the Funding Agency for Schools. That is why the Conservative Government did what they did in the way that they did.
Lord Baker of Dorking: On the question of the role of LEAs, about which the noble Lord has just waxed so eloquently, he cannot have read the speech made by Mr. Stephen Byers a fortnight ago. The noble Lord's Government are to reduce the role of the LEAs to one of only marginal responsibilities. They have sent out a consultation document. I know that the noble Lord is not a Minister in the department and so he cannot be expected to follow this in great detail. He is chiding me for having rigged the franchise while he is rigging two fancy franchises. The noble Lord said that I did that with regard to grant-maintained schools. If I did, I did a very bad job of it, did I not—
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Baker of Dorking:—because in many of those elections, the parents did not vote for grant-maintained status. However, we gave them the choice. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, the electorate then was school-based and comprised the people directly involved. Under the Government's proposals, if it is a local authority ballot parents who may live 30 miles away will have a say in the future of that school. What is democratic about that? It is not democratic. Perhaps the Minister will answer one specific question. Does he personally want to see the end of all grammar schools?
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since the Committee is engaged in a wider debate perhaps I should refer to the Labour Party manifesto, on which this Government were elected. I have no difficulty with that and the way in which it has been implemented. We said in the manifesto that there should be no return to the 11-plus, which divided children into successes and failures at far too early an age, and that any changes to the admission

1055
policies of grammar schools would be decided by local parents. That was what we said and that is what we are doing. There is no duplicity in that at all.
I turn to the amendments, which are not concerned with ballots but petitions, which are quite different. None of the amendments now being debated refers to ballots, although one might not think so from the way in which some noble Lords opposite have spoken this afternoon. The purpose of this group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 233ZC is to place unrealistic and unnecessary obstacles in the way of parents who support an end to selective admission arrangements and to grammar school governing bodies who wish to publish proposals to remove their selective arrangements. The majority seek unfairly to tip the scales against those who support an end to selection. Amendments Nos. 233AA, 233AC and 233BA are all designed to make the task of raising a petition unrealistically difficult.
Dealing first with Amendment No. 233AA, the threshold proposed is 50 per cent. of eligible parents being required to sign a petition. For example, in Kent it would require a petition of 250,000 or more signatures. That represents a mammoth tasks. The Government fully accept it is right that the ballot procedure should not be lightly undertaken and that there should be evidence of significant local demand before one is triggered. It was with that in mind that we set the petition threshold at 20 per cent. of eligible parents.
But we must bear in mind that a petition of itself does not require change in grammar school admissions. The petition merely acts as a trigger for holding a ballot in which all eligible parents can have their say and where change will take place only if a majority of those voting say that that is what they want. The noble Lord derided democracy and said that the Government were using it to destroy the grammar schools. A majority is what democracy is about. Control of the majority by a minority is not a readily acceptable alternative. Setting the petition threshold as high as 50 per cent. of eligible parents is clearly a ruse to ensure that ballots can never in practice be triggered and is unacceptable to the Government.
I move now to Amendment No. 233AC, which provides mechanisms to limit the life of any petition to any one academic year. Those are already contained in draft regulations that the department issued for consultation last week. I draw your Lordships' attention to regulation 7(4) in the draft that we have issued for consultation which states explicitly that for a petition to be valid it must have been received within the school year. A school year is defined as the period from 1st September to 31st July. Therefore, the amendment is quite unnecessary.
Amendment No. 233BA seeks to introduce a moratorium for petitions. We shall not fall into that trap. It leaves the system open to the most obvious abuse. If this amendment were accepted supporters of grammar schools could submit a petition with five names on it toward the end of the year safe in the knowledge that
1056
it would never trigger a ballot but would trigger a moratorium and thus deny parents the right to consider the issue for five years. That cannot be right.
We have a moratorium provision where it should be—on the deciding ballot itself—to make sure that all of the fears that noble Lords opposite have expressed will not arise. I believe that there are people outside this Chamber who will be very offended by some of the descriptions of the majority of parents who, it is acknowledged, want to end selection. We will not fall into the trap of saying that very few people can easily trigger a moratorium, which means that the matter cannot be raised for five years afterwards.
We come back to the issue of stability about which noble Lords have asked me. Stability is a good thing and we are in favour of it. But we are not in favour of stability at any price. We cannot and should not freeze the school system. The Conservative Government did not do so. They looked for ways to improve standards. I acknowledge that many of their motivations—I refer to city technology colleges as an example—were admirable, although not always their achievements. At any given moment the school system is as it is. One cannot say that there will never be change. Of course, the education service must change, develop and progress. We believe that the system of ballots triggered by petitions as proposed in this part of the Bill is not only a rational and democratic way of proceeding but is precisely in accordance with our explicit manifesto.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Before the Minister sits down, can he answer the specific question that I put earlier? Does he personally want to see the end of grammar schools? He must have a personal view on this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take the view that my party takes: it is for local parents to decide whether or not they want grammar schools to continue.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister's answer is interesting. I am reminded of the question put by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew to the noble Lord opposite and to another Minister earlier. When Mr. Blunkett referred to the statement of Anthony Crosland his answer was that he should not be expected to do in three months what Mr. Crosland had started. Implicit in that response is that he will stay with the principle behind the statement of Anthony Crosland but that it will take a little longer.
I should like to deal with some of the matters touched upon by the noble Lord. I am always encouraged when the noble Lord becomes really cross. It means that we have touched a nerve. On this subject we have certainly touched a nerve. We believe that what any government should do is build upon what is best and what works and develop and not destroy. Personally, it hurts to see a number of members of this Government, who not only enjoyed the fruits of the grammar school system and selective education but are presently enjoying those fruits by sending their children to those schools, closing

1057
the doors behind them so that no one else has that opportunity. That is not good government, and it is certainly not good politics.
The noble Lord rather generously referred to the city technology colleges. That was a brilliant policy initiated and implemented by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking. The noble Lord was gracious about it. However, the noble Lord and his colleagues did not support city technology colleges; they fought our proposals tooth and nail, as they did many of our other policies that have since been adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when responding to my noble friend Lord Baker, who had referred to the ballots on grant-maintained schools, retorted that not all of the people had been involved in those ballots. Today we have heard an absurd description of the balloting system for grammar schools. In some cases not all of the people will be involved in those ballots. I do not know how to describe it. It is incomprehensible and incredible that in one set of schools the parents of children aged 0 to five and parents of children aged 12 to 16 are disfranchised whereas in another set of schools parents of children aged 0 to 16 are enfranchised. What kind of system is that? There is no logic to it at all.
If the noble Lord believes that it is democratic and open of the Government to invite people to vote on whether they want selection to end in their authorities, what is wrong with giving people a vote on whether they would like selection to take place in their authorities?
One needs to ask some interesting and practical questions about ballots.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Can we be clear that the amendments relate to petitions, not ballots. There is plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to put down amendments on ballots.
Baroness Blatch: There are four amendments about petitioning. A petition invites people to vote for something. I am referring to the whole gamut of petitioning. I shall ask some practical questions.
On the collection of signatures—the point relates materially to some of my amendments—having been canvassed many times for my signature, my experience is that petitions can be undertaken in a highly civilised way and politely, with the purpose of the proposition explained painstakingly and a genuine effort made to persuade me to sign. Collections of signatures can also be deceptive. Perhaps I may give as an example an incident that happened to me involving some Labour activists in my area. They used to put up a couple of trestle tables in the market square each Saturday. They would collect signatures for many causes. On this occasion the cause was animal rights, and related to an animal experimental station in the area. I walked to the table for this reason. I had a son who, sadly, died when he was just short of 15. He was diabetic. His life had been saved by some of the experimentation on animals.
An elderly couple were ahead of me at the table. They were being asked to sign a petition on this basis: "Do you think that it is right to be kind to animals"? Of
1058
course the elderly couple both signed the petition; they thought it right, as would any good thinking person, to sign a petition saying that people should be kind to animals.
I asked the people whether they had read the motion on top of the petition paper; they had not. I invited them to do so. I also tried to tell those people that there needs to be a wider understanding of some of the arguments. They almost jumped over the table at me. One of them chased me up the high street and was abusive, because I had dared to try to introduce some integrity into the process of collecting signatures.
I make no apology for telling that story because I believe that the collecting of signatures can be a distasteful experience for some people. Many petition collectors can be aggressive and coercive. They can be economical with the explanations as to why people should sign a petition.
I wish to ask another practical question of whoever will respond to the debate. The verification procedures will be notoriously difficult. They always are. I have been involved in collecting signatures. Let us consider Kent, and the example that the noble Lord gave. Let us assume that the noble Lord's figures are correct. We are talking of 125,000 signatures. An authority has to decide whether the signature can be read, where the parents live, or whether they are bona fide parents of a child in a school in the area. There is a great deal of verification.
The schools do not have the resources to crawl over not one petition but many petitions. From the background papers on the debate, we know that one can have 50, 100 or 200 people collecting signatures. In the county of Kent it will not be difficult or take very long to collect 125 signatures if one can convince people. If one has several weeks and months in which to do so, one has only to have a few Saturday afternoons collecting signatures to reach that figure. Who will be in charge of the verification process? If the petition and ballot are successful, what financial help will be given to all the grammar schools which will cease to exist?
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, challenged one of my noble friends—I cannot remember whom—about the plethora of legislation over the past 18 years. Let me remind noble Lords of some of it. As regards setting up the inspectorate to inspect schools, noble Lords opposite are entirely happy with that. They were not so at the time, but they are now. The national curriculum was opposed vigorously at the time; it is now accepted that there has to be a national curriculum. Assessment and testing were opposed vigorously at the time; they are now accepted as a way of life. We have had mentioned city technology colleges. They were opposed tooth and nail but are now supported. On specialist schools, not only do noble Lords opposite support the principle, they are extending it.
On grant-maintained schools, noble Lords opposite "sort of" support the concept—it is another devious policy—but they are changing the names and the degree of autonomy. Local financial management was invented by my local authority when I was leader of that authority. Now noble Lords opposite are praising that policy to the hilt. I refer to the Teacher Training

1059
Agency, the publication of information to parents, and compulsory parents' evenings. That is legislation—there is a great deal more—which is now supported by noble Lords opposite.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The noble Baroness's last statement is not true. While some of the legislation has been accepted, much has not. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was on stability. It could be argued that grant-maintained schools and CTCs could be implemented, but with longer intervals. Anyone who visits schools or talks to teachers will find that they are sick to death of the chopping and changing over such a period. There has to be a timescale in which stability can be achieved. That was my point.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to make a distinction between the stability about which the noble Lord speaks and the stability to which we refer in this debate. The noble Lord should join me in visiting schools now. They are deeply unhappy about some of the changes now in train as a result of the Labour Government coming into office. There is a great deal of unsettled feeling in the schools. One has only to consider this Bill to see how much change is coming for local authorities and schools.
If the noble Lord can point me to any piece of legislation in the past 18 years which provided for a whole category of schools to cease to exist, with the parental preferences of all the parents who support the schools dashed to the ground in one fell swoop, I shall concede the point he makes.
Some schools will lose out in three ways. Some of the 160 schools will be grammar schools. That will be the subject of this measure. Some will also be grant-maintained schools, and they lose some autonomy. Some schools will have a distinctive religious character which, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the earlier answers, will be subject to the unelected organisation committees and all-powerful adjudicators. It is those people who will be asked for their signatures on a piece of paper in the market squares up and down the land.
Many of our children are suited to fast stream academic education. The policy of sending out people to collect signatures to destroy schools represents yet another rung out of the ladder for bright young people from low income families. Those people will not be able to choose to go to private schools. It is another way of pushing at least a percentage of these schools into the private sector. There is no doubt that instability will be created by the collection of signatures and the system of petitioning. This relentless war of attrition set up by noble Lords opposite will have a most damaging effect.
Finally, with the politics of envy, a cowardly method has been chosen as the mechanism for achieving this policy. Noble Lords opposite, headed by Mr. Blair, are presiding over a dumbing down of the whole country, of which that policy of petitioning and balloting against a category of schools which is producing some of the best education in our country is one further example.
1060
We will not call a vote on the matter today. We will definitely return to it. I promise the noble Lord that I will return to it. I hope that before I sit down the noble Lord can answer the specific questions I put to him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope to answer the specific questions which the noble Baroness put to me about petitions, because that is what the amendments are about. She described what seemed to me to be utterly deplorable petitions. I do not know whether she has read Part 2 of the draft regulations which were sent. They are flagged in Clause 100(3)(c). It states that the regulations may make provision,
"prescribing the form of any such petition and other requirements (whether as to the procedure to be followed or otherwise) which are to be complied with in relation to any such petition".
It is horrible language, but it is clear enough, is it not?
We have in the draft regulations petitions for ballots. We have regulations which specify who the petition should come from; to whom it should go; what the words should be; and what the form should be. The regulations, in paragraph 8(1)(2), spell out:
"We the undersigned, being eligible parents, seek a ballot on whether those local schools which select by academic ability should continue to do so".
There are definitions in the regulations about relevant parents and relevant population. There are definitions of the notification of the result of the petition. All the aspects which the noble Baroness raised against petitions, which she and her government never raised against other petitions, are spelt out clearly in the regulations. Petitions will be controlled not by the local education authorities themselves but by the ballot administration company which will be independent of the local education authorities.
In the course of the debate, we heard some very hard words indeed. We heard "deceit", we heard "duplicity" and we heard "cowardly". They were not unparliamentary because they were not addressed to individuals. But at the end of all this we will end up with a Bill which implements exactly what we said to the people of this country in our election manifesto. None of us—personally, individually or collectively—on these Benches is in the slightest degree ashamed of what we are doing. We are proud of it. And if I sometimes get cross it is because I feel so strongly. I raise my voice not in any sense of uncertainty. I apologise for raising my voice occasionally; I do not apologise for what I am saying.
Baroness Maddock: It may be an appropriate moment for me to take a couple of seconds to set the record straight. Today, I have been accused of various things and I have been misquoted. I made it clear that I was against selection. I did say that I thought the Government were a little duplicitous and we had a problem about that. I said that and I stand by it. I was accused of not being in favour of choice. I must make it clear that I and my colleagues are in favour of choice. We are in favour of maximum best choice for all, and not in favour of best choice for a few and a mediocre choice for many, which I explained clearly. I hope that

1061
later tonight we shall be able to debate the amendments rather than have interventions such as these. But I want to put the record straight about what I said.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with the noble Baroness about the policy of choice. Thousands of people—we are probably edging up towards 1 million—chose to send their children to grant-maintained schools. Many more thousands chose to send their children who qualified to selective grammar schools. Despite all the fine words we heard the other night from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the Government being in favour not only of sustaining parental choice but of enhancing it, that swathe of parental choice is about to be snuffed out. Thousands of parents across the country who send their children to grant-maintained schools will be given no opportunity to vote for the option being presented by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be proud of this day; I am certainly not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 233A is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 233AA through pre-emption.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233A:
Page 75, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—
("() requiring a request for a ballot under this section to be made by means of a petition signed by parents eligible to request and vote in the ballot;").
The noble Lord said: I trust that the temperature can be reduced slightly in respect of this group of amendments because we have had the principal arguments, the ideology, the philosophy, the politics and some of the mechanistic details of ballots and petitions. The group of amendments deals with whether the power should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations. The amendments do not deal with substantive issues. In doing so, they respond to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as regards the grammar school provisions of the Bill. The group also includes small government amendments giving schools the power to charge parents for copies of parental lists.
Within the group is Amendment No. 233KA, the Opposition amendment relating to affirmative resolutions. I shall also speak to the rest of the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 233B to 233M.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said about the grammar school provisions of the Bill:
"The House may wish to consider whether the most important issues of substance should be decided by Parliament and appear on the face of the Bill. These issues include the specifying of parents who will be eligible, the percentage of eligible parents who will have to petition against grammar schools to trigger a ballot and the nature of the majority needed in the ballot to bring about the change. The House may also consider that the first regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure".
The amendments follow the recommendations of the Committee. Your Lordships will recall that we have already discussed and agreed an amendment which will
1062
make the first regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments give effect to the remaining issues.
The approach we have taken is to spell out the details of eligible parents and petition thresholds in a new clause, which is covered by Amendment No. 233L, and say that the regulations must provide for these aspects to be handled in this manner. This means two things. First, there are a range of minor amendments removing now redundant pieces of Clause 100, and, secondly, a new clause states what the ballot regulations must contain.
The ballot result will be determined by a simple majority of those voting. Amendment No. 233M puts that into Clause 101. The details are as we explained in the note about the proposed approach to regulations made available in Committee in another place and sent to the Leaders of the two parties opposite before Second Reading.
Amendment No. 233C enables regulations to give power to the governing bodies of maintained schools or the proprietors of independent schools to make a charge for providing copies of parental lists in connection with petitions. That charge cannot, however, exceed the cost of supply. Amendment No. 233G spells out that expenses for providing information required under the regulations can be paid not only to school governing bodies, but also to proprietors of independent schools and to LEAs where they have incurred the expense.
It may help if I briefly explain the nature of the information requirements envisaged. Regulations made under Clause 100(3)(e) will require governing bodies to compile two lists of parents. The first, the electoral list, will include the names of all parents eligible to vote. This will be sent by the governors to the ballot administration company. However, while parents may wish to vote in the ballot, they may not wish to be approached by those campaigning for either side. For that reason, the governing body will also be required to produce a second list, called the parental list. This list will be similar to the electoral list but will not include the names and addresses of any parents who have requested that their details should not be made public.
The Bill already provides in Clause 100(11) that the Secretary of State can arrange for payments to be made to governing bodies in respect of expenses incurred in relation to obligations to provide information. We anticipate that this would cover the expense of writing to parents asking whether they are content for their names and addresses to be made public so that the parental list can be prepared. Amendment No. 233G recognises that LEAs and proprietors of independent schools may also have such expenses. These payments would be made through the ballot administration company.
Amendment No. 233C goes one small step further in ensuring that schools are not faced with new financial burdens as a result of their obligation to make parental lists available to parents who ask for them. The Government also intend that the charge to parents would cover only the costs incurred by the governing body, for example, the photocopying of a number of sheets.

1063
I should also emphasise that parents will be able to inspect the list free at the school. The charge applies only when they want to take a copy away. This approach of allowing schools to charge parents for copies is exactly the same approach as that adopted by the previous government in relation to GM ballots. Therefore, I do not think there should be any controversy here.
I should like to make a few comments on Amendment No. 233KA, tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. I am slightly surprised to see this proposal, which goes well beyond the recommendations of the scrutiny committee. The Government have already tabled an amendment in line with the delegated powers committee's recommendations to secure that a first set of regulations on grammar schools will be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Here, as elsewhere in the Bill, we have followed very clearly the recommendations of the committee.
This amendment would go much further than that. It would require not just the first but any subsequent recommendations in this area to be subject to affirmative resolutions. We do not see the justification for that. The regulations which we are bringing to the House for approval in due course will set out the detailed framework. That will take account of all comments received during the consultation process. That first set of regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution, as the committee recommended.
However, once the framework has been agreed, we cannot see that there will be wholesale changes to the mechanism. Any revisions to the regulations are likely to be fine tuning. Indeed, the government amendments we are discussing in this group which create the new clause on the face of the Bill will ensure that there cannot be drastic changes to the regulations thereafter. Therefore, we cannot see that later regulations, if there are any, need to be subject to affirmative resolution. I do not see that to take the unusual step which this amendment would suggest of going beyond the recommendations of the scrutiny committee would be justified in this case.
I ask the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Is there is a power to vary these provisions once they have been through the affirmative resolution procedure, and will they thereafter be subject to negative resolution? I give two examples which I believe may be covered: the threshold for petitions and the interregnum between ballots.
Lord Whitty: I think the noble Baroness is right that they could be varied, but that would still be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That hardly affects the principles and the framework that we are agreeing here.
Baroness Blatch: I hardly call that fine tuning. There is nothing to stop the Government in a year's time, if
1064
they find that 20 per cent. is too high, making it 10 per cent. So, if that is the case, I shall continue to press for the affirmative resolution. I shall not do it now but I shall certainly continue to press. That is not fine tuning. That is very substantial.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Speaking as a member of the scrutiny committee, I appreciate the way in which the recommendations of the Committee have been implemented. We thought that they were important. It is commendable that those recommendations have been implemented in the way the Minister has just identified.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Baroness in particular. My reaction on my feet was that she was correct. However, although she is correct in relation to the interval, she is not correct in relation to petitions. The threshold for petitions could not be altered by subsequent changes in regulations.
I understood that the noble Baroness was not pressing this point. Has the noble Baroness decided not to pursue the amendment?
Lady Blatch: On the basis of the answer, I am not comforted. I shall continue to press but I shall not be pressing it today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 233AA to 233AC not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233AD:
Page 75, line 45, after ("section,") insert—
("() compile and publish, before a petition is initiated and at least six months before any ballot takes place, a list of all eligible parents:").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is by way of seeking more information from the Government. I have simply put this down because I believe that the sooner one sees the register of eligible parents, the better.
It will be impossible to know when anybody starts a petition. We understand that there is some pre-petition collecting activity taking place at the moment. If the noble Lord does not know about that, I can tell him that that is the case. The moment this Bill has Royal Assent, there will be people preparing to canvass for signatures and to collect them. To be a registered person, anyone signing the petition must comply with the requirements of the regulations. Consistent with my amendment, I should like a list printed well in advance of the ballot taking place. I should also like to know from the Government when, in the course of this process, they intend to ensure that a list of eligible parents is made available. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: This amendment would require that a list of all eligible parents should be published in advance of any petition, and at least six months in advance of any ballot.
This proposal in unacceptable for several reasons. The proposal to require publication of the names of all eligible parents is rather odd. That is not what happened in grant maintained ballots. In grant maintained ballots,

1065
the previous government provided specifically that parents must be given the opportunity to have their names removed from any list of names before it was published. That, 1 think, was the right approach.
There are confidentiality issues here. Parents may not want their names published. Of course, the ballot administration company must have the full list of parents so that all eligible parents will be able to vote. But that list is not published. It is only used by the ballot administration company for the purposes of checking petitions and sending out ballot papers.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, by contrast, requires publication. It would be quite wrong to be publishing full lists of names against the wishes of all the parents concerned. There are also practical objections to what the amendment would require. In a whole LEA ballot, some parents will be able to register for a vote where they are not already on the lists of relevant schools. But many parents probably will not seek to register until the petition is started, or a ballot is declared. So their names will not be known as early as the amendment requires. Then there is the further point that children join schools every term in many primary schools. Many primary schools have an entry in September, January and April. So it is quite likely that the electoral list published so far in advance would be substantially out of date by the time the ballot happened.
Finally, that would represent a quite unnecessary additional burden for the schools involved, because it would require them to collect up information before it is needed. There might never be a petition is some areas. So all this information would have been published unnecessarily.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I think that the answers given by the noble Baroness are rather unsatisfactory. As I understand it, the ballot company will maintain a list of those who are eligible to vote, and that, therefore, will exist. Normally in an election, particularly in an election which affects the fate of a considerable number of people—parents sending their children to a grammar school or parents who are not sending their children to a grammar school—should be able to see who is entitled to vote.
We are used to this principle in our country. We have electoral lists. Where there are other elections throughout our society, in trade unions, for example, there are electoral lists. People know exactly who is entitled to vote. As people will be campaigning for one side or another, they should at least know who they should be campaigning towards and to whom they should be addressing their letters and pamphlets. I really do not believe that the answers which the Minister has given are very convincing. I would ask her to look again at that matter before Report stage.
It is possible to bring the lists up to date. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the names of parents of children coming from primary schools would have to be added to the list but it is possible to do that. It is
1066
known who the parents are because the children are attending primary schools. It is possible to add those names to the list. If there are to be those fancy franchises, which the Government seem set upon, the very least that can be done is to publish the names of the people who are entitled to vote in those fancy franchises.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may ask for some clarification from the noble Baroness. Subsection (1)(c) of Amendment No. 233L provides that the Government can prescribe the parents of children of any description. Am I wrong? If I am right, if they wanted to force through a vote in a ballot, the Government could prescribe all the parents of children who do not go to grammar schools or they could prescribe all the parents who voted for the Labour Party in the last election. Is there any restriction?
The other point is that Amendment No. 233M refers at the end to the grammar school "ceasing". In an earlier discussion on an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, we gained the impression that schools would continue as religious schools and that they would not actually cease. Perhaps that point could be clarified.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. As I said earlier, there are confidentiality issues in this regard. Not all parents want to have their names published in the way that the noble Lord suggests. I remind the noble Lord that under the grant-maintained ballot system, parents, rightly in my view, were given the opportunity to have their names removed from the list before it was published.
This suggestion is impractical for the reasons that I have given. Parents may seek not to register until the petition is started or a ballot is declared. It is perfectly reasonable that they should delay registering until that happens. There is the further point that children join schools every term. That would make that proposal quite impractical.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the amendment that has just been agreed to makes it clear who can vote. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: What did the noble Baroness mean by delaying registration until a ballot has happened?
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, under the regulations, parents will not have to register until either a petition is started or a ballot is declared. That is the point that I am making.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness used the word "happened". When a ballot has happened, it has happened. There is not a lot of point in registering afterwards.
My noble friend Lord Baker raised some important points. Of course there must be a facility for removing the names of those parents who do not wish their names to be published. In fact, that facility was made available

1067
in relation to the GM ballots. It is interesting that very few people took advantage of that provision. Nevertheless, it exists and it protects confidentiality. But then the ballot lists were published and parents could have copies of the lists. In fact, the schools were obliged to give sight of the lists to those who wished to see them.
A very important point is that the grammar schools will have their hands tied behind their backs. They cannot campaign. They cannot fight their corner for the survival of their school. Now they cannot even see the list of people who will be voting against them in order to communicate with them. We have heard that they will be allowed to communicate fundamental, basic information so long as it is information and it is factual. How on earth can that be done if the schools do not know who is on the lists? It seems to me extraordinary.
The petition must represent at least 20 per cent. of the eligible electorate. Therefore, the electorate needs to be known and specific numbers need to be known. Somebody will need to know when the 20 per cent. is reached. When you are collecting signatures, you need to know if somebody is on the registered list. People will ask whether they are on the list. Just as there is an electoral list for main elections, there needs to be a list against which checks can be made. It seems to me that an extraordinary policy of secrecy is being established under those rules.
The answers that we have had from the noble Baroness to the points that have been made in this short debate are extremely unsatisfactory. That means that we must return to this matter. It may well be that some of the formalities and procedural points are covered in regulations, but the practical aspects are not covered. We see enormous practical difficulties in delivering these petitions in a way that is open and informative. It seems to me that all the key people in this process—in particular the grammar schools, staff, parents and those who are anxious to retain the existence of grammar schools—are placed at a serious disadvantage if they cannot have sight of the registered lists.
Baroness Blackstone: The ballot company will assemble the list of eligible parents only after there is reason to believe that a petition is being organised. Of course there will be full lists and parents will be able to obtain the parental lists, excluding those who wish their names to be removed. All that information will be available but at the right time, not six weeks before the ballot takes place, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Perhaps the Minister will reflect on this matter before Report stage. I assume that when the lists are published the names of parents who die between registration and the ballot will be removed.
1068
What about parents who split up and the custody of the child is transferred to one of the parents? Will the names of those parents be struck off?
Baroness Blackstone: Both parents are entitled to vote. If parents separate, that will not affect their position.
Baroness Blatch: From my reading of the papers, I should tell my noble friend that I believe some children will have up to six parental votes. That may be their original parents, divorced parents and also guardians in situ at the time of registration. Therefore there is scope for a large number of signatures on the paper.
The noble Baroness is now being inconsistent. She has said that the register will be drawn up by the balloting company and that parents will be able to see it. They can see it only if it is published. My understanding is that there must be a registered list. Those who seek confidentiality can have their names removed. The list should then be made public.
I said at the outset that I tabled this amendment quite specifically so that we could have a debate and find out from the Government at what point they believe this list should be available. If it is not available until the ballot is about to take place—in other words, the petitioning has taken place—then it is too late for the schools concerned to communicate with those on the list in order to provide factual information about those schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Parents can register for up to four weeks after the balloting company gives notification that the petition is declared valid. But the register will close six weeks before the ballot date. I hope that is helpful because I am trying to be helpful in explaining the system. This amendment asks that there should be a list of all eligible parents published in advance of any petition and at least six months in advance of any ballot. I am merely saying that that is quite impractical.
Baroness Blatch: I thought I had made it clear that my amendment is a mechanism for having a debate. I said that right at the outset. I am trying to find out the position. The noble Baroness now seems to be saying that the register will not be available for the grammar schools which are the subject of the ballot to peruse and to check so that they can communicate with the people on it during the time of the petition. We just want to know from the Minister at what time the balloting company will publish this list for public information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but, in doing so, I must express the hope that the Minister will do as my noble friend said; namely, reflect on some of the answers that have been given to this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233AE not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233C:
Page 76, line 11, at end insert—

1069
("() authorising any such bodies or persons to charge a fee (not exceeding the cost of supply) for documents supplied by them in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e)(i);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233CA:
Page 76, line 14, at end insert—
("() prescribing that a ballot shall only be successful if a majority of eligible parents support the abolition of selective admissions arrangements in the school or schools concerned;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233EA, 233N and 233P. The Minister will be pleased to know that I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been expressed. Indeed, they are on the record; they are heartfelt; and we shall return to them at the next stage. The particular point that I should like to make about these amendments is that a ballot should be successful only if a majority of the eligible electorate is reached, and that the moratorium should be 15 years and not the five years set out in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 233N and 233P would simply rearrange Clause 101(1) to reflect the wording set out within them.
I said earlier that the life of a child in a grammar school can be about eight years. It means that this very disruptive process could happen twice in the single passage of one child through a school. I believe that that is unacceptable. We should at least allow for two generations of children to go through between ballots. The argument in that respect is overwhelming. If the Minister does not accept that, I shall return to the phrase that I have used before; namely, that what we have here represents a relentless war of attrition on these schools. It would be seriously bad. It would certainly be educationally and socially bad and highly disruptive, especially in an area where there are many grammar schools, if the ballot time after time were not successful. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. At least the noble Baroness does not go as far in these amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, did with his procedures for ballots on grant-maintained schools. The noble Lord counted all abstentions as being votes for GM status and required that a majority of those eligible to vote had to vote for the status quo, so as to have no change. Clearly neither of those suggestions is acceptable. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that all of our political traditions are based on a majority of those present voting. That is what is proposed here and that is what we shall stick to.
I was interested to hear what the Baroness said about the moratorium. There is nothing magical about five years or, indeed, 15 years. I am not claiming that there is. However, has the noble Baroness really thought about the period of 15 years? A moratorium of 15 years would mean that some parents who would otherwise be enfranchised would never get the opportunity to express an opinion. Indeed, that effectively removes the notion that parents will decide the future of grammar schools for long periods of time.
1070
The Government believe that the five-year moratorium proposed in the draft regulations—and, of course, they are draft regulations—strikes the best balance between offering a period of stability for the grammar school while, at the same time, still allowing local parents the opportunity to express an opinion. The noble Baroness has already indicated her intention to withdraw these amendments. I am grateful to her for that.
Baroness Blatch: I do not remember saying that I would withdraw my amendments. I do not know what the noble Lord was listening to, but I do not actually remember saying that. The noble Lord has trotted out yet again the red herring of grant-maintained schools. However, I make a very fundamental distinction in that respect. The people of those schools were voting for the future of those schools. They were not voting for their closure in any sense. The nature of the school would continue. They were just voting for more autonomy to take control of their own affairs. That is a very different matter from a ballot which takes place to remove a whole swathe of schools from an area, and one which does not even confine the vote to the parents of children in those schools. We have a bizarre balloting system now being spelt out to us by the noble Lord, which I find wholly indefensible. I am not impressed with the response to the main premise of my amendment; namely, that there should be a moratorium which is longer than five years.
I shall conclude with one question to the Minister. Does the noble Lord really believe that it is a good thing to have a year-long frenzied activity of petitioning against the existence of a large number of schools in an LEA, running a ballot and possibly losing it? Indeed, one would perhaps catch 124,000 signatures instead of 125,000 and then, a few months later, the whole process would start all over again—getting 124,000 signatures, and so on. Then, a year later, there would be another frenzied year of such activity which would go on and on until the ballot was triggered. Of course, if it were not successful, the whole rigmarole would start all over again. Is the Minister really saying that that is an acceptable system to advocate in legislation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In a debate on an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness and a number of her noble friends described these people as being bigoted. I accept that it is quite possible that they would not only be bigoted but that they would also be so zealous that they would go on not accepting the failure of a petition or the rejection of a ballot. I think that this is fantasy. Indeed, the reality will be quite different. We will very readily see at one time whether there is a significant minority of parents—that is 20 per cent. of eligible parents—who want the question to be raised.
If there is a significant minority of parents —and it is a very significant minority and a very high threshold to achieve—there will be a ballot, followed by a five-year moratorium if the ballot fails, as to whether or not selection should be ended. That is democracy. I do not know whether the noble Baroness or anyone else wants to say more about deceit, duplicity and cowardice, but the real point behind the arguments that have been advanced is that they want grammar schools to continue

1071
at all costs and they are opposed to any moves to end selection. If that is so, why do they not table amendments to that effect?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I thought that we had got rid of all this and that we were not going to have any more heat. The Minister has just said that our concerns are simply fantasy; that what we fear will not happen; and that we will readily see whether or not there is a 20 per cent. minority of parents who want the question to be raised. If there is such a minority, then we will proceed to the ballot and the moratorium will take place. In other words, if there is no such minority, everyone will say, "That's it", and go home. I do not know what the noble Lord bases all that on. The scenario put forward by my noble friend is entirely foreseeable. Indeed, it is something which worries many of us. Upon what basis does the noble Lord say that that will not happen and that it is all fantasy?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord does not respond. We are witnessing the contempt that the noble Lord has not for so many things but the contempt that he has for the parents who are deeply anxious about this policy. They are looking for fairness in these proposals. The fact that the Minister does not rise to respond to my noble and learned friend only illustrates the contempt that he has for our suggestions.
In responding to me, the noble Lord kept referring to the 20 per cent. minority. We are talking about the situation which may arise when that fails. It is not a five-year moratorium for the parents; it is a five-year moratorium before the ballot can take place. However, the frenzied activity that goes with it and which precedes the ballot, where the signatures are collected, the campaigning starts and the vitriol flies, will happen well inside that five years. The noble Lord is in effect saying, "I don't care. Let's get rid of these schools at all costs." I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233B:
Page 76, leave out line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233BA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233D:
Page 76, leave out lines 23 to 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233E:
Page 76, line 28, leave out ("to be required").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233EA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233EB:
Page 77, line 10, leave out from ("authority.") to end of line 17.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns campaigning. I can almost predict what the noble Lord is going to say to this amendment. The all mighty, powerful LEA has resources at its disposal and certainly used them at the time grant-maintained schools were proposed and governing bodies and parents initiated their establishment. As my noble friend Lady Young said much earlier today, the experience was distressing for many because of the activities of local education authorities. Eventually, they and grant-maintained schools were barred in legislation from campaigning in a certain way. They were restricted to supplying information in their campaigning.
I have made the following distinction a number of times. When we discussed the establishment of grant-maintained schools we were talking of schools simply gaining more autonomy for running their own affairs. It was not a matter of schools voting for their demise or parents voting for the demise of some other schools, as we are discussing at present. If, as a result of petitioning and balloting, a whole category of schools ceases to exist, those schools must be permitted to fight their corner. I have tabled this amendment as it seeks to remove the restriction on a school at least to put its case before the public. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): I must inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 233F.
Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Baroness said, this amendment seeks to remove schools from the coverage of the subsection which is designed to prevent lobbying and campaigning by the main parties during the ballot process. However, it is interesting that the amendment does not seek to remove LEAs. Although I am prepared to accept that there is a case for looking again at subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 100, this amendment would go too far. I shall therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment with an assurance that the Government are considering the wider issues further. We shall come back at Report stage with further amendments.
The core purpose of Clause 100(9) is to ensure that public money is not misused to support lobbying and campaigning by the main parties in a ballot. I am sure that the noble Baroness would support that purpose. Whatever view individual Members of the Committee may have about grammar schools and ballots, I suspect that this is something on which we can all agree. During any petition and ballot process we want to ensure first of all that information is balanced, fair and objective; secondly, that parents are not subjected to campaigning or information which is misleading, biased or in any way distorted; and, thirdly, that neither the LEA nor the governing body of a school—this must apply to the governing body of a school as well as the LEA—should use taxpayers' money, allocated for the purpose of providing education, to fund expensive lobbying campaigns. That was our starting point.
I stress that we believe the measure should apply to both LEAs and governing bodies. That is why we cannot accept the amendment as drafted because it would give

1073
governing bodies carte blanche to spend whatever they chose from their school budgets on campaigning. Arguments have been put that the provisions of Clause 100 go too far. Some have even alleged that they breach the European Convention on Human Rights. As I said at the outset, we are prepared to look again at the matter. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Baroness sits down, a number of funds exist within schools which have nothing to do with the local authority and do not comprise public money either. I refer to parent association funds and money of that kind. If a governing body does not use public funds, can it then campaign on behalf of its school? I ask for information. It is not terribly clear who can do what. Will political parties who also fund their own campaigns be allowed to campaign in this area, as I am sure they will in a county such as Kent where the whole of the education system is in dispute and there is talk of a ballot with 250,000 potential voters? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance on that point?
Baroness Blackstone: I think it would be quite wrong for money that has been collected by a parents' association in order to fund certain kinds of activities to be spent on expensive campaigning. I should have thought parents would not want that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: With all due respect, that money is at the disposal of the parents' association. Do not get me wrong. I am not in favour of grammar schools, but it is their money and they may dispose of it as they wish.
Baroness Blatch: I add to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. If parents collect money for a governing body to use specifically for this purpose, will that be permitted?
Baroness Blackstone: I suppose that if parents collect money specifically to be used for this purpose, that is up to them. We need to give more thought to the issue. That is why, as I said, we shall return at Report stage with further amendments. It is a tricky and difficult area. I accept it could be argued that if parents wish to collect money for this purpose, it can be used for that purpose. On the other hand, I also think it would be wrong for huge amounts of money to be spent on a campaign of this kind.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I see that help came from the Box just at the right time. I hope that in the noble Baroness's further reflections she will appreciate that there is a difference between the role of the local education authority and that of a school which could be a victim of a ballot. A local education authority should be impartial in these matters. It should not have a view as to whether selection is a good or bad thing. That is a matter for the electorate. However, if a grammar school is obviously under threat, surely its hands should
1074
not be tied in its campaigning. Surely it should be allowed to campaign. Why is the Minister worried about this? She is worried about public money being spent on campaigning. However, a limit could be placed on the amount of public money to be spent in this way. If the very existence of a school is under threat, surely one of the duties of the governing body is to put the case to the electorate, provided that a list of the electorate is published. Schools must be allowed to act in that way. I do not see why they should not be allocated a modest amount of money to do so.
After all, in our country we do not have a tradition of spending lavish sums on campaigning. All Members of the House of Commons have restricted budgets for campaigning. I do not see why the schools that are under threat should not be given modest budgets to enable them to put their case before the electorate. What is wrong with that? That is surely part of the democracy of new Labour.
Baroness Blackstone: I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has said. This is exactly the kind of issue that we are considering. We shall note his remarks. On Report, we shall return with amendments to deal with these issues.
Baroness Blatch: I am partly encouraged that thinking is still going on in the department. The words of the Bill are:
"otherwise incur any expenditure, or give assistance, for the purpose of influencing the outcome".
In response to my question as to whether parents could quite specifically raise money, quite specifically for this purpose, and give it to the governing body to spend on their behalf to save the very existence of a school, the noble Baroness said that she supposed they could do that. She then went on to offer the criticism that they might be wasting their money.
The truth is that, under the Bill as it presently stands, that would not be allowed. I hope that that point will be taken on board by the noble Baroness in any further thinking. I also hope that the noble Baroness will give us sight of the amendment ahead of Report stage. If an amendment is not forthcoming, that will be rather late for us to table one ourselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 233F to 233K:
Page 77, line 11, leave out ("maintained school within the meaning of section 99") and insert ("school maintained by a local education authority").
Page 77, line 19, leave out ("the governing body of a school") and insert—

("(a) the governing body of a school maintained by a local education authority,

(b) the proprietor of an independent school, or

(c) a local education authority,").

Page 77, line 20, leave out ("upon it").
Page 77, line 23, at end insert—

1075
("() For the purposes of this section and section (Ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request and vote in ballot), in their application in relation to any time falling before the appointed day, a grant-maintained school or a grant-maintained special school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996 shall be taken—

(a) to be a school maintained by a local education authority, and

(b) to be maintained by the authority in whose area it is situated.").

Page 77, line 24, after ("section") insert ("and section (Ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request and vote in ballot)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233KA not moved.]
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233L:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause——

BALLOT REGULATIONS: ELIGIBILITY OF PARENTS TO REQUEST AND VOTE IN BALLOT
(".—(1) In relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(a), ballot regulations shall provide that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, the parents eligible to request and vote in the ballot are—

(a) registered parents of registered pupils at the following schools, namely—

(i) where the ballot relates to all grammar schools within the area of a prescribed local education authority, all schools maintained by that authority; or

(ii) where the ballot relates to all grammar schools within a prescribed area, all schools maintained by a local education authority which are situated in such area as may be prescribed, together with (if the regulations so provide) all schools maintained by such local education authority as may be prescribed;

(b) registered parents of registered pupils at independent schools where—

(i) such parents are resident, and

(ii) the schools are situated,

within the area of the prescribed local education authority or (as the case may be) the prescribed area; and

(c) parents of children of a prescribed description where such parents—

(i) are resident within the area of the prescribed local education authority or (as the case may be) the prescribed area, and

(ii) have registered with the designated body in accordance with section 100(4)(b).

(2) In relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(b) or (c), ballot regulations shall provide that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, the parents eligible to request and vote in the ballot are parents of registered pupils at any school from which a prescribed number of pupils have transferred to the grammar school or schools in question—

(a) at such age or ages, and

(b) during such period,

as may be determined in accordance with the regulations; and such regulations may provide that where, within that period, any such grammar school has been established in substitution for another school, the schools are to be treated as a single school for the purposes of determining eligibility.
(3) Ballot regulations shall provide—

(a) in relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(a), that a request for such a ballot must be made by a number of eligible parents equal to at least 20 per cent. of all parents falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above; and

(b) in relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(b) or (c), that a request for such a ballot must be made by at least 20 per cent. of all parents falling within subsection (2) above.

(4) Ballot regulations may provide for a parent's eligibility for the purposes of—

(a) making a request for a ballot,

(b) voting in a ballot, or

(c) determining the number of parents required to make a request by virtue of subsection (3),

to be determined by reference to such different times as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.
(5) Ballot regulations may make provision for determining whether parents are resident in an area for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Implementation of decision that school should cease to have selective admission arrangements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233M:
Page 77, line 27, leave out ("was to the effect that one or more grammar schools should cease") and insert ("shows a simple majority of votes cast (by persons eligible to vote in the ballot) in favour of the grammar school or schools to which the ballot related ceasing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 233N and 233P not moved.]
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Proposals by governing body of grammar school to end selective admission arrangements]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 233Q:
Page 78, line 3, at end insert—
("() Any revision of the admission arrangements of a school under this section shall be subject to a ballot of parents.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief and direct. This clause sets forward proposals to allow a governing body to end selection. Our amendment proposes that members of a governing body should not have that power on their own, but that parents of children at the school should also have an influence on the decision. They should be balloted. The reason for that has already emerged in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke about a situation in Marylebone, about which I remember reading, where the governing body changed quickly.
Given the nature of a governing body—with people from the LEA, parent governors and co-opted governors—there is always a possibility that a small clique on the governing body can have an influence over the policy of a school. Anyone who has been concerned with education will know that the balances that are meant to exist in a governing body do not always work.
So this is a belt and braces amendment. In a case where a governing body did not continue to have the trust of parents to make a drastic change in the arrangements for the school, it would not be allowed to do so; the parents would have a say. I suggest that it is a reasonable amendment, well within the spirit of the

1077
democracy espoused by noble Lords opposite. There is nothing duplicitous or deceitful about it. It is a nice amendment. I commend to the Committee.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The suggestion is that this is a nice amendment. The noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that I do not agree. It is about the alternative route to change for grammar schools. If a governing body wishes the admissions arrangements to be non-selective, then this clause makes it possible for that to be so. The noble Lord said that small cliques on governing bodies can alter the course of what might happen. I have been a governor in the past for a number of years in various kinds of schools, and that has not been my experience.
Amendment No. 233Q puts an inappropriate obstacle in the path of the governing body which wants to publish proposals to end selection. It would required a grammar school to ballot parents before publishing proposals under Clause 102 to remove selection. However, under the statutory proposal system—both now and in the future—those who publish proposals have a duty to consult interested parties before doing so. Grammar schools would therefore be expected to include parents in their consultation before publishing proposals to remove selection. So the substance of what the amendment seeks will already be built into the procedures. If parents do not like what the governing body is proposing, they will be able to object—as I am sure they will—and those objections will be considered by the school organisation committee.
The purpose of Clause 102 is to allow a grammar school to publish non-selective proposals if the school wishes. That is as it should be. Most grammar schools already have this power under the current statutory proposals procedure. Clause 102 simple extends it to those grammar schools where currently only the LEA could publish proposals to remove selection. Regulations will make it clear that, if parents have triggered a ballot, that would take precedence over non-selective proposals which had not yet been decided. I hope that is helpful.
To reiterate, under the statutory proposal procedure, parents will be able to make their views clearly heard—through consultation. They can also, if necessary, lodge objections to proposals. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: This Bill introduces all the fevered atmosphere of ballots. Any arrangements by governing bodies would be made in that atmosphere. I am afraid that the weaker method represented by consultation is not very appealing to us. There should be on the face of the Bill a right for parents to be balloted. I am therefore afraid that I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
7.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 233Q) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Annaly, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Belstead, L.

Milverton, L.

Blatch, B.

Norrie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Northbourne, L.

Burnham, L.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Norton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Palmer, L.

Cranborne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Haslam, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Inglewood, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Jopling, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Liverpool, E.

Wharton, B.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Berkeley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Levy, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Maddock, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gilbert, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardie, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

Hayman, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

1079

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whaddon, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winston, L.

Tope, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.25 p.m.
Clause 102 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 234 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 234A:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—

PROPOSALS BY GOVERNING BODY OF MAINTAINED SCHOOL TO INTRODUCE SELECTIVE ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
(" . Section 102 applies, with such amendments as may be necessary, for enabling the admission arrangements of a maintained school which is not a grammar school to be revised so that it has selective admission arrangements, either wholly or in part.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill introduces the concept of open plebiscite-type democracy over the future of selective schools. If we are changing a system of education which, at least in some parts of the country, has existed with the support of the democratically elected council for the best part of 50 years, and in some cases for the best part of 96 years, it seems only fitting that, where schools want it, they should have the opportunity to move to a selective system if they so wish. If that is not to be allowed, it looks as though this Bill is ideologically motivated. Schools are allowed to change one way but not to change the other way. The amendment provides that the governing body could apply for selective admission. In view of what I said with regard to the previous amendment and the doubts that I expressed about the governing body, I would be happy that parents should be consulted in whatever way possible. What is allowed for one should be allowed for another, otherwise it is not always—dare I use the word—fair. I hope that, to escape the accusation of being ideologically motivated, the Government will accept this amendment. As I say, if the Government accept it, I am prepared to include parents in the decision-making. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have already read out what our manifesto said. We are absolutely clear on this point: we are opposed to any extension of selection which makes a distinction between those who are successful and those who are not successful at far too early an age, the age of 11. Amendment No. 234A would allow further selection. It would allow new grammar schools to be created. It is at complete odds with the Government's firmly stated policy on the future of grammar schools and partial selection.
We made clear in our manifesto that there would be no return to the 11-plus. We also made clear that we would rule out new partial selection, apart from the permitted forms of partial selection provided for under
1080
Clauses 95 to 97 of the Bill. Yet this amendment would allow schools to introduce admission arrangements which are partially selective. The new clause proposed under Amendment No. 234A drives a coach and horses through our policies on selection and partial selection. It is clearly a wrecking amendment. It would completely overturn the effect of our earlier provisions on partial selection and grammar schools.
The noble Lord claims that the grammar school provisions are one-way. We made it absolutely clear in our manifesto, as I read it out, that there would be no return to the 11-plus. It was on that basis that the people of this country returned a Labour Government.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am delighted that the noble Lord has additions to his party. I hope that the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches remember what happened to them when they last entered into a close alliance with the Labour Party: they were swallowed, and barely the bones survived.
On the one side, the Government want a monochrome system and, on the other side, they say they want to give choice. There is an element of ambiguity in the Government's plans in that they will allow selection where pupils show special ability in certain subjects. I do not want to repeat all the arguments with regard to aptitude or ability. If there is to be a special case for those with special aptitude or ability in certain subjects, there will be a form of selection, since some pupils do not have that aptitude or ability. We cannot avoid that fact. In the end, when we want to raise standards in education, we will have to have some form of selection, and the noble Lord's colleague, Mr. Byers, realised that. It will be selection by stealth. But as I said to the noble Baroness earlier, even 2 per cent. movement is better than none.
I believe that in essence the Government are pragmatic. Whichever way we view them—the wolf or the sheep—they are wearing the animal's clothing and some of it is not too bad. I expected the answer I received. I shall delight when I see the Government introducing selection in a veiled form. Be assured that I shall congratulate noble Lords opposite on that occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
House resumed.

Lomé Convention and the Caribbean
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the European Commission's negotiating directive for a post-Lomé agreement, with particular regard to the Caribbean.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this short debate concerns technical issues. But, should anything go wrong, the consequence would be political and quite possibly extremely dangerous. The issues are urgent for the small states of the Caribbean. Negotiations are proceeding rapidly and I fear that the implications of the outcome have not always been thought through. The collapse of even one small island would threaten the stability of the whole region.
I have said before and make no apology for repeating that small islands can and have created a disproportionate amount of difficulty and concern. We need only to think of the Falklands, Grenada and, last year, Montserrat. We have been warned. I believe this debate to be of great importance to the Caribbean region generally.
In September negotiations will begin between the European Union and the African Caribbean Pacific states on a successor arrangement to Lome IV. The European Commission produced a draft negotiating directive for the European Union which was considered in its final form by the Development Council of the European Union two days ago. The ACP has been working on its position, which is expected shortly. I shall return to that point.
This evening I want to bring to the attention of the House during the remaining days of our presidency of the EU some of the serious reservations that the ACP has in relation to the EU proposals and to press the Government to ensure that those concerns are reflected in an appropriate amendment to the EU's draft negotiating directive. I do so with specific reference to the Caribbean. I continue to be actively involved as president of the West India Committee.
There are three aspects of ACP concern. The first is the Commission's desire to create political and economic conditionalities in a new arrangement; the second is the way in which the Commission's proposals might result in the break-up of the ACP as a unique group of developing nations; and the third is the proposals being put forward for new trade arrangements after the years 2000 and 2005. It is the third concern on which I wish to concentrate; it is both complex and divisive.
In outline, the EU is proposing for the latter part of this year to the year 2000 discussion on general, political and economic principles, the roll-over of the existing Lomé trade position to the year 2005 and negotiation between 2000 and 2005 of new post-2005 trade arrangements either within the context of the Europe region-specific free trade areas or within the context of some yet to be defined new version of the generalised scheme of preferences.
To explain further, the EU is suggesting that a new post-2000 arrangement will promote partnership. But the trade proposals, if implemented as presently drafted, are likely to create divisions in organisations such as Caricom, as Caricom is seeking to complete the difficult process of economic integration in the Caribbean. So much so that if the EU's draft mandate is not modified, it will require each state to select by level of development an option for a relationship with Europe that suits best its economic circumstances rather than the regional grouping in which they find themselves at the present time.
In the Caribbean every economy is different. Haiti's per capita GDP in 1995 was 229 US dollars; Trinidad's was 4,369 US dollars, and the tiny Cayman Islands a staggering 28,300 US dollars. National economic objectives therefore are likely to be at great variance leading to negotiations about negotiations as each nation has to determine its own priorities. To complicate matters, other negotiations such as those for entry into the free trade area of the Americas will also have to be taken into account.
The proposals do not recognise the specific problems that will arise in the context of the existing protocols—the protocols on sugar, bananas, rum and rice. While the sugar industry is a protocol of unlimited duration, the banana industry's access is still subject to discussion in the context of the Commission's new compromise proposals. We are well aware of the difficulties that the loss of bananas would create for the Caribbean. It is to be profoundly hoped that the new protocols will be agreed and continue well past the date of 2010.
The Caribbean rum industry finds that it has had most of its post-Lomé arrangements negotiated away by the EU and the US in an agreement on white spirits signed early in 1997. That is to say nothing of the problems facing the Caribbean rice industry, which seeks a new and transparent arrangement to be put in place from the year 2000 which will give that industry significant quotas for exporting rice to Europe directly rather than by using artificial trade mechanisms aimed, I suppose, at supporting Dutch overseas territories.
The General Affairs Council met on 8th June to consider the EU's draft negotiating directive. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is to reply, whether he can outline the decisions reached and, in particular, whether member states were able to agree a more flexible approach towards free trade arrangements, taking into account the particular vulnerability of small states and the need for the longest possible transition period after 2005.
It would also be helpful to know what discussions took place on the future of the commodity protocols contained in Lomé IV and whether member states sought a terminal date for those vital commodity arrangements. The sugar, banana and rum protocols are all vital to the economic survival of the Caribbean. While the sugar protocol is of definite duration and can stand alone as a commercial arrangement, there will be a need for a sugar protocol and any new banana protocol to be able to withstand any WTO challenge if they do not have the protection of a long life within a successor arrangement.
I was pleased to see the recommendation of the report of the International Development Committee of the House of Commons published on 2nd June that proper consideration be given by Government and the EU to the vulnerability of the least developed ACP states and its suggestion that the final version of the negotiation mandate should contain specific assurances on that matter.
Time does not allow for all the points I should like to make. Britain enjoys a special relationship with almost all the countries of the ACP. Many are linked intimately to the United Kingdom through history, and are members of the Commonwealth and important trading partners. The implications of the present approach being taken by the European Union are that over time those nations will cease to be special. They will be just small economies, cast adrift and subject to, and even possibly drowned by, the strong tides of international trade. It sometimes seems that the EU and the US are both involved in a neck and neck race in almost every part of the world to achieve a trade advantage at any cost. While this may be a logical approach when faced with economic globalisation, it is unlikely to do anything to support the interests of small and vulnerable states such as those in the Caribbean. Policy driven by the need to obtain trade advantage is a process in which there is little equity for small vulnerable states which need time to establish more viable and diverse economies.
Britain has much experience of diversification and setting out to help small countries. The ACP is presently deeply unhappy, and with some justification, about the negotiating directive that the European Commission has put forward. While the ACP will be making its own counter-proposals, it is desirable that the EU itself recognises that unless its proposed negotiating strategy is flexible, offering in September this year—in only two months' time—an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the EU/ACP relationship on an ACP-wide basis and allowing for the longest possible period of adjustment in trade, Britain will have presided over the demise of its own special relationship with much of the developing world.
Speaking in Barbados, Prime Minister Arthur made it clear that the ACP cannot negotiate unless it agrees with the EU what they are to negotiate about. I should add that he was deeply concerned at the conditionalities which had been attached to some of the protocols. As he pointed out, Caribbean small states have been democracies for very many years; indeed, far longer than some countries in the EU. Britain has the unique opportunity, as President of the EU, to guide our EU partners to make the negotiating directive flexible, pragmatic and less prescriptive. Let me urge the Government to encourage the amendments necessary to achieve this. It is not only in the interests of the ACP; it is in the particular interests of the small states of the Caribbean where we have great obligations and strong ties of history. Those states look to us for help and support. I hope that the Government will view all this in a positive light.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing, with her characteristic vigour and incisiveness, this important debate. She was quite right to emphasise the enduring and important relationship between us and many ACP countries, and in particular some of those of the Caribbean.
In the time available I want simply to reinforce some of the points which she made. I hope I will be forgiven if I do so by posing what I see as five mutually reinforcing questions. First, has the European Union fully considered the inevitable impact on the Caribbean if the banana regime collapses? Mass unemployment, rising deprivation and poverty, social unrest and an increase in drug production are all predictable. How exactly would the European Union respond to a crisis of this magnitude in the region?
Secondly, in view of all these dangers, will the European Union therefore seize the opportunity of the renegotiation of the Lomé agreement to make a bold defence of the banana regime, which has, as the noble Baroness argued, safeguarded the interests of smallholder banana farmers in the Caribbean in particular by giving guarantees of traditional market access?
Thirdly, how else does the European Union propose to aid and protect the weakest ACP producers, like those of the Windward Islands?
Fourthly, in this context, precisely what foolproof mechanisms does the European Union propose to prevent the weakest ACP producers from anyway being squeezed out of the market? Will it advocate country-specific export ceilings within any global ACP quota?
Fifthly, does the European Union recognise that the revenue for banana sales is more essential than ever if desperately needed economic diversification in the vulnerable single-commodity-dependent island economies of the Caribbean is to be achieved?
Turning more widely to the Lomé agreement renegotiations as a whole, I hope I can be forgiven for saying that, for many of us, the Commission's proposed negotiating mandate in January 1998 was profoundly disappointing. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, in effect, it gave but one option to all ACP countries; namely, free trade agreements beginning in the year 2005. This led many of us to believe that the proposals lack any poverty reduction rationale and were almost designed to damage still further the economic prospects of poor people in ACP countries.
However, I am glad to say that the statement from the General Affairs Council at the end of March was much more encouraging, reflecting to their credit the work of the British Government. It proposed that the arrangements should at least maintain the current market access for ACP countries while at the same time being World Trade Organisation compatible. It seems that the objective was to improve the preferences under the GSP for ACP exports to the European Union which currently have a significant tariff differential. This would bring the GSP offer up to or above the current level of the Lomé Convention. Can my noble friend confirm that

1085
any such preferences will be bound at the WTO so that they provide an effective incentive for investors by being predictable? Can my noble friend also confirm that such preferences will be generous enough to compensate for the loss of the differential tariff which was previously only available to ACP countries but which will now be available to competitors from Latin America and Asia?
We must appreciate that in order to take advantage of trade opportunities in Europe ACP countries will, of course, have to develop their trade capacity. Will, therefore, my noble friend confirm that the EU's mandate will include the commitment of resources for poverty-focused trade development with the aim of increasing supply side capacity? Will it also include support for basic health and education as well as for asset redistribution—by, for example, land reform—and support for training, micro-credit and technology transfers?
The Lomé Convention has the potential, as the noble Baroness argued, to play a vital part in the Government's poverty eradication strategy, but the Government's approach will have to be rigorous and imaginative if that potential is not to be thrown away.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this important and excellent debate. In her capacity as president of the West Indies Committee, I know that she has a most laudable record and that the committee's work in developing the West Indies in trade and aid relationships has been remarkable. I am so delighted to have the opportunity to speak in her Unstarred Question debate.
The attitude of the Leader of the Official Opposition does not reflect that interest. I put down for the record that, as far as I can tell, the 7,000 words of the Fontainebleau speech, entitled "Potential for Europe", by the Leader of the Opposition contains not one comment nor gives support of any nature on links with the developing world, on the Lomé Convention or on the goal of co-partnership with the developing world of all the European Union members when we signed the first Lomé Convention in 1975. This was a vital agreement. The explanatory memorandum from the European Commission on the current post Lomé debate comments on the need to look clearly at major international events which confer,
"on a player of the Union's stature new political and economic responsibilities, especially in its dealings with the regions of the South most vulnerable to poverty and marginalisation".
That is well in line with both the ethical foreign policy declared by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and with the Secretary of State for International Development's challenge in her department's White Paper to all of us to conquer world poverty within a reasonable timescale. Within the EU we have always recognised through Lomé our obligation, as a large world power, to support the poorer countries.
1086
However, I suggest that in the search for a revised Lomé the virtuous circle the private sector offers in development has been insufficiently regarded. The remarkable and excellent Fourth Report of 21st May 1998 of the International Development Committee, although it takes up considerable acreage of paper on trade, does not give trade as great a weight as aid. The peculiarity and fascination of Lomé is that it has these two key elements of development bound together; namely trade and aid. I do not think that there is any other major development policy instrument like it in the remainder of the developed world. Indeed, the European Union, particularly through Lomé, now seems to be the world's largest aid donor and developer globally. In fact, the International Development Committee report comments,
"Trade was a vital source of wealth creation and growth for a growing economy".
I suggest to the Minister that trade is the vital source of wealth creation. The Lomé negotiations' involvement with the private sector now needs to be addressed most strenuously. The British African Business Association, chaired by Peter Pooley, formerly Director General of DGVIII of the European Commission, states that,
"The private sector has been largely ignored in previous Lomé. Treaties".
Therefore it is of great importance now, in our presidency, that the British support the indigenous ACP private sector and address its needs most clearly. Most of the ACP governments pay more than lip service to privatisation and the private sector, but even today, with Lomé 4 now coming to an end, private sector European investment flows do not get the attention that they deserve.
I turn now to the sugar industry. Much is made of the need to diversify, and yet where are the new industries without investment into the indigenous private sector? Much of the argument and debate on trade in Lomé seems somewhat old fashioned to my ears. We are not discussing the new electronic trading global capabilities as we should be. We are not looking at the provision for the developing world of the sort of equipment and technology that enables that magical level playing field of trade competitiveness to be electronically created. Surely those are the ways in which the developing world can be true equal partners. Perhaps there is the rub. Do we want them to be equal competitors? Lomé does. It is a genuine partnership and I suggest that we look more closely at it.
Finally, I ask the Government to think about education. We need to educate the consumers and the young and elderly, because in two decades of anti-Europeanism I honestly believe that the Lomé convention benefits worldwide to the developing countries have been vastly underrated.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, once again want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this important subject. I really do not believe that anyone quite realises how serious the situation has become and indeed how increasingly complex it is.

1087
Bearing in mind the comments of the Lord Privy Seal on Monday, across the road, I feel that I must point out that over half the speakers in tonight's debate are hereditary Peers, all of whom have special knowledge of the ACP countries. I care passionately for the Caribbean Islands and, more importantly, for their inhabitants.
I personally would not mind giving up my right to vote in a reformed House of Lords, but I would be deeply saddened at not being allowed to take part in a debate such as this.
I must declare an interest as I am a residual beneficiary of a large banana planation in St. Lucia. Most of it, sadly, is totally unproductive. The few tenants who have bought their plots are unable even to pay the deposit. It is not altogether surprising when one thinks that four years ago, for example, a St. Lucian farmer received six pence per pound for his bananas and those same bananas were selling on Oxford Street at 80p per pound.
For most of the ACP countries, 65 per cent. of their income is derived from bananas, which only goes to prove how vital this crop is for the whole infrastructure of so many Caribbean islands. These islands are literally now in a life and death situation. Without a profitable banana trade there would be economic and social disaster throughout the Caribbean.
What on this occasion seem to be the bully-boy and unprincipled tactics currently deployed by the United States of America are completely unacceptable. I urge Her Majesty's Government most strongly to ensure that these tactics do not destroy the Caribbean banana industry. In particular it is vital that the amendments to the current regime do not deprive the Caribbean states of the guaranteed access and economic return which they have enjoyed under the existing Lomé Convention.
I earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will crown their achievement in the European Union presidency by securing a satisfactory deal for the ACP countries. If so, this must not be destroyed by yet another maverick attack by the USA in the WTO. Her Majesty's Government must exert their influence to secure recognition in the WTO of the need for special provision to protect these small and extremely fragile economies.
The ACP countries realise that they must try to diversify, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned, that diversification is somewhat limited. At the end of the day it must be on the back of banana production. There is very limited extent for that diversification. For example, how many new hotels can one build? One of my greatest worries about the Caribbean is the unemployment situation. I speak from experience. Sadly, it is a difficult, if not impossible, job to train a banana worker to take a job in a hotel. There is simply nothing else for them to do except to grow bananas.
I pray that the Caribbean farmers do not turn to the only alternative crop, and here, of course, I refer to the illicit production of drugs. Her Majesty's Government have so rightly declared war against drugs, their
1088
producers and their distributors. I just hope and pray that Her Majesty's Government will not let the Caribbean go to pot!
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with whom I served nearly a decade ago on the Save the Children Africa Review Group. She is a formidable ally of developing countries. It is easy to forget, amid all the technical arguments, that poverty alleviation is a major objective of Lomé and is therefore of great importance to the non-governmental organisations. The lead NGOs are led by the UK Presidency Project and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will join with me in paying tribute to the work that they have done alongside the DfID officials who are preparing the UK position.
In fact, the UK and NGO positions coincide very nicely on many points. The importance of the DAC poverty eradication targets—especially halving poverty by the year 2015—is one area of agreement. The necessity for reversing the decline in sub-Saharan African economies is as much a condition of meeting these international targets as it will be an objective of the new aid provisions of the convention. It is encouraging to see these targets mentioned in the preamble.
Lomé provides a unique opportunity for the EU to review its relations with all developing countries, not just the 71 covered by the convention. The Maastricht Treaty recognised that there must be smooth and gradual integration, but it is, as others have said, the icy Atlantic wind blowing from the WTO into Lomé which concerns those countries. It cannot be good for the world economy for the EU to accept the WTO at face value, without proper safeguards for the poorest and most vulnerable states, including the Caribbean.
The NGOs have three particular concerns in this context which they hope that the UK will continue to press in the hope of persuading our Southern European partners in particular. On this issue, the north-south divide within the EU must be taken very seriously, especially in a German election year. I hope that the noble Lord will comment on that danger.
First, the EU proposals for free trade agreements are too prescriptive. Reciprocity is not the right approach for Lomé countries, and the unequal terms offered to South Africa make them especially wary. Although ACP countries undoubtedly need to be encouraged towards greater competitiveness and freer trade, Article XXIV of the WTO needs to be reformed to take account of the vastly different levels of development in the Lomé countries.
Secondly, ACP countries need more time to adjust to the new economic climate. A five-year waiver for current preferences is simply not long enough for that adjustment. Commissioner Pinheiro himself, after meeting UNCTAD on 26th May, seemed doubtful about the timeframe. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government will continue to press for the 10-year waiver?

1089
Thirdly, as the Government proposed and the Select Committee pointed out, the alternative option of an enhanced generalised system of preferences (GSP) is a realistic one and should not be dismissed out of hand. The enhanced GSP route has the advantage of being WTO-friendly and it would extend the existing GSP to Lomé, even at some risk to the concept of partnership. Can the noble Lord confirm that he has been encouraged by the strong support for that given by the Select Committee?
On the Caribbean, some have advanced the argument that Lome has benefited middle-income countries through the protocols and that they do not need more protection. Oxfam and others, however, have argued that vulnerable and small island economies do deserve longer-term preference and the Select Committee is recommending that the WTO accepts them into a new category. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government will support that proposal?
Much has been said about aid and diversification, not least by the Secretary of State, but diversification could be a death trap for many farmers, men and women, in the Caribbean states, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, so vividly pointed out. It is not a realistic option. It seems that bananas and sugar cane may be more resistant to strong winds than they are to the WTO. The Caribbean has been buffeted by pressure from the dollar banana states, most recently via the disgraceful WTO attacks on the banana protocol, abetted by the US. Surely it is better to avoid such confrontation and to preserve the protocol within the WTO framework through a waiver. Does the noble Lord believe, as others do, that that is still politically possible? If not, what are the genuine chances of meeting ACP individual country guarantees within the global quota?
Finally, I should like to have some reassurance that policy coherence will be kept firmly in mind and that our concerns about CAP reform and eastern Europe in particular, which are bound to have very serious consequences, are not allowed to interfere with our commitments to the developing world.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Palmer hit on the nub of the problem. Farmers simply do not receive a fair return from either Western intermediaries or cavalier supermarkets. This needs somehow to be addressed seriously.
These negotiations allow the United Kingdom to respond to global changes and fulfil its commitment to development. The alternatives are too awful to contemplate. Increased migration, with a sharp increase of asylum-seekers; a region that will turn itself to drug production together with an increased level of poverty—indeed, undoing all previous good work.
The joint ACP-EU framework for political dialogue should be used as a unique forum to define new strategies, all of which the UK is committed to under the Maastricht Treaty: campaigning for poverty eradication; fostering sustainable economic and social development; promoting the gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy; and the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
1090
The recent judicial review of the banana regime has highlighted the vulnerable status of Caribbean economies in the global economy.
This Government must now pursue a coherent development strategy supported by the allocation of adequate resources and the creation of mechanisms for its implementation. In fact, the new EU/ACP contract should include joint partnership in international fora, such as the WTO, the UN and international financial bodies.
That said, difficulties have already manifested themselves. Professor Pinheiro, in his presentation of the EU mandate, recently went to Barbados and has succeeded in creating fault-lines.
There is now ACP consensus against the breakup of the negotiations into a political agreement between 1998 and 2000 and regional FTAs between 2000 and 2004. The ACP is now resolute that there should only be a single negotiation, which would cover all issues of concern, including political dialogue. The concept of regionalisation must not be allowed to cause fragmentation.
The Caribbean countries, in confronting the challenges of a liberalised global economy, need the security provided by preferential markets and the related commodity protocols, as it allows them to intensify their efforts at economic diversification.
In addition, we must maintain the provisions for stabilising commodity export earnings, which are an important part of the preferential arrangements. Indeed, financial instruments such as STABEX and SYSMIN should be strengthened, particularly in the light of the competitive pressures which the Caribbean and other ACP countries face in their major export markets as liberalisation becomes a greater feature in those markets.
We can all agree that development is about people, so I am delighted to note that there is an overwhelming emphasis on human resource development and poverty alleviation as the hallmarks of a new development co-operation. However, global poverty eradication objectives must not lead to poverty creation in the small and vulnerable Caribbean economies.
The Lomé Convention has brought the ACP impressive benefits without which the ACP states would have been worse off. We cannot hide the fact, however, that some of these benefits have been minimised by circumstances.
The failure of the European Union to translate access into entry; the continuous worsening of the terms of trade; the overall decline in the real value of development assistance; the excessive debt burden; the continuing instability in the industrial countries' interest and exchange rates and in their stock markets; the difficulties in honouring commitments as regards bananas, rice and rum, resulting from the adoption of narrow and insensitive interpretations of their obligations by EU partners—all occur under the guise of international discipline.

1091
The ACP states intend to secure a new bargain, a new quality of partnership with the European Union, and the translation into practice of the very principles to which the international community now holds itself to be dedicated.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate. Her timing is impeccable. I am not sure whether she intended to seek the debate so soon after publication of the Select Committee's fourth report on Lomé renegotiation, but it is gratifying to be able to refer to Lomé yet again. I know that the noble Baroness has referred to Lomé many times in the past and there have been a number of debates on it in your Lordships' House. I am glad, however, that we have been given this opportunity to consider the report. I know that there is a major problem in the other place in that although the White Paper was published some months ago it still has not been debated there. That is disappointing.
I know that we have only a short time in which to debate Lomé this evening, but I should like to press the Government on the question of meeting some of the commitments they made on entering office. International development, they said, was one of the areas they would push most strongly.
I should like to put to the Minister one or two questions although he is probably unable to provide answers this evening since they fall outside the immediate area of interest. First, when is the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines to be ratified? That has a bearing on ACP countries. Secondly and more importantly, when will the Government consider increasing the DfID's aid budget? I link that with the Lomé negotiations because I had not realised until I looked carefully at the report just how large a percentage of the DfID budget goes into Lomé. In 1998–99 10 per cent. of the whole of the DfID budget will be spent on the Lomé Agreement. When one considers the European Union, that equates to 30 per cent. of the budget. Because of its very large impact I hope that the Government will look closely at the process of renegotiation so that it closely matches the principles set out in the White Paper; namely, that Lome has the purpose of reducing poverty among the poorest in the world.
Further, Lomé has the very real responsibility of meeting DAC targets. The report brought out some of the problems associated with the DAC targets set by the OECD. When one is seeking to reduce poverty it is not simply a matter of setting a target and trying to meet it in each country. There are many variable factors. The report touches upon some very interesting areas that should perhaps be considered during the renegotiation. For example, when discussing Lomé in the past one of the big problems has been the lack of flexibility in the distribution of Lomé aid.
One suggestion—I hope that the Government will push for it—is that there should be greater decentralisation away from the central bureaucracy to
1092
people working under the agreement in the individual countries. Another factor that will have a great effect is the possibility of aid being distributed in tranches by Lomé so that if, for example, a project is seen to be unsuccessful no further aid will be spent on it. That has worked well on many projects throughout the world and can be used effectively under the Lomé Agreement.
One of my difficulties with the method by which the Lomé Agreement is being renegotiated is widespread use of the word "conditionality". There has been a fundamental shift in the method of dealing with Lomé. The matter has been handled insensitively by the WTO. Many Caribbean countries face disaster through the destruction of their main industries, in particular bananas. One should not forget that there is a possibility of diversification, but perhaps not the kind of diversification one would wish to see, for example, drug production in the Caribbean. There is the very real problem that diversification in many sub-Saharan African countries will mean social unrest and upheaval.
The free trade agreements may prove to be one of the most disastrous measures to be implemented. As has been shown in the canned tomato industry in South Africa, many third world and developing countries will suffer severely. Chapter 88 of the report makes clear that the committee does not accept that the negotiations towards FTAs between the EU and ACP proposed by the Commission are at present either realistic or desirable since they are not in the interests of the ACP countries. I very much hope that the Government adopt the principles set out in the White Paper when renegotiating Lomé.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for tabling this Motion for debate. She made a most authoritative presentation which has been followed by a number of speeches that betray noble Lords' depth of knowledge that I cannot hope to equal and to which I have enormously enjoyed listening. Together they make a disturbing history. Our interests and friends appear to be in the process of being abandoned, although of course not by this Government.
The Government have argued strongly against the inadequacies and errors of the approach of the European Union. It is just that they have not been very successful in their arguments. There has been no shortage of political will and commitment on the part of the Government, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will agree. There has been no lack of attention to detail. Ministers of this Government are always attentive to detail. No key documents have been left out of red boxes—nor are there any unread boxes. But the result is as if that had been the case: a regrettable, unsurprising betrayal of our friends and interests.
Of course change is needed, particularly in the Caribbean and other areas of the ACP. There have been years of subsidies and controls. We must help those countries find a way forward to competitiveness and economic vigour but that takes time and a great deal of support and encouragement. There will always be a need for protection. When a farmer receives sixpence for a

1093
pound of bananas that sells for 80 pence, the price at which that farmer sells his bananas is not the problem. His efficiency is not the problem. The problem lies in the distribution system. If one is dealing with an area like the Caribbean that is probably a matter that cannot he remedied. We will always have to look after our friends and our old connections in the area. It is much the same with neighbourhood shops in this country. If one does not go out of one's way to shop at those establishments sometimes, even though they charge more, one loses them. The consequences for Caribbean countries will be rather more dramatic if we do not continue to support them.
Clare Short is quoted in the report of the committee of another place as saying that it is not a matter of protection but diversification. I do not believe that she is right. That betrays a deep misunderstanding of the potential for diversification and the need for continuing and permanent protection. But I suspect that we could do it better than we do at the moment.
Our interests are deeply tied up with those particular countries. Not least, we have a substantial and growing area of dependent territories in the Caribbean. If living standards drop there then trades that flourish in small, isolated places will move in. Should that happen it is likely to be to our great disadvantage and that of America.
The European Union's plans are of great concern to us as they were to the International Development Committee of another place. There appears to be no recognition of, let alone plans to deal with, their own shortcomings: inefficient and opaque aid allocation; shortcomings in the staff who are concerned with Lomé, particularly those on the ground; and facing up to the consequences of CAP reform for Lomé and the EU's relationship with developing countries. There appears to be an underlying direction of international aggrandisement, an effort to compete with the United States on equal terms, bureaucracy against democracy, and an imposition of FTAs through blackmail and bureaucracy which is entirely inappropriate and just will not work.
This debate takes place at a crucial moment. We have the presidency of the European Union for a little while yet and the Government may have a chance to succeed in changing the direction of the European Union. I shall be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can confirm that he is confident of success. I would have been even more delighted had the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, been able to be here. I believe that for a debate like this and at a time like this her presence would have made a difference. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will as usual fill her place with great charm and skill. He is a great reader of a brief and a real pleasure to listen to.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suppose I should thank the noble Lord for that remark. It has been a well informed debate. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for raising the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated there is great expertise, hereditary
1094
and otherwise, in this House relating to issues of development and in particular the issues of the Caribbean.
The Government are well aware of the importance of the next phase of the Lomé Convention. That convention has been the basis of relations between the EU and the ACP for 20 years. It is a vitally important tool of both development and diplomacy and is valued both by EU countries and the ACP countries, 38 of which are also Commonwealth countries. The UK therefore has a strong interest in seeing Lomé renewed, modernised and strengthened. We have been consulting in particular our closer partners in the ACP for some time, for example at CHOGM in Edinburgh last year; and subsequently when we paid particular attention to the needs of the Caribbean, for example, in convening the UK/Caribbean forum in the Bahamas in February. We are aware how sensitive Lomé is for the Caribbean and will continue to press for access for the Caribbean and seek a deal which protects its commodity interests as far as possible.
In relation to the mandate, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, the Commission has produced a draft memorandum for discussion. At this stage it remains an internal EU document until it is finalised. Therefore we can only comment in general terms. However, it reflects the wide ranging consultation process that the Commission has carried out over the past 18 months, starting with the Green Paper in December 1996 and followed up by seminars in EU and ACP countries.
The UK position paper last October set out Her Majesty's Government's approach and much of it was subsequently reflected in the Commission Paper. We therefore believe that it is a good basis for obtaining agreement. That agreement will be based on partnership, sustainable development and a modernised system of trade preferences.
The current Lomé preferences are among the most generous the EC offers to any group of third countries. But not all ACP countries have profited from them. The ACP market share in the EU has fallen over the past 20 years from 6.7 per cent. to 3.4 per cent. Although some ACP countries have been successful in using the background of those trade measures—for instance, Mauritius and Fiji—most of the ACP countries, including, regrettably, most of the Caribbean countries, have not managed to strengthen their competitiveness or diversified their exports sufficiently away from basic commodities to a wider range of higher value products.
We recognise the difficulties but we need to use this process to help the ACP integrate into the world trading system. Globalisation means that they and we have to adapt. The ACP will need time to do that. The UK has proposed that the current level of preferences be extended for at least five years from the year 2000 to allow a proper transition period. The Commission has taken that on board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, inquired about the future beyond the year 2005. It is not obviously clear at this point how the international trading environment will look. A further WTO round and, we hope, substantial

1095
CAP reforms may bring about many changes. It is too early to say exactly how the future regime for the ACP will look. But we believe that the least developed countries should receive the most generous level of access possible in accordance with commitments given by the EU last year. We are on course to achieve that. Noble Lords referred to the General Affairs Council in March, which committed the EU at least to maintaining current levels of access and made explicit reference to an enhanced general system of preferences as a valid alternative to the FTA approach, which is still favoured by many member states.
Another option would be for free trade agreements for those who felt ready and able to negotiate WTO-compatible reciprocity. For others, we think that an enhanced general system of preferences is probably the most secure and predictable route in the medium term.
The relationship with the ACP also has to take into account political dialogue. That has been most useful in developing contacts among the ACPs. That dialogue process needs reinvigorating to make it more focused and relevant.
That is the background. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the meeting of the Development Council this week. It is true that at one point it was hoped that the EU mandate would have been concluded for the EU side of the negotiations at that meeting. However, although there was good discussion on Monday on the trade aspects of Lomé, this discussion failed to resolve differences which still exist between member states. The matter is due to be discussed, as we always half expected, at the subsequent GAC on 29th June. We hope to reach agreement there.
In addition to the general trade preferences issue, much reference has been made to the position on commodities, in particular bananas. It is a complex issue. As noble Lords will know, the banana regime which has operated to substantial benefit of the Caribbean banana producers was challenged by a group of countries led by the United States and including Latin American countries. It was found by the WTO body that it was not WTO compatible. It is important to recognise that it was aspects of the regime which were found non-compatible, not preferential access for banana producers.
This Government and many other EU countries regarded the banana regime as important. It represented a serious attempt to meet our obligations to developing countries in the Caribbean and elsewhere. However, in the EU, EC and United Kingdom we are also firm adherents of the WTO process. We accept its procedural arrangements. We accept that Community arrangements will need to be brought into conformity with WTO rules. This means that the Commission's efforts to draw up an alternative regime will have to be WTO compatible. That is the basis on which the EU proposition now exists.
A number of noble Lords attacked the EU in relation to that. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, indicated, it is true that there different opinions within
1096
the EU on this issue. Nevertheless, a firm majority is behind trying to get a new banana regime which is WTO compatible. We believe that the draft now produced by the Commission will be WTO compatible. As many noble Lords will know, that is challenged by the Americans.
I also recognise that a number of banana producers, in particular in the West Indies, are concerned that the Commission proposals are inadequate. They are particularly concerned about the fact that the quotas—part of the Commission proposals—are not allocated by country. It is clear that that part of the agreement could not be allocated country by country because that would make the whole proposition clearly and unequivocally WTO incompatible. They fear pressure from West African producers. Nevertheless, we believe that it is overall in the interests of the banana producers to gain a WTO compatible agreement. We believe that the Commission proposal represents the best way of achieving that.
It is important therefore that we support the Commission in these efforts. It is vulnerable, both because of pressures within the EC, but more particularly because of the attitude of the United States Government. On a number of occasions, we have drawn to the attention of the United States the seriousness of the regime collapsing and its effect on the vulnerable island economies of the Caribbean. Many of the scenarios referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and in particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, are real. Although we have raised the matter at all levels of the United States Administration, it has remained resolutely on an uncompromising agenda on the WTO banana dispute. It regards the Commission proposal as not compatible and insists that it will challenge that at the earliest opportunity. We believe that we are on strong legal ground in resisting that, but we still feel that politically the United States needs to be persuaded that theirs is not a sensible course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, emphasised, the alternative for many of those regimes would be not simply a descent into poverty but possibly the development of alternative products in the drugs trade, either as producers or as entrepôts, which would seriously endanger the United States. Therefore, there are important points of United States self interest which must be taken into account. We are vigorously pursuing that with the United States Government.
The best prospects for the future of the banana regime rest in us pursuing Commission proposals in a united way from the EU end and trying at the same time politically to persuade our American friends not to go further down the road on which they have apparently embarked.
Part of the future of these economies will be a greater aim to improve the competitiveness of the banana trade and of diversification. Although diversification will be limited, there is scope for it. We believe that the aid programme and private investments such as those suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—for instance, the flow of private investment and a change in technology—could help those economies. The flow of

1097
aid from the UK and the European Union will also help. I accept that aspects of the EU aid regime need serious attention. Nevertheless, substantial EU and British aid is going to the Caribbean and we are committed to continuing that.
The renegotiation of the Lomé Convention gives us an opportunity to address many of the problems which have been outlined in the debate. The agreement of the EU mandate on Lomé is one of the principal presidency objectives. I assure noble Lords whose concerns are well registered with this Government that the work over the next few weeks to 29th June will be intensive. We wish to produce the mandate and we wish also to produce a solution to the banana regime in particular which will help our Caribbean friends into the 21st century and put them on a better economic basis than currently looks likely.

School Standards and Framework Bill
8.31 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 103 [Home-school agreements]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 78, line 34, leave out from ("home-school") to ("to") in line 35 and insert ("policy").
The noble Baroness said: I see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has had to do what I did last week; that is, not only be on the Bench throughout the day but speak also during the dinner break. I hope that his noble friends will allow him some respite.
I apologise for this group of amendments because it is slightly confusing. I am not sure how it happened, but at some stage someone should have advised us that something was wrong. If Amendment No. 235A were agreed to Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E would not make much sense. We want to incorporate Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E, which would change the Bill to read:
"The governing body of a school … shall adopt a home-school policy"—
"policy" being the key word—
"for the school … For the purposes of this section and section 104 a `home-school policy' is a statement designed to promote partnership between home and school".
Amendment No. 237 leaves out reference to a signed parental declaration. Amendments Nos. 237A and 237B change the Bill to read:
"Before preparing the home-school policy, or revising that policy, the governing body shall consult".
This raft of amendments supports the proposition that legalistic signed agreements—
Baroness David: Will the noble Baroness tell me which amendments she is speaking to in the group? I have some amendments in the group and I am not clear to which amendments she is speaking.
Baroness Maddock: Although I am moving Amendment No. 235A, I shall not press it to a vote. It
1098
is an amendment I must move because it is the first in the group. However, if it is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E will not make sense. I am talking to Amendments Nos. 236A, 237A, 237B, 238A and 239A. I am not talking to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. I hope that that clarifies the issue.
This raft of amendments follows our support for the proposition that legalistic signed agreements between school and home are not the correct way of fostering the most positive relationship between the two. We have received a great deal of support from groups and individuals outside the House. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Tope to explore those later.
We believe that the format proposed in the Bill is likely to set up an antagonistic and litigious atmosphere from the moment a child sets foot in the school. If both the home and the school cling to this text as though they have rights under it we can see many problems ahead. Our alternative proposal is a process of continuous instructed dialogue between governors, staff, parents and pupils to develop a home-school policy rather than an agreement. We want to see that on paper, but not cast in tablets of stone. It will be a process in which all four interested parties work together. We believe that the process and the activities surrounding it will be useful in building constructive relationships between the four elements in the school community; that is, the governors, the staff, the parents and the pupils.
We see policy documents being produced on a regular basis in order to summarise where the dialogue has reached. We believe that a home-school policy as opposed to an agreement is much more likely to command the respect and support of all sides if it is developed in a spirit of mutuality. Many bodies and groups agree with us and my noble friend Lord Tope will explore that further.
I believe that the Government's intention is good but in their desire to change things for the good they have a tendency to want to control everything a little too much. The difference between us is that we want to give more opportunity for groups to reach a consensual agreement and not be told, "You must have this policy and every person must sign it. If you don't sign it there will be a problem." We see that creating unnecessary tensions. Our suggestion is in the spirit of the Government's intentions, but we believe that it will work better.
The Government talk about partnership. My experience of working in a variety of partnerships is that having dialogue and working things out together is most successful, receives most support and is most likely to work. That is the spirit in which I speak to the amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): As the noble Baroness said, if Amendment No. 235A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 235B.
Baroness David: I have my name to Amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 244 in the group. I am very much in

1099
sympathy with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Although I do not strike out "agreement" and put in "policy", I am sympathetic to the suggestion and would be happy with the word "policy". In fact, I think I prefer it.
I am very glad that the Government have decided not to use the signing of home-school agreements as a criterion for admission. I really did not like that. The increased emphasis given to the role of parents in the education of their children is very welcome, However, the potential of home-school documents to build constructive relationships is, in my view, undermined by this section of the Bill, which places the onus only on the parents, failing to establish a principle of mutuality which focuses the attention and efforts of all concerned—teacher, staff, pupils, parents and the governing body—on the educational experience of the child.
Home-school documents can be a means of engaging parents' commitment and involvement. Documents are best seen as part of a continuum of establishing a relationship between parents—some of whom have had negative school experiences themselves—and schools. Written documentation can be effective when used to facilitate discussion among staff, parents and pupils about shared expectations.
For example, a Children's Society project called Shine, working in two primary schools in Lambeth and Wandsworth, uses home-school agreements in order to gain parental consent to work with individual children and to invite them to participate in the work of the project. In fact, the All-Party Group on Children had the project leader in Shine speak to them about a week or so ago. It was very interesting how successful they had been in working with parents and children. I very much recommend the pamphlet which they produced describing their work.
I move on to Amendment No. 238. This amendment tries to ensure that the views of staff, pupils and parents are sought in the development and review of home-school agreements. It omits certain lines and substitutes all qualifying parents,
"the staff of the school, and … the pupils of the school".
As I said on our last day in Committee, I very much want to get the word "pupil" on the face of the Bill. "Pupil" is not mentioned in the whole course of this enormous Bill. That does seem to me rather a mistake, so here is another chance.
We are concerned that the consumers of education are too often thought to be parents rather than parents and children. The consequence of this is that pupils are given little opportunity to exercise responsibility or to contribute to the organisation of school life.
This amendment is consistent with the principle of participation which I believe the Bill could establish in concrete and constructive ways. It is also consistent with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that every child capable of expressing a view has the right to do so on all matters of concern to him or her. I have mentioned that before, too. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the international
1100
monitoring body, when examining the record of the UK Government in implementing the convention, expressed particular concern over the fact that children's participation in schools was at the discretion of the head teacher or governing body. It considered that the principle of participation should be respected as a matter of principle for all children. This amendment provides the opportunity to do this.
The amendment has a practical value too. Participation in the development of a mutually agreed set of expectations can motivate pupils to engage more fully in the life of the school and in learning by providing the opportunity for them to exercise responsibility and to contribute their views and to feel valued.
The process of establishing home-school agreements can lay the foundation for participation in other aspects of school life, such as behaviour policies.
The next amendment that I have in this group is Amendment No. 244, which in fact I do not think engages very closely with the other two amendments. But as it probably prevents me having to deal with the last amendment tonight I would prefer to have it in this grouping than by itself, which would be more sensible.
This amendment, which is a new clause following Clause 119, places schools and LEAs under a duty to listen to the voices and views of pupils on matters affecting them and, where reasonable, to ascertain their views.
During the passage of the Education Act 1993 a QC's opinion was obtained which advised that education legislation was currently in breach of Article 12 of the UN convention. This new clause is a modest and reasonable measure to bring education into line with the convention as well as with domestic law governing other sectors such as social services, health and civil court procedures. It does not prescribe how schools and LEAs will fulfil this duty, although formal structures such as schools councils and complaints procedures spring to mind.
It does not require schools or LEAs to follow the views of pupils, just to listen to them. This is simply a matter of good practice, which occurs in many schools and authorities but unfortunately not all. Listening to pupils of all ages pays big dividends in terms of reducing pupil disaffection and increasing their commitment to their education and the school.
I believe that these are important amendments in establishing the proper relationship between families, parents and children. Once again I repeat that I think that the views of pupils should really be taken into more consideration and that should be written on to the face of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: These are complex amendments. We are moving from party politics almost totally to the running of schools.
The first point that I should like to make is that, of course, children in schools are of different ages. We cannot just talk about every pupil because we are talking

1101
of children between the ages of five and 18. I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. It is very hard to lay down on the face of a Bill exact details concerning discipline.
Home-pupil agreements are, in essence, a good thing. But there are two elements to these agreements. Each of them has equal importance. We must not give more importance to one or the other. First, there are the parents with their expectations of the school for their son or daughter. Then there is the school, which has created a certain style of community. People sometimes have a choice of schools—in the independent sector, for example. The noble Baroness knows quite a lot about that sector, since she sent her own children to one of those schools. Some may choose Bedales and some may choose a more structural school such as Winchester. In the state sector there are often difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, with whom I do not often agree, hit the nail on the head. We enter into enormously difficult areas.
We all agree that there should be a home-school agreement, but what form should it take? The agreement is between the school and the parents, and demands great sensitivity. I have great doubts whether it can be laid on the face of a Bill. Each side has equal rights. I do not think that you can write on the face of a Bill that the school must always consult the pupils, though most schools with any sense would. But how do you consult a five year-old? This Clause refers to "all maintained schools". What should be done about five, six and seven year-olds?
Baroness David: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord just so that he might read the amendment and so that he knows what it really says. Amendment No. 244 says:
"due consideration is given to the views of pupils on any matter which affects them, having regard to the pupils' age and understanding".
Probably a child of three or four would not be consulted.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I accept the noble Baroness's correction. But it is on the face of a Bill. Who would decide "understanding" and so on? The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she wants flexibility and understanding on each side. I am worried about entering into detail on this. I agree in principle. We are now in a deep educational discussion. Fortunately we are free of the arguments of earlier in the afternoon. But it is a more complicated issue than can be developed in the clauses of a Bill. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on one hand, but I am torn. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that of course children need rights. I do not want courts to make decisions in relation to parents of, for example, a child of eight, who objected to a school. On the other hand, I want headmasters to be able to work out good agreements with parents. Home agreements are a great development. But the understanding of a child and such matters may raise legal complications and I am quite worried about the whole issue. Contrary to my confidence earlier this afternoon, I am now in a state of angst over this matter. I believe that it may create a
1102
number of educational problems. Stipulating the age of the child will not solve the problem. Once a provision is placed on the face of the Bill, it becomes a matter for lawyers. All you need is a litigious parent and you are in trouble. Therefore, for once, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has my heart.
Lord Northbourne: Accepting as I do some of the criticisms of the amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, nevertheless it is important that the Government should indicate—if not on the face of the Bill, as least in guidelines—their support for pupil involvement in these decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, chaired a commission on discipline in schools about 10 years ago. I remember him telling me—and indeed, I remember reading in the report—that one factor as regards which there was a consistent relationship with good behaviour was the schools where pupils were in some way consulted and involved in the behaviour policy. The involvement of pupils enables them not only to hear some of their concerns being considered but it enables them also to take ownership of the policy. I hope the Government will take that on board.
Lord Tope: I am distressed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has been caused angst by all of this but he is right to say that we have at last moved out of the party political arena into the education arena. I thought that that was an interesting admission from the Conservative Front Bench, and it is a very accurate one.
I am certain that we are all in favour of partnership. The issue that we are discussing is how best to achieve it. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness, Lady David, desires the same outcome as does my noble friend and I. There may be slight differences as to how we wish to get there, although I was grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she preferred our word "policy" to the word "agreement". I suggest that the difference between those words is rather more than just a difference between words. The whole point is that a policy is something which is discussed and developed through mutual agreement and is ongoing. The word "agreement" at least implies and usually means something rather legalistic and fixed. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness was talking about.
My noble friend Lady Maddock gave a trailer of what I was going to do at this stage. I have received quite a number of letters in support of our amendments and in support of the developing partnership in the way that my noble friend explained it. Rather than repeat what other members of the Committee have said, I wish to quote from some of the letters that I have received. I have received letters, perhaps not surprisingly, but very valuably, from CASE—the Campaign for State Education—and the Alliance of Parents and Schools. I have received a letter from the UK Education Forum which said among other things, that,
"we have been vigorously opposed to the notion of a signed home-school agreement, believing this is not the way to encourage the cooperation of parents".

1103
I have received a letter from Family Education and Playwork making similar points. I have received another letter from NASUWT which stated:
"There is little doubt that if the latter requirement",
that is, the requirement for the agreement,
"is allowed to stand it will impose an additional administrative burden on already hard-pressed schools and could create division rather than partnership between school and parent".
I have received a three-page letter from the Parent Teacher Association of Wales. I wish to quote from that at greater length because it develops the argument contained in all the letters. I begin with an extract from the letter which will encourage the Government to listen. The letter states:
"We fully endorse the priority afforded by the Government to education, and were heartened by the priority afforded immediately to education standards, and to the positive recognition in the White Papers that partnership between all those involved in schools would be an essential condition to achieving progress".
I am sure that I now have the attention of the Front Bench with an opening like that. The letter goes on to state:
"However, we strongly disagree with the proposal that schools need to be required by law to have home-school agreements, in conjunction with a 'parental declaration' to be signed by every parent".
The letter continues:
"The imposition of agreements will not improve relationships, will confuse existing arrangements, and will alienate the vast majority of supportive parents".
It goes on to state:
"We therefore would like to see these clauses amended to reflect the true meaning of partnership … We believe that it would be far more open and effective for representative Home-School Associations … to agree jointly a home-school policy, after open discussion and consultation".
The letter continues in that vein.
I quoted that at some length because I thought it encapsulated very well the sense and meaning not only of what we have been saying this evening but what all the other letters that I have received meant to say.
I do not believe that the Government will accept our amendments this evening. But I hope they will consider this matter seriously. As I said, we are all in favour of partnership and the question is how best to achieve it. For the first time today we have here a consensus on all sides of the Committee. We have had strong representations from responsible organisations concerned with schools, with parents and pupils. I should like to think that by the time we reach Report stage, we should all—and if the Government cannot, the rest of us perhaps can—get together to achieve a better way of arriving at the outcome which we all want but which most of us believe will not be achieved if we follow the proposals contained in the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I should enter into this very complex area. My position and the position of my colleagues is that we believe in home-school agreements. The problem is the relationship between the parent and the school. There is a difficulty with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said,
1104
and this is where I may part company from him. If a school, with its parents and governors, agrees a home-school agreement, then the next clause which we shall be discussing provides that it cannot be valid. My view is that if a corporate community agrees it and the existing community of parents, governors, teachers and head teachers agree it, they should be entitled, like independent schools, to ask the children to accept it, particularly as there is diversity of choice. As I read the following clause, that would not be allowed.
We are agreeing that a home-school agreement is a good thing. The noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to improve upon it but there is a mutual agreement that it is a very good thing. Is it enforceable? In other words, if a school which has set a certain ethos reached an agreement with its governors and everybody else concerned, is it entitled to demand acceptance by its future pupils? Historically, that has been the essence of good schooling. We are entering into a very complex area.
My view would be that it should be possible to do that. A school may demand particular patterns of behaviour but there is a choice of other schools. The school would then be entitled to say, "No, this has been agreed by the totality of the community". Therefore, this clause slightly contradicts the next clause. Therefore, we are becoming involved in a dilemma in relation to home-school agreements. We all agree that they are good but what if it is said that they are no good and parents reject them? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to this complex issue.
9 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Our vision is that this is a process which is continuous and the dialogue goes on. It is a policy rather than an agreement. I believe that that will answer one of the noble Lord's points. It is clear that we have agreement in the Committee. However, if we are to incorporate it in a proper way in the Bill, it will probably not be by way of the amendments we are now discussing. Indeed, if we all agree, we will have to work on it between now and the next stage. We see it as an evolving policy rather than an agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was worried about everyone having to stick to it forever. That is the whole point and why we think that that is rather better than an agreement.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should first make an apology for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was held up by an unexpected visitor. I should like to say how much I agree with the principle under discussion. However—and I suspect that this may have been stated before I entered the Chamber—what does one do about parents who are not in the slightest bit interested in school? I believe that most of us have been involved in such a situation in one way or another. After all, they are the people who ought to benefit most from such an agreement.
The question really is: how are we to deal with it? What is to be done about the situation? I have not heard anything from my own Front Bench about this nor,

1105
indeed, from the other two Benches, but that is probably because of my late arrival. If the problem is not solved, it will not defeat the whole purpose behind the principle. However, if something is not done or if it is not properly thought about, I suspect that it will not be as successful as it ought to be.
Baroness David: My noble friend may not have been present in the Chamber when I spoke. If he cares to study the SHINE project, which is working with two schools in Lambeth and Wandsworth, he will see that it has been most successful in involving the parents of children who are perhaps causing trouble at school. Indeed, it has gone in and talked with them and encouraged them to be involved with the school. It is indeed possible. I believe that I have made it clear that I do not like the word "agreement". I said that I believe the Government have decided that they do not want the parents to sign an agreement about admissions, or whatever. That would have been a great mistake. It is possible to get parents involved if the process is worked upon carefully.
Lord Tope: In a sense the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has given another reason for our concern about the concept of the agreement. As I and my noble friend have said, one of our concerns is that the whole intention of agreement is legalistic. As the noble Lord nearly pointed out, one of the problems with that is that it is unenforceable. For example, what do you do with a parent who will not sign such a declaration for whatever reason, whether it is disinterest or something stronger? I hope that we will not be refusing admission to the child. I assume that that is so; indeed, I know that that is not the intention. In such a case, the declaration then becomes devalued and other parents will wonder why they should sign such a declaration when someone living down the road will not.
I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the difference between our amendments and hers was more than a difference of words. I know she has accepted that fact. It is not just a matter of "policy" being a kinder word than "agreement". It is actually a wholly different concept. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head in agreement. Our idea of a home-school link, a home-school policy, is that it is something which is developing and something which is worked upon. All of us readily acknowledge that it will be much easier to work with some parents and some pupils than with others. Indeed, for some it may well be a very long process and, sadly, it may never be successful with a few.
However, because it is a policy rather than an agreement and because it is ongoing and developing, we believe that it has much more chance of success and much more chance of being binding. In any event it is a much more positive approach in an atmosphere of mutuality between all the partners in the process rather than something which, in essence, is imposed. That is
1106
one of the things to which we object and which we believe will simply not be successful. It is not the best way of achieving the outcome that we all seek.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall begin by saying how much I respect the provenance of these amendments. I have not read all of the briefing which noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches have quoted, but I have read that from the "Campaign for State Education". In particular, I have read the letter which appeared in the Independent on llth March this year from all the people who have been quoted in this debate, and more. They include the general secretaries of all of the teaching unions. Clearly, there is a wide consensus on the objections to individual agreements and there is a wide consensus that home-school policies should be in place—and that includes the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I am grateful for that.
However, I still have to say that I believe noble Lords are mistaken because I believe they have misinterpreted what is actually said in Clause 103. The whole of the argument from the Liberal Democrat Benches seemed to suggest that there was some alternative between a home-school agreement and a home-school policy. That is not our intention. We all agree that home-school partnerships are vital. We all recognise that parents are a child's first and enduring teacher. They play a crucial role in helping their children to learn. Children achieve more when school and parents work together. Clearly, all schools should have a home-school policy. Reviewing the home-school policy will be an important starting point when drawing up and then consulting on home-school agreements with parents.
Let us look at Clause 103 in more detail. I believe that it makes our position clear. First, there is no intention on the face of the Bill—and, indeed, it does not happen—that the content of a home-school agreement should be statutory. Subsection (2) says that the agreement is a statement specifying,

"(a) the school's aims and values;

(b) the school's responsibilities",

that is, the responsibilities which,
"the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of pupils at the school who are of compulsory school age;

(c) the parental responsibilities, namely the responsibilities which the parents of such pupils are expected to discharge",

and

"(d) the school's expectations of its pupils, namely the expectations of the school as regards the conduct of such pupils while they are registered pupils there".

That does not specify on the face of the Bill the wording of the agreement: it says, in very minimal terms, who the participants are in this home-school agreement—namely the school, the parents and the children. What could be fairer than that? The amendments of the Liberal Democrats would not remove that aspect. We are not trying to be dirigiste about this at all. We are outlining the scope of the home-school agreement. We are not saying that this is a one-off thing to substitute for a developing home-school policy. Clause 103(7) states,
"The governing body shall from time to time review the home-school agreement".

1107
Subsection (8) states,
"Where the home-school agreement is revised by the governing body following such a review, subsections (3) to (6) shall … apply in relation to the revised agreement".
Subsection (9) states,
"Before adopting the home-school agreement or parental declaration, or revising that agreement, the governing body shall consult—

(a) all qualifying parents, and

(b) such other persons as may be prescribed".

Therefore there is provision for ongoing consultation. I do not know whether that conflicts with other people's ideas of stability, but it accords with my ideas of the way in which schools and parents should be thinking all the time about the nature of their mutual responsibilities.
I do not think that any of those who have supported these amendments have recognised that what they want from a home-school policy is achieved in Clause 103 of the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will forgive me, I shall not comment on the points he made about admissions as that matter is covered in Clause 104, which is not the subject of these amendments. There are amendments to Clause 104 which we shall discuss later.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I discussed Clause 104. That shows an active mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What is different about what we are proposing? It is not that we are not doing all the things that other Members of the Committee want; we are going a little further. It was a manifesto commitment to introduce agreements between all schools and parents defining the responsibilities of each. Home-school agreements will play a major role in encouraging schools and parents to work together to ensure that children make the most of their schooling. The agreement will clarify each side's expectations. As I have said, it will explain the school's aims and values, the respective responsibilities of the school and of parents, and what the school expects of its pupils. All agreements should include expectations on the standard of education, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and the information that schools and parents will give to each other. But that is not on the face of the Bill, nor should it be.
However, it is important that parents should be clear about their rights and responsibilities and what they can do to support and help their children. I suggest to the Committee that the way to ensure that the policy is not simply put on a shelf, behind the clock, in a file or somewhere else, is to ensure that this agreement is taken home and is signed. That is the difference between us and those Members of the Committee who have tabled these amendments. I venture to suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the difference between us concerns how we achieve what we want rather than what we want, because we are in agreement about that.
I turn to Amendment No. 237 in the name of my noble friend Lady David. It would negate many of the points that I have made. I refer to all of the provisions
1108
for the parental declarations associated with home-school agreements. For the reasons I have given, I think it is essential that schools should invite parents to sign a declaration. We want them to demonstrate the importance of education by declaring their commitment to work in partnership. Agreements will be important in helping to engage parents in raising pupils' achievements, and in action to combat truancy, bullying and unacceptable behaviour. However, we are not being rigid about this. Clause 103(4) states,
"Subsection (3) does not, however, require the governing body to seek the signature of a qualifying parent if, having regard to any special circumstances relating to the parent or the pupil in question, they consider that it would be inappropriate to do so".
I do not need to spell out what kind of parents and what kind of pupils we are talking about in these cases. There clearly will be occasions when it will be absolutely impossible, unreasonable and legalistic to try to secure an agreement. There will clearly be cases where parents do not care or are absent. There is the matter of children in children's homes. However, as I said, we are not being rigid about this. My noble friend seeks to remove from the Bill the subsections which allow flexibility on this matter. I do not think that is wise.
Amendment No. 238 in the name of my noble friend Lady David would remove the provision which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing who, in addition to parents, governing bodies should consult. While we share her conviction as to the importance of full consultation, we believe that the Bill's existing provisions already ensure that. We do not want to place a requirement to consult staff and pupils on the face of the Bill. We believe that that should be dealt with in guidance. We intend to issue guidance which will encourage a school to consult with staff and pupils.
Lest my noble friend should think that I am antagonistic towards her on this point, as a chair of governors in a comprehensive school I had pupil governors elected to the governing body. That went on for several years until we were told that it had always been illegal. We therefore had them come into the meetings informally. We had an A and B agenda, which is perfectly possible. It worked very well. Indeed, my younger son became a pupil governor, and then a governor, of his college of technology. In that way, pupils learn citizenship. I am strongly in favour of involving pupils. There is no disagreement between us as to the objective; it is simply a matter of what appears on the face of the Bill and what does not.
My noble friend then spoke to Amendment No. 244. The proposal in that amendment represents good practice and is to be encouraged. It happens in good schools. There is nothing to prevent pupils being consulted anyway on home-school agreements. It would merely seem too dirigiste to have that provision on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend said, puzzlingly, that the word "pupil" does not appear on the face of the Bill. A quick count indicates that Clauses 1, 4, 6, 15, 38, 40, 61 to 65, 67, 68, 81 to 83, 87, 88, 91, 96 and 103 contain that reference. Our objection is not that we are in any way

1109
against referring to pupils or consulting pupils. I hope that on that basis all noble Lords involved will not feel it appropriate to press their amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the context of his remarks regarding three partners—the school, the parents and the pupils—would it not be appropriate for pupils also to be asked to sign this agreement on school policy, subject to age and understanding. That would have two favourable results. It would encourage pupils to take responsibility for their own behaviour and it might encourage parents to be helpful in that respect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no reason why home-school agreements should not be drafted on that basis. It is merely that we do not want to impose it. Also, we do not want to become involved in definitions such as what is appropriate for the age and understanding of pupils.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his long dissertation on the amendments and for pointing out our similarities of view. I was not entirely convinced at the end of his remarks. My feeling is that one reason some of us are slightly concerned about these agreements has to do with the words of a Minister in the other place, Mr. Jack Straw. His comments made me slightly worried. Given the remarks made tonight by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I feel rather happier. However, there are still problems.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and our own amendments in a sense have the same effect and the same aim. It is a matter of involving teaching and non-teaching staff in a school, and pupils and parents, in trying to achieve agreement on school policy. Our amendments go further in emphasising the continuous and developing nature of the policy. Most noble Lords who spoke agreed that that was a good idea.
I, too, was slightly concerned that if people did not sign the agreements, it could be used in order not to have certain children in a school. I am glad that that point has been clarified. It is important to be clear that this is not a basis for refusing children admission to school.
However, I still have a problem with the idea of signing. If we are saying that there will still be those who will not sign the agreement, why do we set ourselves up to do something that we shall not be able to achieve? That was what worried many of us and others outside this place who have supported us in these amendments. We are all concerned about the true meaning of partnership; namely, that agreement is reached together. It is not imposed. I think that we are all agreed on that.
We shall have to read carefully what has been said in the debate and consult carefully with those who have in a sense been working with us on trying to clarify exactly what will happen in relation to this proposal. We may
1110
return to the matter at a later stage. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to speak.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may make one comment. I certainly admit to being guilty of exaggeration in relation to the word "pupil" not being on the face of the Bill. Of course, it is. The point is that it is not provided on the face of the Bill that pupils should be consulted in deciding the policy. For instance, Clause 103(5) states:
"Where the governing body consider that a registered pupil at the school has a sufficient understanding of the home-school agreement as it relates to him, they may invite the pupil to sign the parental declaration".
I do not think that that is quite enough. We want pupils to be consulted about the best method of deciding the school discipline code, the way of behaviour, and so on. That is not on the face of the Bill at any point. I should like to see pupils being brought into the discussion early on. I hope that the Government could sometimes be a little flexible in responding to real anxieties with regard to this area. I think we shall have to come back to this issue at the next stage of the Bill. I hope that in the meantime the Government will give consideration to the matter.
Baroness Maddock: I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady David. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E, 236, 236A, 237, 237A, 237B, 238, 238A and 239 not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Supplementary provisions about home-school agreements]:
[Amendment No. 239A not moved.]
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 80, line 9, at beginning insert ("Unless any such arrangements were in force on 1st January 1998.").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I shall move the amendment on his behalf. The amendment refers to subsection (4) of Clause 104. A good deal has been said about home-school agreements. It is interesting that the right honourable Lady, Miss Harman, and the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister, no less, are signatories to home-school contracts, it being a condition that, if they do not sign a contract, their child cannot attend the school. It is a binding contract. That is outlawed by subsection (4). At Second Reading, or certainly very early on in our deliberations, I asked the noble Baroness whether the home-school contract which was in operation at one school, at least, the Oratory in London, and maybe at a number of other schools too—because the Oratory cannot be the only school in the country to have a home-school contract—would be outlawed by the Bill. We now know the answer. I have

1111
read the Bill more carefully since I first asked the question. Subsection (4) states:
"Neither the governing body of a school to which section 103(1) applies nor the local education authority … shall—
(a) invite any person to sign the parental declaration at a time when the child in question has not been admitted to the school".
In other words, they may not make it a condition of admittance to the school. Paragraph (c) provides that neither the governing body nor the local education authority can,
"make any decision as to whether or not to admit a child to the school by reference to whether",
they have signed the declaration. Fine words were spoken to the previous amendments, but it seems to me mean spirited, where these measures work, and have worked very successfully, to prevent them. My noble friend's amendment, which I would have supported had he been here, simply says that,
"Unless any such arrangements were in force on 1st January 1998",
subsection (4) applies. In other words, the position that applies at present shall be allowed to continue and from here on schools are bound by the measures contained in the Bill.
It will be interesting if the Government persist in invalidating the contract system that works in at least one school of which the Prime Minister has first-hand information. In that school it works exceptionally well. My understanding—I may be wrong—is that the Prime Minister is not aware that the measures in the Bill will have this effect. I believe that he will be quite surprised. The debate tonight may bring the matter to his notice.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government. It is a modest amendment. It simply freezes those arrangements that were in place up to 1st January 1998 and allows the Government's measures to take effect thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refused to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, when he anticipated amendments of this sort and I am therefore duty bound to respond properly. The noble Baroness is quite right. The provisions in Clause 104 prevent the use of home-school agreements in the admissions process. They do so uncompromisingly and, unless this amendment were to be accepted, they would apply also to existing agreements.
We do not believe it is right—this is a fundamental statement of principle—to allow admissions authorities to base their decisions on whether a parent has signed or is willing to sign an agreement. We uphold the principle that an admissions authority should not be able to attach conditions when making the offer of a place. It cannot be right to deny a child a place because his or her parents are unwilling to sign the home-school agreement. The interests of the child must come first, not the willingness or otherwise of the parent to sign a home-school agreement.
Once a child has been admitted to a school it is right to expect parents to sign a declaration that they acknowledge and accept both their responsibilities and
1112
the school's expectations of their child. Of course, we anticipated that either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would refer to the case of the London Oratory. I do not deny that that is of both political and educational importance. I have looked at the missions statement of the London Oratory from its prospectus. I have it in front of me now. It contains a whole range of requirements setting out the priorities which will be given to those accepted into the school.
As all Members of the Committee will be aware, it is a good school; it is a successful school; and it is significantly over-subscribed. Priority will be given first, to practising members of the Roman Catholic Church. It goes on to say,
"The places available will be offered to the most suitable candidates and the decision will be made in the light of the following factors: whether the boy comes from a family in which the Catholic parent or parents are practising members of the Roman Catholic Church; acceptance by the parents and boy of the conditions under which the boys are admitted to and allowed to remain in the school; acceptance of firm discipline and the school regulations: commitment by the parents and by the boy to 11–18 schooling and an undertaking to remain at the school for sixth form".
Other factors include the child's record at the previous school, interest in extra curricular activities and whether there is a brother or sister at the school. There is a whole series of criteria which a successful, over-subscribed school has been able, perfectly legally under DfEE Circular 696, to apply to its admissions policy. In this clause and in resisting this amendment we say that the willingness or otherwise of parents to sign a home-school agreement should not be one of those criteria. We do not believe that the opportunity for a child to attend that or any school should be affected by the willingness of the parents to sign a home-school agreement. For that reason, we resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord saying in more simple terms that the situation that pertains at the Oratory will be banned by this Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am saying that those parts of the agreement I read out, which involve the signature on a home-school agreement, will no longer be possible when the Bill becomes law.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is difficult to talk about those parts because any home-school agreement will have a variety of parts within it. It is no accident that this school is a very good school. What the noble Lord is saying is that from now on someone who refuses to accept those conditions cannot be discriminated against.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say anything about the other conditions. I referred to a refusal to sign a home-school agreement. We spent 50 minutes debating the contents and context of a home-school agreement. The willingness or otherwise of a parent to sign a home-school agreement will no longer be one of the criteria for admission to any school.
Baroness Blatch: That was my question. I asked about parents who come along to that school and refuse

1113
to sign the home-school agreement, which includes many of those conditions. They are part of being accepted into the school. They are conditions in terms of the commitment of parents and in terms of a commitment to supporting the regime of the school, the ethos of the school and the discipline within the school. If parents come along and refuse to sign the agreement it will not be possible for the school to discriminate against them in terms of entry. Is that right?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It cannot be a criterion for admission. I listened carefully to the preceding discussion and I took it that the movers of the amendments—both from the Liberal Democrat Benches and my noble friend Lady David—were very keen on a home-school policy which was arrived at by consensus between parents, the school and the pupils. They were keen on it being negotiated between the school and the parents and on the pupils being consulted. They were keen on it being a continuing process. How that is compatible with making it a criterion for admission is beyond me.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is a past master at diversionary tactics. Nothing in my amendment invalidates Clause 103. Clause 103 is a very fine idea. If a school wants a voluntary agreement, if a school wants to set out conditions within its contract and invite parents to sign it and to accept as part of that that if a parent does not sign it that is all right, I have no objection. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that where one can get a voluntary agreement and a fruitful partnership, that is a good thing.
All I am saying is that one or two schools, perhaps more—notably one school to which the Prime Minister sends his children, another Cabinet Minister sends her children and a third government Minister sends his children—already have agreements which have worked for a very long time. It is no accident and no coincidence that those are fine schools. Because of the system, because of the signatures that they have on those agreements, they have the highest possible degree of conformity to the way in which the school is run and to the way in which the school operates.
The Bill proposes that that can no longer continue. In the future that will be challenged under Clause 103, because the prohibition is in Clause 104 and not Clause 103. Nothing in my noble friend's amendment invalidates what is in Clause 103. That can continue, I have no argument with that and I did not rise to object to it. I am simply saying that something which is satisfactory to the leader of the noble Lord's party and to Cabinet Ministers within his party should be allowed to continue for parents who follow behind them.
I find it mean spirited and politics for its own sake. The world will not fall apart if the school can continue with that system. The only thing that can arise as a result of the dogged determination of the Government to set their face against this policy is that parents will come along, will want entry to that school, will refuse to sign a home-school agreement but, under the law, the school will not be allowed to discriminate against them. A new ground for discrimination will be set up. It seems to me
1114
that it must be possible for schools to say, "This is how we are run", and, in conjunction with the agreement of the parents, to have the fullest possible conformity. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, my information is that the Prime Minister does not understand what is being abolished here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment perhaps I may say to her that I have set out the Government's position on this matter and I do not propose to repeat it. The position is entirely clear. She speaks as though the implication of Clause 104 is that there would be discrimination against a child whose parents refused to sign a home-school agreement as a condition of admission. That is not the case. That is not allowed to be a criterion for admission. Our view is that the importance of home-school agreements and creating a real relationship between the school, parents and pupils are the overriding considerations. It is on that basis that we resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall return to the issue once more. The noble Lord has again missed the point completely. If parents refuse to sign a home-school agreement one assumption is that they do not agree with everything in it. They may not agree with the disciplinary regime or all kinds of things that may be in the agreement, yet they desperately want to get their child into that particular school because it has a very high reputation in London. They believe that their child might receive a better education. Unless they have a commitment to the way in which the school is run and the disciplinary regime within it, besides the other conditions that are part of the agreement, then the noble Lord is saying that the school would not be in a position to refuse to accept the pupil on the grounds that the parents do not agree with some of the conditions in the home-school agreement. That would be wholly wrong for that particular school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness has not said what the noble Lord said. What I have said, I have said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Provision of secondary education for Key Stage 4 pupils by FE institutions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 240A:
Page 81, line 23, leave out ("further education is provided") and insert ("education is provided to a person who has attained the age of nineteen years").
The noble Lord said: Clause 106, as currently drafted, stipulates that pupils aged between 14 and 16 who will be receiving secondary education provided by a further education college cannot be educated in the same room as 16 to 18 year-old students except in circumstances prescribed by regulation. The purpose of this amendment is to set the dividing line at the age

1115
of 19 instead. Key stage 4 pupils being educated in a school may be taught in the same room as older sixth form pupils.
The effect of the clause as it currently stands would be to restrict the education of the same age groups if the provision were to apply in a further education college. It was not our intention to restrict in this way the teaching of 14 to 16 year-olds in the same room as 16 to 19 year-olds. Instead there should be a single dividing line between persons aged 19 and over and younger persons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Clause 107 [Nutritional standards for school lunches]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZH:
Page 81, line 27, leave out ("Regulations may prescribe") and insert ("The Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to").
The noble Baroness said: This part of the Bill does represent the nanny state. The Secretary of State is now going to tell all our children precisely what they must eat in school. There are all kinds of practical problems with that. My memory goes back to the days when there were nutritional standards. Meat and two veg were cooked at the school by the dinner ladies. The pigs did rather well in those days because of the amount of food that was sent out. Children would not eat liver, cabbage, carrots or spinach. An incredible amount of waste left the school almost on a daily basis.
There have been a great many heartening developments over the years. Certainly, in the schools of which I was a governor, in a number of schools with which I was familiar in my own local authority and in the schools I visited across the country in my time at the Department for Education, and since, what I have seen has led me to believe that an enormous amount is going on in schools to promote healthy eating. That includes curriculum work.
However, it now appears that the Secretary of State is to reintroduce the notion of nutritional standards, which I suspect will come either from the Food Agency, as an adviser, or from the Government's Chief Scientist and his staff. Fashion about what does and does not comprise "healthy eating" changes so frequently that the notion that every single school child will receive a missive from on high, saying what he or she should eat on a daily basis, is almost incredible.
It is an inflexible policy. It appears that children will have to eat what is set out by the Secretary of State under the regulations to be made by him under the powers of Clause 107. I am certainly not against guidance, which would be helpful to some schools. However, there is the bizarre practical question of the growing number of children who take their own lunch to school. There will be no control whatever over what they eat. Schools are doing sterling service in trying to persuade parents to ensure that there is fruit in their child's lunch-box and that the child does not eat too much chocolate or too many sweets or crisps. Schools
1116
are doing what they can, but, ultimately, when a child opens his or her lunch-box, he or she will eat whatever the parent has put there. In many schools, the majority of children will bring in a lunch-box and there will be no nutritional control over them, while sitting alongside them will be children who should be eating their school liver and cabbage but who will probably be wasting most of it.
I am disheartened to see a return to such detail. Oh, that there were more detail in the clauses on action zones! The amount of detail on matters such as this is extraordinary. Guidance is more appropriate and we are given absolutely no detail on the very big political and educational issues.
I hope the Minister will appreciate the fact that schools would welcome guidance. The Government are setting all sorts of serious practical problems for many schools which may have disposed of their kitchens. Other schools may have a majority of pupils who eat their lunch from lunch-boxes provided externally. I hope that the Minister will see the merits of providing guidance, but not a diktat from above. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall resist the temptation of arguing with the noble Baroness about the value of spinach or carrots. Her contribution failed to recognise the difference between nutritional standards and the provision of uniform meals. It is true that considerable progress has been made in a number of schools in ensuring that food is of a better nutritional standard and more enjoyable. However, that is not the case in other schools. Technically, as the amendment stands, it would remove the provision of compulsory nutritional standards from the Bill. In fact, the Secretary of State is already capable of issuing voluntary guidance—and has done so. Therefore, these provisions are, in effect, opting for the status quo.
In conjunction with other measures to improve food safety and standards, the Government believe that voluntary guidance was an important step but that compulsory nutritional standards are needed to ensure at least a common minimum in terms of nutrition in all school lunches. It is important that all children attending a maintained school should have the opportunity of a healthy school meal in whatever form it comes. That is commensurate with our drive to avoid an increase in diet-based diseases among schoolchildren and beyond, leading to diseases and premature death. The opportunity of a healthy school meal should not depend on the particular school attended and on whether its regime recognises nutritional standards. The short and long-term health of all children is vital.
I should have thought that Members of the Committee would agree that it is particularly important that children who are entitled to free school meals are guaranteed the opportunity of a nutritional, healthy meal in the middle of the day. Clause 107 guarantees just that. This can be mocked as the noble Baroness attempted to do so in her opening remarks. However, for many children it is vital that we accept the responsibility for ensuring that they have at least one decent meal per day. That is the intention of this clause. I ask the noble Baroness on reflection to withdraw her amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I am very much in favour of this measure. Over the years there has been a dreadful deterioration in the diet of children in this country. My generation, born at the end of the war, and those who lived through the war—we did not like the lack of choice—were the most healthy and we had healthy eating habits. Those of us who have visited schools recently will have been appalled to see children eating packets of crisps for breakfast. We are storing up tremendous problems for the future. Anything that we can do to encourage children and ensure that they eat healthily is to be applauded. I suffered as a teenager from my parents' belief that because of rationing they would be kind to me and let me eat various things. It was a tremendous mistake and made me rather strict with my own children. But now they are older they appreciate that there is a point in caring about what they eat. For that reason it is important to have minimum nutritional standards at least in early years. We know from all the surveys carried out that eating habits are developed in early years, and those are habits of a lifetime. If we do not get at children when they are young, we will store up all kinds of problems for the future.
Although on the whole I am not in favour of lots of regulation, I have a great deal of sympathy for this measure. If one looks at France, Germany and Scandinavia, those countries are very strict on these matters. Many of their schools provide free food to pupils, which ensures that they get a proper diet. I give this measure my warm support.
Baroness Blatch: I shall not press these amendments. However, my understanding is that the lifespan of men and women has increased quite dramatically. All the figures that I have seen indicate that life expectancy is higher than it was—certainly much higher than when I was a girl. My argument is about promotion. We must continue to promote healthy eating vigorously. I am concerned about rigidity: once it is written in, that is the law.
A very large percentage of children—I suspect, in primary schools, the majority of children—eat lunches outside the jurisdiction of the school. They eat within the school boundaries but lunches are provided by parents. This clause does not touch on that matter. Therefore, one will have a very large proportion of children who will not be caught by this. Before I withdraw my amendment, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me what evidence he has to suggest that there has been a rise in diet-related diseases among children and a rise in premature deaths due to diet. What is the source of that evidence?
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may have elided two different matters. I do not have at my fingertips the evidence for increased child diseases. I have in mind obesity and breathing difficulties, which can be related to diet. In extreme circumstances in some communities malnutrition has increased. As to premature deaths, I was referring to the knock-on effects into adult life. I do not believe that there is a significant increase, if any, in
1118
premature deaths among children. I am sorry if what I said was misleading. However, I am fairly sure that I can produce statistics to show an increase in diet-related diseases in school children.
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I am aware that yesterday the Diabetic Association had an exhibition in the House. I am also aware that this morning it launched a report that demonstrated an increase in diabetes particularly connected with today's eating habits.
Baroness Blatch: As the mother of a diabetic child, I can say that it is not eating habits that cause diabetes. It is a breakdown in a particular part of the pancreas. In children it is not diet that causes diabetes. In older people it is diet, but in children it is a breakdown in the function of the pancreas. In my son's case, it was an attack of German measles that was both internal and external.
Baroness Maddock: I realise that what the noble Baroness says is true. Nevertheless, I report what I heard on the radio today: that there are two types of diabetes, as the noble Baroness said. There is concern that there is an increase of diabetes among younger people, but not of the type that the noble Baroness's son had.
Baroness Blatch: I had a lot to do with child diabetics. I know that I am talking about child diabetics and not adult diabetics. If the noble Lord will write to me with the specific evidence to which he referred on the rise in diet-related diseases and premature deaths, I should be grateful. I find the evidence and piece of research interesting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 233ZJ to 233ZM not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 241H:
Page 82, line 1, leave out ("has the meaning given by regulations under this section.") and insert (", in relation to a pupil, means food made available for consumption by the pupil as his midday meal on a school day, whether involving a set meal or the selection of items by him or otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment to put into effect the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee proposals. The committee invited the House to consider whether Clause 107 should be amended either to remove the power to define "school lunch" in Clause 107(5) or to put a definition in the Bill.
The Government agree that there is merit in that view. These amendments are therefore designed to define a school lunch on the face of the Bill. A school lunch can be but is not always a set meal. In the majority of secondary schools and in some primary schools a cafeteria style system exists where people are free to select whatever combination of items they wish. Those are part of the arrangements to which the noble Baroness referred earlier.
These amendments cover both arrangements. They are also designed to ensure that nutritional standards and the duty to provide paid meals only cover food which is

1119
part of the midday meal, therefore excluding sales of confectionary and crisps at whatever time of the day they are acquired.
There are occasions when LEAs or schools provide food in advance at midday to pupils for consumption at their midday meal. For example, a packed lunch may be supplied for pupils going on a school trip. It is intended that this should be covered by the nutritional standards provisions.
The amendments to Clause 108 apply the same definition of a school lunch to the new obligation to provide a paid lunch. Consequently, an LEA may meet its obligation by providing food either as a set meal or a cash cafeteria but not just by tuckshop sales. The last amendment is consequential on those two. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Extension of LEA functions concerning school lunches, etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 241J and 241K:
Page 82, line 11, leave out ("meals") and insert ("school lunches").
Page 82, line 27, leave out ("has such meaning as may be prescribed."") and insert (", in relation to a pupil, means food made available for consumption by the pupil as his midday meal on a school day, whether involving a set meal or the selection of items by him or otherwise."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Transfer of LEA functions concerning school lunches, etc. to governing bodies]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 241L:
Page 83, line 16, leave out ("meals") and insert ("school lunches").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Definition of nursery education]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241LA:
Page 84, line 5, leave out ("suitable for") and insert ("appropriate to the developmental stage or).
The noble Baroness said: We move on to some important aspects of the Bill relating to nursery education. I believe that nursery education means full-time or part-time education not that is "suitable for" but is "appropriate to the developmental stage of children who have not attained compulsory school age. I have tabled the amendment largely to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that at all stages of education, particularly at pre-school age, the stage of development will differ. There are many examples of children being inappropriately placed either in a large infant class or in a reception class. It is important that, if a major part of the Bill is to be dedicated to nursery education, the words "appropriate to the developmental stage of a child are included. Some children are more advanced and some will lag behind and need a great deal more attention. The most traditional forms of child
1120
education cater for that either through the personal care of mothers, through specialised nursery education where, under guidance, children are able to select their learning tools and learn by imitation and action, or in small groups with the support of mothers and volunteers.
All those approaches allow for flexibility and, where possible, a personal response to each individual child. It is not sensible or satisfactory for local authorities, still less the Government, to second guess the opinions and knowledge of parents and nursery teachers. Setting out rigid programmes of work or syllabuses of curricula for children of this age is not right because the needs of each child differ radically. Therefore, prescribing methods in such a rigid fashion would be difficult.
I am worried about the word "suitable". The provision can be suitable for the LEA and it can be suitable for the wrong reasons. A paramount consideration should be the developmental, educational and social needs of the child at that age. The words that I wish to put on to the face of the Bill will allow the Government to show their determination not to allow unsuitable provision in large local authority reception classes. I can point to many examples of that. No one who has the interests of individual children at heart could object to the wording. In that vein, I hope that the noble Baroness is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said. I entirely agree that the nursery education which each child receives must be appropriate to his or her needs. Those needs will vary between children and there should be no question of forcing teaching and learning beyond that which is appropriate for the individual child. Equally, the most able children should not be held back.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is to review what is known in the jargon as desirable learning outcomes which children in nursery education work towards. In doing so, it will cover specifically the concerns which the noble Baroness is expressing—they have recently been expressed by a number of others—about over-formalising early education. During my early career, I spent some time working on nursery education and I strongly believe that it should not be over-formalised.
When planning the provision of nursery eduction for four year-olds in an area, early years development partnerships must ensure that there is sufficient diversity of provision to meet the differing needs of the children in their area. Parents are best placed to choose the provision that is right for their child. Once a child is attending a particular provider, parents and staff ought to work together to ensure that the child's needs are met. Part of the role of the inspectors is to check that that is happening. Through our consultation on the regulation of early education and day care, and through the review which is being carried out by the QCA as well as through a review of qualifications and training, we will make sure that the education provided for four year-olds in all settings is of good quality and appropriate to the needs of the children concerned. That must include provision in reception classes. I should remind the noble

1121
Baroness, however, that it was the nursery education voucher scheme which led to an unfortunate and uncontrolled increase in the number of children admitted to reception classes as both schools and LEAs tried to maximise their income from vouchers. But we are trying to stop this.
We have already made it clear to LEAs in our guidance on drawing up early years development plans that we did not expect plans to provide a free place for all four year-olds simply by expanding reception classes. We have asked all partnerships to set out in their plans a strategy for raising quality and, in particular, to monitor how well provision in reception classes meets the needs of the youngest four year-olds. However, it would, I think, be wrong to assume that it is always bad for a child to be in a reception class. Ofsted's evidence, including the latest report, which will be published on Friday—but which I think the noble Baroness may have seen because at my request a pre-publication copy was sent by Ofsted to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Tope—suggests that most reception classes provide satisfactory or better education for four year-olds. I think that in the best reception classes teachers are often ably assisted by additional staff. Some pupils benefit from the flexibility that is offered to move beyond the desirable learning outcomes when they are ready.
Our firm intention is to ensure that every child receives good quality nursery education that meets his or her individual needs in whatever setting the parent may choose. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the way to do this is not through amendments such as these, which seek to change a definition of nursery education which we believe is already quite broad enough for the purpose they envisage, but by actually influencing what happens on the ground. We have already made good progress on this and we shall go on pursuing it vigorously. So I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I simply find it impossible to understand how I am changing the definition of education. If the noble Baroness is saying that to provide "appropriate to the developmental stage" of a child is changing the definition of education and is not consistent with what the Government want, I am really at a loss. I should have thought that the Government would at least sign up to the notion that any provision should be appropriate to their developmental stage, certainly for children who are in the most formative years of their lives. The accusation that my amendments change the definition of nursery education is perplexing. But I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 84, line 6, at end insert ("whether or not such education is provided in classes which include older children").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 241 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 241F.
These two amendments are about definitions. It is not clear in the definition of "nursery education" in the Bill whether that would include education of children under compulsory school age in mixed classes with children of compulsory school age. My Amendment 241A would clarify that issue.
Amendment No. 241F addresses a rather different problem. I am advised that the phrase "nursery classes" is nowhere defined in statute. Nursery schools and reception classes are defined in the Education Act 1996. Nursery education and infant classes are defined in this Bill, but nursery classes are not defined. I suggest that it is important they should be. They are referred to not only in the Children Act but also in the recent consultation paper published by the department concerning Early Education and Day Care. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in both of his amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord is quite right to say that there is no statutory definition of a nursery class. Equally, there is no statutory definition of the difference between pre-school, a private nursery school and a day nursery. But what is important is not what a certain classroom or institution is called or how it is defined but what children experience when they are in that setting.
In fact, by defining any setting too closely, we should run the risk of removing the flexibility of provision to evolve alongside children's needs. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the previous amendment, I agree that it is important that nursery provision meets the child's social, physical, emotional and educational needs.
Although we welcome the diversity of provision which comes from a mix of types of provider, I sympathise entirely with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about such matters as staffing ratios, a concern which he has expressed previously, and the regulatory differences between the different types of early-years providers. The noble Lord will know also that I share his view that the current arrangements do not make very much sense. I have sympathy with those who call for a rather more level playing field. That is why we are consulting on the regulation of early education and day care, including the issue of adult-child ratios, which is mentioned specifically in one of the noble Lord's amendments.
Through that consultation and through the review of the desirable learning outcomes—
Lord Northbourne: I was speaking only to Amendments Nos. 241A and 241F. I had intended to make a few remarks about the other amendments, although I shall try to be brief. Perhaps the noble Baroness is answering all my amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: I was not moving on to the later amendments. I am aware that the noble Lord has tabled other amendments but if he thinks that I am anticipating them in some way, I shall not continue.

1123
I hope that I have given the noble Lord some reassurance. I do not believe that there is a need for these amendments because the Government are absolutely committed to the provision of nursery education that meets the needs of all children. The statutory definition which the noble Lord suggests does not seem to us to be necessary.
Lord Northbourne: I accept what the noble Baroness says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241F not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Duty of local education authority as respects availability of nursery education]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 241B:
Page 84, line 17, after ("education;") insert—
("() shall have regard to any facilities for providing education not supplied by the local education authority but which are or may become available within their area;
() shall ensure that in the provision of such education the ratio of children to adults does not exceed the maximum ratio set out in guidance to the Children Act 1989 or any subsequent guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and shall ensure that any requirements as to qualifications which are required by that guidance are complied with;
() shall have regard to the social and emotional needs of children in respect of class or group size and learning environment;
() shall have regard to the role of parent participation and involvement in such education;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 241C to 241E. These amendments express my concern on three issues. The first is that there seems to be too little provision in the Bill for what the Children Act describes as children in need. I am not talking about children with special educational needs, although some children in need may well have special educational needs. Children in need often come from families which have not been able to give them the parental support they need in the pre-school years. Very often, they have poorly developed emotional maturity and social skills. They need special care. They need a high ratio of caring adults to children. They need small classes with freedom from bullying by other children. I do not find anything in the Bill which provides for that category of children.
My second concern is about partnership. The Government have expressed their desire to have a partnership with the independent and voluntary sector. It is not possible to have a partnership if the partnership is too unequal. There is already some evidence to suggest that local authorities are what I can only describe as "bullying" the independent and voluntary sector by not keeping them fully informed.
There are three risks involved. The first is that the rules and regulations which the Government provide for the private and independent sector as opposed to the state sector will produce a level playing field. There is a particular problem in that respect as regards
1124
inspection. In many areas today—for example, in old people's homes—the local authority is both the judge and the plaintiff in its own cause. Such authorities inspect their own homes, but they do not do so with the same rigour as applies when they inspect homes which are run by the voluntary and independent sector.
Secondly, there is what is called in business the "waste paper basket principle"; that is to say, you fill your own accommodation first and then, if you have any left over, you make it available to your clients. In some cases, I believe that local authorities are doing precisely that in regard to old people's homes. They keep their own homes full and they let the voluntary and independent sector take up the overflow. Those are areas where the Government need to be concerned.
Finally, there is the question of the involvement of parents. We all agree that the most important single factor in a child's success at school is the involvement and support of parents. That is particularly important in the pre-school years. Without that kind of support from parents, the Government's new and admirable strategies will fail some children. I argue that teachers should not operate in an ivory tower; indeed, they should be concerned to build on the love and trust of children for their parents and to secure the kind of educational outcomes which we all want to see. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I rise to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have reached an important part of the Bill which deals with the very formative years of children. Having three grandchildren aged five, three and nearly three, I well appreciate that needs vary between children. Therefore, I should like to go through some of what the noble Lord said.
There is one matter which worries me about the Bill at present. In her previous reply, the Minister indicated that the Government are giving thought to pupil-teacher relationships. If my understanding of the provision is correct—and the noble Baroness will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—if children go to a starter class in a mainstream school the ratio is not the same as that required for nursery education provided elsewhere. I believe that the ratio in respect of private nursery education or playgroups is one to eight, whereas it is one to 15 in state schools. Therefore, straight away one does not have a level playing field.
One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is that there is a much greater squeeze on the voluntary and smaller groups and, indeed, on private nursery education which is already being provided because more of the maintained schools now accept children at the age of four. Surely that is not right. When the matter was debated in the other place the Minister, Miss Morris, stated again that she really wished to see wide provision. I am sure that that is a view which is shared by all Members of the Committee. Indeed, we want to see a variety of provision because the needs of one four year-old are not the same as those of another four year-old. Yet, by the very nature of the current situation, I understand that a ratio of one to eight compared with one to 15 does not enable those concerned to provide the same kind of education provision.

1125
When the Minister replies, I should be most obliged if either he or she—I do not know which one it will be—could tell us a little more about the thinking behind this provision. It is most important that such provision should be diverse. The present provision should not be squeezed; and, indeed, we should be able to have playgroups and private nursery schools as well as entrance at the age of four to the maintained primary schools.
The noble Lord mentioned an interesting point. When I worked with WRVS we worked with old people and I had dealings with old people's homes. Perhaps it is not fair to the Minister to mention this matter as she is not briefed on it, but she may be able to comment on it. I was acutely aware of the strictures that were laid down with regard to the way in which private old people's homes were run and were inspected. I understand that in many cases local authority old people's homes were inspected by the local authority's own councillors. I am anxious to establish a level playing field in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned parental involvement. As a grandparent I believe that is extremely important. Involvement in a playgroup can comprise one of the child's parents not simply taking the child to the playgroup but becoming involved in its organisation. That makes a great contribution to the group. I fear that that kind of provision will be squeezed. I shall not lose that fear unless I receive some good reassurances from the Minister. I believe that in many cases the variety of provision that currently exists will be squeezed out of existence. I shall stop at this point but I reiterate my support for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on the issues that the noble Lord and I feel strongly about.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his efforts to persuade the Government to sort out the muddle of early years provision. I do not wish to be contentious at this time of night but I do not believe that the introduction of vouchers helped the situation. That was followed by a change of government. I support the Government as regards early years provision. They have said that they will make early years provision available for all four year-olds, and eventually for three year-olds. The Minister indicated that the Government are still undertaking consultation on that. For that reason it will probably be difficult to pursue this in any great depth tonight. However, we as a party support the provision of early years education for all three and four year-olds whose parents want them to take part in it.
I hope that the Minister can give us an inkling of the Government's proposals on this matter. However, I envisage problems for local education authorities in this regard. We have a large Bill before us and sometimes I wonder whether what we shall get out of it will correlate to the amount of discussion we have had on it. Schools and local education authorities want to know what will happen in this sector. When are the
1126
Government thinking of including three year-olds in this provision? Local education authorities and schools need to know that to be able to plan for the future.
Ministers in another place have clearly stated that they do not consider education for four year-olds to comprise merely accepting them into reception classes. However, that has happened. That may not be entirely this Government's fault, but it has happened. In the past year, that has resulted in some 800 community based pre-schools closing. People believe that another 1,500 may close in the future. Recently the pre-school alliance conducted a survey which showed a huge drop in the number of four year-olds attending pre-school groups. I hope that the Government will take those matters into account because I feel there is a real problem here. I believe that all of us have the same intention.
I hope that if nothing else comes out of the Bill we can try to sort this matter out. At an earlier stage I expressed sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the ratio of children to teachers in different early years education establishments. It is an awful muddle. When we consider that a child can one week attend what is termed a playgroup with a small ratio of children to staff and the very next week can attend an establishment where there is a much higher number of children per members of staff, it is crazy, and something ought to be done about it.
I appreciate that it is not easy. I shall be interested to know how the Minister sees the future, and whether we are likely to receive any indication before the next stage of the Bill. I can see the noble Baroness looking rather disappointed. This matter is important. The Minister may be able to give us some indication tonight. When I think of all the bits of schooling that we have at present, this is a mess. Everyone has now come to agree the importance of education in a child's early years, and the importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, of involving parents. That is where we set up the sort of relationships between schools, parents and children that can be fruitful in the future. It is not so easy with older children; this is where it starts. If we can engage parents at this stage, we shall do more for the future of our children than by any other provision.
Baroness Blatch: I also support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The sector of under-fives provision where parents are most involved and inextricably linked is the playgroup sector. Playgroup provision has traditionally worked with the family. I have seen nothing in the early years documents from the DfEE which defines playgroup provision as appropriate for a four year-old. The promise for four year-olds does not appear to include, as a formal part of the provision, a place in a playgroup. The blame for the difficulty playgroups have had has been laid at the door of the voucher system. I am afraid that playgroup provision still appears to be on the decline under the Government's proposals.
There is a difficulty with the idea of a level playing field. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said it is all a bit of a mess, the sadness is that the generous ratios in terms of money—those that are most cost-effective—are in LEA provision. Those that are, by

1127
the strictures of law, more expensive but very often of a high quality are, of course, private. That works against private provision.
Much has been said about how destructive the voucher scheme was. Interestingly, I was talking the other day to a nursery teacher in the LEA-controlled public sector who said that the new system is not very different. As the money follows the child, then the school that has the child gets the money, whether it is in the private or public sector. Therefore the only difference between the voucher system and the system advocated by the Government is that, instead of the parent positively making the choice, the LEA is contracting on behalf of the parent. So there is not a great deal of difference—the money is going where the child is. LEAs will inevitably want to keep the money and keep the children. That presents all sorts of tensions for those who provide education outside the LEA.
The Government have done quite a lot to try to persuade local authorities to work in co-operation and partnership with local authorities. I want to reinforce the points made on partnership by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Some of my amendments seek to establish a formal partnership committee bringing together all the providers, the LEA and other nursery providers, to make sure that changes are made with the agreement of the partnership. It will be interesting to hear the noble Baroness's comments when we debate those amendments.
This is a very interesting area. Choice and diversity must be as appropriate for under five year-olds as it is for all other children. There is a tapestry of provision, much of it very good, some of it different. The needs of these children differ, and I therefore go back to my first amendment. We want a system that is flexible enough to provide for the different needs of different children, making the best of, and exploiting, what the private sector and the public sector have to offer in partnership.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for reminding us once again of the primary importance of the needs of the child. Indeed, I think everyone who has spoken in this debate has made that point. It is one that the Government entirely accept and agree with. It is so important with children of this age group.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made some important points about involving non-maintained providers in planning nursery education, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Maddock. This is an area where we are all genuinely in agreement.
The Bill makes clear that the duty on an LEA is to "secure- places. That does not mean that the LEA provides all the places itself, nor should it. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, we expect LEAs to have regard to the available non-maintained places in the area, and we have been working hard to persuade them of the importance of this.
Different children and different parents have different needs, and we want to ensure that those needs can all be met. Some children will be fine in a nursery or
1128
reception class; others will need something slightly different, maybe something a little more homely. Parents should be able to choose the type of provision that they think is most suitable for their child at his or her particular stage of development.
Several speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned parents—the noble Lord always does so when we debate these matters. To help parents become more involved in making these choices, we want them to have access to a range of information about the types of provision available. LEAs and early years development partnerships must produce this information without bias to any sector. We also want to involve parents in planning local provision. Our guidance requires a parental representative to be included on the early years development partnership and requires the partnership to consult parents with young children on the content of the plan.
The noble Lord specifically mentioned children in need. Although the main focus of plans is to set out how a free, good quality place will be provided for all four year-olds, we have also asked partnerships to consider provision for three year-olds. They have been asked to set out in their plans what provision is available for three year-olds at present and their policies for increasing and improving this provision in future. The announcement of the national childcare strategy and the incorporation of elements of this into early years development plans will further help with the planning of integrated and appropriate provision for children of all ages, including children in need.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of partnerships. In drawing up early years development plans, partnerships are asked to take into account children's services plans and reviews carried out under the Children Act and also to consider how best they could identify and address the particular requirements of children in need.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Maddock, mentioned the issue of a more level playing field between different kinds of provision, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that it was a bit of a mess at the moment. I entirely sympathise with the concerns of both noble Baronesses. There is a problem in relation to the staffing ratios and other regulatory differences between the different types of early years providers.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government share the view that the current arrangements do not make much sense, and we must do something about them. We are looking at these issues closely through our consultation on the regulation of early education and daycare. But it is a complex issue and it would be unwise to rush into it. We must not forget that in 18 years the previous government did nothing to address inequalities in the different regimes. We want to be sure that the changes we make are right, and right at the first time of asking. We do not want a second consultation on the same issues a few years down the line because we make hasty decisions now. We have therefore deliberately allowed a lengthy

1129
consultation period—over four months—to allow all those who want to respond to make detailed and well-considered contributions. We will then look in detail at what the changes will require in terms of cost and legislation, and any other practical difficulties that may arise.
I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the importance of including private and voluntary sector providers on early years development partnerships. Again, that is something raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I am sure that all those who have taken part in this debate will be pleased to hear that this amendment on representation and partnerships is unnecessary. The current guidance on early years development partnerships and plans makes it clear that non-maintained providers should be represented on early years development partnerships, along with all the other interested parties. Officials paid close attention to partnership membership when scrutinising this year's plans, and the guidance will be given statutory force by this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked how soon we would be able to include three year-olds. I cannot give her the answer today. Again, this is one of those issues on which we await the results of the comprehensive spending review. The noble Baroness also asked whether I would be able to give any indication before the next stage as to how we would respond to some of these issues, including this issue of the level playing field. Because we have a long consultation on these complex matters—it does not close until 31st July—it would be premature to try to answer these questions before that time.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Byford, asked about playgroups. We do not want to squeeze out playgroups; that is the last thing we want to do. Indeed, we provided £500,000 to help support good quality playgroups, some of which have been partly threatened by what happened under the voucher scheme.
Baroness Blatch: On that point, can the Minister say whether a place in a playgroup is an acceptable way of meeting the pledge for a nursery place for all four year-olds?
Baroness Blackstone: The answer to that question must be no. We have given a pledge that all four year-olds can have a nursery place in a variety of different kinds of provision. Perhaps I should correct myself. I believe I am right in saying that, if it is a playgroup that has been accepted as of high quality, it will be acceptable. If it is part of an early years development plan that is put forward by a local education authority where playgroups are going to be included, the answer is that it will be possible.
The noble Baroness suggested that playgroups are not mentioned in the guidance. That is not quite correct. There is a reference to them on page 13. They are listed as an example of an acceptable form of provision.
1130
I have tried to cover all the questions that have been raised. I think that I have. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will accept that we are already taking action on the points that he raised and that, in the light of that, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may come back on a couple of points. I am grateful to her for her response and I do not intend to get into a political debate. She implied that the previous government had done nothing over the past 18 years. However, the new intake of the reception classes is a very recent development and has implications for the other varieties of provision. This did not happen 18 years ago; it evolved only recently. The ratio equation is of immense importance because it affects those who provide private nursery places. They are in competition with maintained primary schools.
While I am not making a political point. 1 wish to stress that this problem is accentuated now because more parents realise that there is a place for children in reception classes at primary schools which was not there before. This is having a direct effect, and a very immediate direct effect, on the other providers. That is why I wished to come back before the Minister sat down.
Baroness Blackstone: I did not imply that nothing was done over the past 18 years; I said that nothing was done. That, in fact, is the case. I also do not entirely accept that, because of the Government's decision to make a pledge that all four-year olds should have a place in adequate nursery provision, somehow or other these differences have become magnified. They have always been there. They have been there for many years. They were there when I first started to study this subject nearly 30 years ago.
I have already said that we will be looking at this issue. We are going to take it on board. We are consulting about it and we shall come up with a solution.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for all she has been able to say. When I spoke previously I omitted to thank her for arranging for a preview of the draft Ofsted report on the quality of education to be sent to me, which, unfortunately, I received only this morning and which caused me slightly to change what I was planning to say this evening in respect of these amendments. It is encouraging that the report will be published on 12th June and that this will perhaps inform the next stages of the Bill, or will be useful in discussion of the next stages of the Bill.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness for giving the assurance that representatives of the non-maintained providers will be included in the consultations about local provision. The consultation will not be completed until 31st July, so we shall not know the answers until the autumn. That makes it much more difficult to frame amendments in this context. However, I have done my best. I shall look at what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241BA:
Page 84, line 17, after ("education;") insert—
("() shall have due regard to the importance of diversity of provision and philosophy of education and, in particular, to the right of the parents or guardians of children who have not attained compulsory school age to make private arrangements with non-maintained providers of nursery education for the education of their children in such manner as may seem satisfactory to them, whether or not such providers conform in every respect to any guidance on nursery education which may be given by the Secretary of State or by local education authorities;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 241DA, 241DB and 241EJ. I agree most strongly with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just made. This part of the Bill ought to have been in the next Education Bill. It is bizarre to try to discuss amendments and to get all evening from the noble Baroness only the answer, understandably, that everything is in the melting pot and that the Government are consulting. By the time the consultation is over the opportunity to do something about it in terms of what does or does not appear on the face of the Bill will have passed by. That is very unfortunate indeed.
My first amendment is an important one. It goes directly to the core of two issues which are at the forefront of the worries among nursery providers about current government policies. First, there is the importance of diversity and conformist regulation and bureaucracy. There is a plethora of that. Secondly, there is the importance of parental choice.
The worry is that the state will squeeze the private sector and voluntary sector by stealth out of pre-school education. Although there is a great deal of exhortation, the truth is that the LEAs will want the money and be close to the provision. The Committee may or may not appreciate the immense burden of regulation, inspection and form-filling that nursery schools now face. On top of that there is the new bureaucracy and the arm twisting with LEA development plans. I believe that most of this bureaucracy is unnecessary. It is something of an imposition on experienced and dedicated nursery teachers. Many of them have said to me that it is removing much of the pleasure that they once took in teaching.
There are self-appraisal documents; forms with box after box to be filled in; un-numbered pages of regulations and the vexatious and frequently duplicated inspections. All that is very hard to bear for these schools. There is more than a suspicion among private and voluntary educators that it is about crushing diversity. I know that is not the Government's intention, but they will need to keep an eagle eye on what is going on to see that those kinds of things do not happen.
There is another fear that the Government are using their regulatory powers and taking more powers in this Bill in order to do what Parliament has never willed—and, I believe, never would will—the creeping nationalisation of nursery education.
The amendment does two important things. It safeguards freedoms which I hope this House and Parliament should hold high. It also enjoins the state
1132
sector, which has the whip hand now that the Government have abolished the parental choice of the voucher, to preserve maximum diversity. It enshrines the principle, with which surely everyone must agree, that the regulations and guidelines of the Government and local authorities do not interfere with private contracts between parents and private and voluntary providers.
I believe that the principle should be on the face of the Bill so that those in local authorities and inspectors' offices throughout the land are in no doubt that the Government and the courts will not allow private arrangements to be overriden by such rules. Are the Ministers and her colleagues prepared to give clear directions to those involved in inspecting and registering private and voluntary bodies that they may not use those responsibilities to enforce change which parents have not sought and do not need?
The first amendment is mainly about diversity. Amendment No. 241DA covers a very important point. There are some local authorities who are now asking almost gratuitously private nurseries to open up their accounts. If they have good reason for checking whether the money that has been given by a local authority has been properly used, there are proper procedures for that. But the worry is that they may require, or seek to require, the production of copies of extracts from unpublished accounts or from confidential tax documents prepared by, or on behalf of, a non-maintained provider. That is a worry. There should be some very real parameters within which the local authorities have to work.
Amendment No. 241DB says that where one has, for example, Montessori schools, Steiner schools and the like, providing good quality education which does not always conform absolutely to the edicts that come from local education authorities, if they are to be part of the tapestry of the provision for under-fives they will not have a style of education imposed on them.
Finally, there is the effect of paperwork. That is now reaching almost impossible levels for these schools. My Amendment No. 241 EJ asks that the effects of national education policy and the regulations or guidance on the non-maintained private or voluntary providers, the burden and volume of paperwork and the costs to them in time and money of compliance are taken properly into account. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope that I have already made it clear how greatly we value diversity of provision, and the contribution that providers outside the maintained sector can make to good quality nursery education. I absolutely refute what the noble Baroness has just said about the likelihood of the Government crushing diversity in this area. I also refute the suggestion that the Government are involved in an arm-twisting exercise here. That is entirely untrue.
While we acknowledge the need for provision to differ in the same way as children's needs differ, there is a clear distinction between diversity and quality. Diversity does not mean that anything goes. Good

1133
quality provision can be found in all sectors, but so can bad provision, I am afraid. Nothing is more important than the support we provide to young children. If something goes wrong at this age, children can be damaged fundamentally and for the rest of their lives.
We do not want to stifle individuality or blur the distinctions between different types of provision, but we do want to be sure that parents taking up an early education place for their child which is funded by public money (although it may be private provision), can be assured of a certain minimum standard of quality. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree on the importance of that.
We want to be sure that all those involved in early years are consistently working together to raise that minimum standard while ensuring that it remains inclusive rather than exclusive. All providers receiving government funding under the early years development plans must agree to work towards the desirable learning outcomes and to be inspected by inspectors recruited, trained and registered by Ofsted. From September 1999, all providers will have to have the involvement of a qualified teacher.
I do not think that any of those requirements are unduly prescriptive. They are what any child in that age group deserves. The desirable learning outcomes do not define what a child should be doing each day. They are a set of goals for children to reach at the end of his or her pre-compulsory education. It is not "undue paperwork" to make sure that those goals are clearly set out and available to the providers. Individual providers can, of course, design their own programmes as long as they promote the agreed outcomes.
We have said that all settings have to have the involvement of a qualified teacher but we have left it up to individual partnerships and settings to decide exactly how that system should work. We are thus allowing initiative, flexibility and imagination. It is true that we are prepared to allow partnerships to set quality requirements over and above those set by the department and to make delegated conditions of grant in areas such as provision of information to parents. That goes back to what we were saying on the previous group of amendments. It is part of our strategy for raising standards across the board in a way which meets the needs and starting point of each local area. But LEAs will not be able to impose additional requirements willy-nilly. Any additional requirements must be a decision for the partnership and the partnership must consult on them as part of the early years development plan.
I turn now to the issue of the opening up of accounts, to which the noble Baroness referred. If there are cases where there are improper requests for accounts to be opened up, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could write to me about them. It is not something of which the department has been aware. We have not heard of any such examples, but it would be helpful to know of any. In general, let me begin by making it clear that no money flows between the provider and the parent in respect of a free place. Nursery education grant is claimed by the provider from the LEA, which in turn
1134
claims it from the department. This is public money. We expect LEAs to take whatever steps are necessary to satisfy themselves and their district auditors that the grant is being spent on the purpose for which it is paid—that is, on nursery education. I am sure that the noble Baroness accepts that that is a proper way of regulating the use of public money.
We also expect LEAs to ensure that parents and children rather than providers benefit from nursery education grant. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that an audit process does not need to be some kind of Spanish inquisition. Although we expect LEAs to be rigorous in this area we also expect them to act reasonably. We do not want to place any artificial restraints on what LEAs can and cannot do.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has given a rather long and complicated answer, for which I am grateful. I shall reflect upon it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241BB:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
MAINTAINED AND VOLUNTARY AIDED SCHOOLS: ADMISSIONS POLICY
(" . A local education authority shall—

(a) ensure that no maintained school or voluntary aided school within its area requires children to enter school under compulsory school age as a condition, or implied condition, of admission to the said school at the age of five; and

(b) ensure that, with respect to the admissions policy of any maintained school or voluntary aided school in its area, entry into the said school's reception class or classes in the term following a child's fourth birthday shall not confer any preference or advantage over other children in the same or neighbouring local authority area who may seek entry into that school at the age of five.").

The noble Baroness said: This particular amendment is designed to deal with a very real concern on the part of providers; namely, a school may make it a condition of admission that unless parents send their child to the nursery school that child will not get a place in the junior or upper part of the school. Parents who want to do what is best for their child and exercise their preference, in most cases to leave their children in the settled, secure environment of a specialist nursery class, are being told that if they do not send their children to a reception class in their preferred primary school they may not get a place at five; or, alternatively, that if they move their four year-old they will be guaranteed a place in the primary school.
Such undertakings are rarely, if ever, committed to paper. Sadly, it is all done by a nudge or wink, but to secure the resources or the child many local authority-maintained schools up and down the land are doing this. In a way, it is grossly anti-competitive and educationally damaging for many children. Their education is interrupted at this crucial development stage and they are sometimes put into a less satisfactory

1135
environment. If the choice is a good quality nursery class with a good pupil:teacher ratio and the alternative is a crowded reception class, the parent finds it difficult to exercise a preference.
I am aware that the Minister has professed concern about this in the past and I understand that the matter is being looked into. However, currently parents have no clear power in law to resist this insidious form of blackmail. The amendment would declare with utter clarity that such practices were wrong. It might also give parents grounds to pursue in the courts schools or councils that behaved in this way. I am open to advice from the department on better wording to achieve this aim. I am sure that my attempts are rather clumsy. I hope that the noble Baroness will have some sympathy for this amendment to deal with concerns that have arisen. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I have some sympathy with the concern that lies behind this amendment. The guidance and evaluation criteria for this year's early years development plans made it clear that information provided to parents must be without bias to any one sector and should also make it clear that children are not legally required to attend primary school until they are of compulsory school age. This message will be strengthened in next year's guidance.
I turn to paragraph (a) of the amendment. No admission authority for a maintained school can require parents to send their child to a school before the child has become of compulsory school age. Even where a school does admit before compulsory school age parents may apply for a place starting from when their child reaches compulsory school age. But where a school is popular and oversubscribed a place may no longer be available. Where schools are very popular and competition for places is high I am sure that no one will deny—least of all the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—that a very popular school that operates an early admission policy should inform interested parents of the popularity of the school. Parents should know that places might not be available at the school of their choice if they choose not to apply for a place until their child is of compulsory school age. Not to do this would deny parents the opportunity to make informed decisions. But there is a key difference between informing parents and "blackmailing" or "threatening" them. The latter are clearly unacceptable.
However, some authorities have adopted a practice of agreeing parental requests to defer entry to a primary reception class until a child reaches compulsory school age. My department will be drawing the attention of school admission authorities to this in the interim guidance on arrangements for school admissions which will be issued for consultation shortly. Where this practice is adopted, parents apply for a place at the normal time of admission but in effect the place would be held for the child until he or she is older, up to compulsory school age.
But we have no plans to require admission authorities to allow deferred entry. It is right that the decision to adopt this policy should be made at local level where
1136
an assessment can be made of any financial implications for schools and LEAs as well as the extent of disruption both for children and schools. For example, the financial implications of deferred entry could threaten the viability of small rural primary schools.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment would have the effect of severing the link between early admission to reception class and admission to the primary school proper. I sympathise with the reasons behind this part of the amendment, but its introduction would not be practical. I think that the noble Baroness was aware that this might be the case. Let me illustrate this with an example. We already have separate admission arrangements for securing a place in a primary school's nursery class and for securing a place in the same school's reception class. To then suggest that there should be another admission process to secure a primary school place at five would for some parents mean making three separate applications for a place at the same school within a period of two years. That is not a sensible position for parents.
I sympathise with what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve but I believe that severing the link between early admission to primary schools' reception classes and admission to the school proper is not the answer. The right approach is to have guidance on good practice. That is much more likely to be effective and we shall consider providing guidance on good practice in the admissions code of practice.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall reflect on what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 [Early years development partnerships]:
[Amendment No. 241C not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241CA:
Page 84, line 23, at end insert—
("() Every partnership shall establish a committee (the "partnership committee") which shall include broad representation of all parties concerned with early years education in the local authority's area.").
The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments dovetails in well with the earlier amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the importance of partnership. They may seem technical but they have a serious practical purpose.
The early years development partnerships are intended to involve the broader spectrum of parties in the area concerned with nursery education. In most cases it seems that they do, but the nature of these bodies is unwieldy. In terms of running the partnerships and advancing local nursery plans there will need to be an executive body. The Bill envisages in effect that this will be the local authority. It will have power to make arrangements for meetings, establish committees, and so on. But the local authority is, through its maintained schools, a provider of nursery education. In a direct sense it is a competitor as well as a partner. We discussed on Amendment No. 241BB ways in which

1137
this competition emerges. An LEA cannot be a fully impartial representative of the nursery interest in its locality.
Amendment No. 241CA seeks to ensure that the local authority should establish, as the executive body for the partnership, a committee that contains a broad representation of all the interests, all the types of providers, and professionals. I believe that it is this committee, not the local authority alone, which should organise the activities of the partnership. After all, what is the meaning of partnership if it is not that?
Amendments Nos. 241CB and 241CD ensure that the local authority should act with the agreement of the partnership as it is constituted. That is an important safeguard. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. It is absolutely right that early years development partnerships should include representatives of the non-maintained sector and indeed a wide range of early years interests, including the local authority. But we do not intend to allow LEAs to dominate partnerships and use them to their own ends. The guidance we issued last year makes that clear. The guidance goes further. It places responsibility on LEAs for convening a partnership which includes representatives from private, independent and voluntary providers, childminders and parents as well as LEA and GM schools, the social services department, the health authority, diocesan authorities, local business and SEN groups. That is quite a list, but it enables partnerships to ensure that the full range of issues relevant to young children are taken into account in drawing up plans.
It is only now that partnerships are beginning to consider how they operate under the guidance. I do not believe that the aim of ensuring that all voices are equally heard would be achieved by establishing a partnership committee which is somehow separate from the main partnership. Indeed. I cannot see what establishing such a committee would achieve. Furthermore, the need for some representatives to attend two sets of meetings might well reduce their ability and willingness to be actively involved in the business of partnerships.
I hope that that explains our reaction to the proposal and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall reflect on what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241CB to 241CD not moved.]
Clause 112 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241D not moved.]
Clause 113 [Early years development plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 241DA to 241E not moved.]
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Approval, modification and review of statement of proposals]:
Baroness Blatch move Amendment No. 241EA:
Page 85, line 29, at end insert—
("() In considering such statements the Secretary of State must at all times have particular regard to—

(a) such representations as may be made to him by non-maintained providers or by local bodies representative of non-maintained providers in the local authority area; and

(b) such comments as may from time to time be made by the Chief Inspector of Schools on the quality and appropriateness of the nursery education provided by maintained and voluntary aided schools in the local authority area, and on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the local education authority concerned.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 241EA, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 241EB to 241EF and 241EG, which is the final amendment standing in my name tonight.
Amendments Nos. 241EA to 241EF are designed to ensure that when considering statements from a local authority on its early years development plan the Secretary of State has a specific duty to take into account representations made by and on behalf of private and voluntary providers. That would greatly reassure them that there could be no stitch-up between the department and a local authority behind their back. It also ensures that local authorities and the department keep private providers fully informed about any changes in the plan that may be under discussion or required.
Furthermore, as is reasonable, the amendments require the Secretary of State to take into account comments from Ofsted about the general quality of the LEA and the appropriateness of its provision in deciding what weight is given to its plans.
I turn to Amendment No. 241EG. There are already great outcries about the ever increasing burden of bureaucracy. The Bill and all the apparatus that goes with it will further increase that burden. The Bill also creates an astonishingly cumbersome bureaucratic procedure for creating and monitoring the plans. I believe that we have established a right and proper principle in legislation that the compliance costs to business of any legislation should be calculated and published first. Surely, it is right that we should consider also the compliance costs on government, local government and the voluntary sector. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on this and for the Chief Inspector of Schools to report on the burden as he finds it on private and voluntary providers. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Again, to a large extent we share the desire of the noble Baroness to ensure that the drawing up of early years development plans and views from all early year interests in the area will be considered.
Obviously that consultation will raise concerns. That was certainly the case in terms of the plans that are already in place. Those concerns were considered before approval was given. That process will continue.

1139
It is obviously also important that all providers are aware of the developments that affect plans they are part of. However, I am not convinced that we need to place a duty on LEAs to provide this information on the face of the Bill. I think the appropriate place for this is in the guidance, which will arise again for next year. This Bill will, of course, give the guidance statutory force.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 241EK, there are benefits in having a single inspection day—
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 241EG.
Lord Whitty: I am sorry, Amendment No. 241EG. We are talking about the same amendment. There are benefits in having a single day. However, we would not wish to legislate for that at this stage, but to consider the options in the light of consultation.
There is a further amendment relating to the impartiality of inspectors, which the noble Baroness has moved. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 26 already, in our view, ensures that inspectors cannot inspect where their connections or loyalties are suspect, so I think that is unnecessary.
With regard to the final amendment, Amendment No. 241EG, which was originally grouped separately, I think we are slightly at cross-purposes. The amendment I referred to is in an earlier group. I shall not be partisan at this stage of the evening and make more than the slightest reference to the cost of voucher schemes. Nevertheless, we consider that the conditions for participating in this Bill are considerably less than that scheme. We do not consider it is desirable to require an indication on the face of the Bill of the cost of administering this new system.
We shall of course, listen to views on this and review the guidance and requirement, and grant if necessary. But it should not be an amendment on the face of the Bill.
I hope that in the light of that rather hurried reply at this stage of the night, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My apologies to the noble Lord for intervening on Amendment No. 241EK. He was, in fact, right. He was speaking to Amendment No. 241EK. Amendment No. 241EG was the one which came later.
We have had a lot of warm words and a lot of sympathy. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I find it frustrating that we will not know the results of our labours until many months have passed. We shall watch vigilantly but it may just be that on reflection, when we have read what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have had to say, some of these amendments may come back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241EB to 241EF not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241EG not moved.]
Clause 115 agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Inspection of nursery education.]:
[Amendments Nos. 241EH to 241EL not moved.]
Schedule 26 agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 241M:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—

TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHILDREN RECEIVING NURSERY EDUCATION OTHERWISE THAN AT SCHOOL
(". After section 509 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
"Travel arrangements for children receiving nursery education otherwise than at school.
509A.—(1) A local education authority may provide a child with assistance under this section if they are satisfied that, without such assistance, he would be prevented from attending at any premises—

(a) which are not a school or part of a school, but

(b) at which relevant nursery education is provided,

for the purpose of receiving such education there.
(2) The assistance which may be provided for a child under this section consists of either—

(a) making arrangements (whether for the provision of transport or otherwise) for the purpose of facilitating the child's attendance at the premises concerned, or

(b) paying the whole or any part of his reasonable travel expenses.

(3) When considering whether to provide a child with assistance under this section in connection with his attendance at any premises, a local education authority may have regard (among other things) to whether it would be reasonable to expect alternative arrangements to be made for him to receive relevant nursery education at any other premises (whether nearer to his home or otherwise).
(4) Where the assistance to be provided for a child under this section consists of making arrangements for the provision of transport, the authority may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, determine that the assistance shall not be so provided unless—

(a) the child's parent, or

(b) the person providing the relevant nursery education concerned,

agrees to make to the authority such payments in respect of the provision of the transport (not exceeding the cost to the authority of its provision) as they may determine.
(5) In this section "relevant nursery education" means nursery education which is provided—

(a) by a local education authority, or

by any other person—

(i) who is in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 113(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or

(ii) who is in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996." ").

The noble Lord said: The provision of the new clause under this amendment would give a discretionary power to local education authorities to provide transport or help with transport expenses for children travelling to and from settings which provide only part-time education for children under 5. At present, local education authorities have no power whatever to provide such transport.
It is an enabling power. In practice its application and, indeed, whether it is needed will vary from area to area. Nevertheless, we regard it as an important provision which fills a gap in the law. It provides also for LEAs to be able to ask providers and parents to contribute to the costs of transport, which provides additional flexibility which ensures that those who will benefit can work together to reach a solution that will meet everyone's needs.
The subsequent amendment amends Section 509 of the 1996 Act, which requires LEAs to publish details of their nursery transport policy in the same way as they do for other aspects of their transport policy. I hope that
1142
the Committee will find these helpful additions to the law which will support greater provision in the nursery sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I do not rise to oppose the amendment but giving the local authorities the power to exercise is one thing but giving them the money to exercise it will be another.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Schedule 27 agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.