HL Deb 16 June 1998 vol 590 cc1508-24

(" .—(1) Schedule (Amendments relating to functions of Education Transfer Council) (which amends section 198 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Education Reform Act 1988, which relate to the functions of the Education Transfer Council) shall have effect.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order make such further amendments of those provisions of that Act as he considers expedient.

(3) Regulations may make provision—

  1. (a) for the dissolution of the Education Transfer Council by order of the Secretary of State and for enabling him to determine how any property, rights and liabilities of the Council are to be dealt with in connection with their dissolution;
  2. (b) for the subsequent establishment of a new body with such name as may be prescribed and constituted in the same manner as, or similarly to, the Council:
  3. (c) for dealing with transfers of property, rights and liabilities under this Act or under the Education Reform Act 1988 at a time when the Council has been dissolved and either—
    1. (i) a body has been subsequently established under paragraph (b), or
    2. (ii) no such body has been so established.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in connection with any matters falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection—

  1. (a) modify any of the provisions of section 197 or 198 of, or Schedule 8 or 10 to, the Education Reform Act 1988;
  2. (b) apply any of those provisions with or without modifications;
  3. (c) make provision corresponding or similar to any of those provisions.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 257AA and 257AC, 258P and 258S.

These amendments relate to the functions of the Education Transfer Council, which will take over from the Education Assets Board. They are mainly technical and seek to apply the existing transfer provisions in Section 198 of, and Schedule 10 to, the 1988 Act to those transfers that may be necessary under the new framework. Those sections set out the functions of the Education Assets Board (EAB), which is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the department and is responsible for effecting those transfers of property, rights and liabilities required under the 1988 Act. The EAB will be renamed the Education Transfer Council under Clause 126 of this Bill and will have responsibility for effecting those transfers of land required under the new framework.

Amendment No. 246G will also enable the Secretary of State to make such amendments to the transfer provisions as he considers appropriate. If, for example, he were persuaded at a later date that the transfer provisions should be amended, then he could do so. However, in those circumstances I assure the Committee that he would consult fully.

Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act deals with the ownership of shared property. The new schedule introduces those amendments necessary to apply the provisions of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act to those transfers required under this Bill.

At present the EAB acts on behalf of the transferee (for example, a GM school) but we envisage that under the new framework the Education Transfer Council should in most cases have a more neutral role. Its duties would be to assist all parties in their negotiations. The one exception is where the transferor is an LEA and the transferee is a foundation school. In such cases the ETC will continue to act on behalf of the school. This amendment also changes the way in which transfer disputes are resolved.

Under provisions contained in Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State may determine the pension arrangements and remuneration payable to staff and members of the Education Transfer Council. The Treasury has indicated that such decisions should be delegated to departments, and Amendments Nos. 257AC and 258P formalise that arrangement.

The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 contains a number of references that will have to be repealed because they will no longer be needed when the Bill becomes law. They are mainly references to grant-maintained schools.

This is a fairly straightforward set of amendments to deal with the new framework. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 127 [Orders and regulations]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C:

Page 96, line 16, leave out ("48(4),").

Page 96, line 18, after ("3(5)") insert ("or 4").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 246D:

Page 96, line 19, leave out ("or paragraph 4(2)") and insert (", paragraph 4(2) or 7(3)(c)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment forms part of a whole batch of 30 amendments and in moving this amendment I will speak to the others in this group. Of the 30 amendments, only three amend substantive clauses. Amendment No. 246D refers to Clause 127, Amendment No. 257R refers to Clause 131 and Amendment No. 257Z refers to Clause 133. The remaining amendments are minor and consequential upon other amendments or to existing legislation. I have provided to the two Front Benches a full and detailed letter, explaining these clauses. I hesitate to risk this procedure, but in view of that fairly full explanation and in the temporary, no doubt, absence of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I suggest, subject to any questions there may be, that, since the two Front Benches are fairly well informed about these proposals, I should move this amendment without further details, full details having been provided. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

A good try! First of all, I should like to say that had it not been for the pressure that we put on the Government earlier during the passage of this Bill, we would not even have these explanatory notes. For earlier amendments, which came in prolific numbers at the beginning stages, we received no technical notes. The first we knew of what they were about was on the Floor of the Committee and it was only as a result of pressure that we have now received them. I received these this morning and I have had some difficulty in going through the notes and understanding them. I am afraid that, although they are full, they are not quite full enough for my purposes and I have a number of questions.

I have to say to the noble Lord that, although this Bill has been through all the procedures of the House of Commons and is now at the end of the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, we are receiving masses of amendments. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have already made a tally of the number of amendments that have come through—and these are not amendments which have arisen in response to concerns that have been voiced during the course of our deliberations on the Bill. Many of them constitute a rewriting of the Bill and actually putting it right as we go along. One wonders just when this is going to end. Are we going to end up at Report stage with more batches of amendments which alter main schedules or add schedules and alter the technicalities of the Bill? Most of the amendments represent omissions, because this Bill was badly drafted when it was submitted in another place, but how it is that the department has waited until this late stage of the Bill to present so many technical amendments to your Lordships is difficult to understand. I do think we should have an explanation from the Minister.

On Amendment No. 246D, why will the order not be a statutory instrument? On Amendment No. 255D, the explanatory note says that some provisions listed in Schedule 30 will be repealed. I would ask: which of them will be repealed? On Amendment No. 257Z, the noble Lord said that the amendment provides for regulations to be made enabling governing bodies to reconstitute in advance of the appointed day and prepare for the new framework and that there will be consultations. Again, may I ask: when?

I have a query about Amendments Nos. 257AE and 258R. There appears to be no mention of Catholic or other denominational schools. I just wonder if that is an oversight or if there is a technical reason why this should be so.

On Section 25 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, under Amendment No. 257AF, I understand this to be a section which concerns the transfer of property rights. I simply want to ask about Sections 25 and 26 in relation to the reorganisation of schools in response to a successful ballot to take all grammar schools out of an LEA where perhaps there are a very large number which will require reorganisation. I do not know how this will inter-relate. Interestingly, the amendment talks about movements from the school sector into the further education sector. I would ask: in what situation could that be so? Are we saying that a grammar school could be closed and opened up as a further education college or part of one. If so, we are talking about a very different form of reorganisation from the rather mild form of reorganisation which the noble Baroness hinted at when we talked about grant-maintained schools on a previous occasion.

Section 28(2)(a) refers to options. Why is it intended that the options designated should not be open to former county or community schools which are now part of a group of schools for which a foundation acts under Clause 21 of the Bill? On Section 37, again I understand that this concerns the attribution of surpluses and deficits and applies to institutions entering the FE sector. Again we are talking about movement into the FE sector by institutions which are maintained by an LEA or designated assisted institutions dependent on assistance from a local education authority. How will surpluses and deficits be attributed or allocated?

Section 44 relates to provision for collective worship in further education colleges. Where a grant-maintained school or a grammar school is part of a reorganisation, how is the religious ethos in a grant-maintained school which will become a foundation school, or indeed a voluntary aided school, to be protected if it becomes part of a further education institution? Presumably it will now jump to becoming a further education college which does not have a religious ethos. It is almost inconceivable that a school could become a further education college in itself and so the likelihood is that it would become an adjunct to another one—but, again, what about the protection of the religious ethos?

Turning to Section 58 and seeing how that dovetails with reorganisation plans, this is the one that deals with the reorganisation of schools needed as a result of some local authority land being transferred to or possibly shared with a further education corporation. Again the whole point about reorganisations comes into that. Amendments Nos. 257AG and 258F, together with Amendment No. 258T, will remove the references to instruments and articles of government contained in the Education Act 1994. May I ask: why are these being removed?

Turning to Amendments Nos. 257AH and 257AJ, I should like to have some clarification here. The amendments relate to Section 324(5) of the Education Act 1996, which provides that if a maintained school is named in a child's statement of special educational needs the governing body of the school must admit the child. This, as I understand it, is about the class size pledge. Where that happens, it means that a school that already has 30 children in a class will be forced to take a child who is statemented, and that will add a considerable burden to the load of the teacher in the classroom, given that teachers who have in a class 30 children who do not have special needs, or at least the sort of special needs which will be subject to a statement, are deemed to have too many children in that class. I should like some clarification that resources, in that eventuality, are guaranteed to the school that would be forced to take such a child.

My final point concerns Amendment No. 259E, which refers to the last paragraph, which states that there will not be provision for interest which is accrued on the proceeds of sale to be included in the compensation. Why?

Lord Whitty

I was about to say that I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these issues, but I do not think she would believe me! The noble Baroness was referring to sections in the schedule, where it is quite difficult to relate to the different amendments, but I shall do my best. She raised, on Amendment No. 246D, the question as to why the order will not be a statutory instrument. Such an order will be of particularly limited interest and we have had no recommendations from the delegated powers scrutiny committee or anyone else on this issue. We do not consider that it would require the statutory instrument procedure.

On Amendment No. 255D, relating to the repeal of provisions because they have been spent, they will only become spent when they have accomplished the purpose for which they were enacted. The amendments relate to a number of the clauses. I take the point the noble Baroness made.

Baroness Blatch

My question on the amendment was, which provisions?

Lord Whitty

On that clause, they relate to enactments on frameworks under the Education Reform Act 1988 and other legislation which no longer relates to the framework under this Act. A number of other amendments relate to spent amendments. I can go through them if the noble Baroness wishes. Perhaps I may take them together with the other issues she raised.

The spent amendments are as follows. Amendments Nos. 258M and 258N relate to the local government Acts and deal with the Inner London Education Authority, which is clearly no longer with us. Amendment No. 259J is consequential on other changes. Amendment No. 259K is relevant to the point in respect of spent Acts. The 1966 Act contains transitional arrangements which are deleted. Lastly, Amendment No. 259N relates to the Audit Commission Act, whose provisions are changed by the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness asked why we did not come forward with these amendments or better drafting earlier. However, they are all clearly redundant provisions.

Baroness Blatch

The noble Lord refers to amendments which I have not raised. The ones I raised are quite clear. I gave the numbers of the amendments but so far I have raised no query at all on three of those to which the noble Lord spoke.

Lord Whitty

No doubt I should be grateful for that. The noble Baroness referred to spent amendments, spent provisions and spent enactments. She started with Amendment No. 255D. She has in fact received information for which she did not ask, and I shall check whether I have covered Amendment No. 255D in my remarks and come back to her in writing, if I may.

The noble Baroness mentioned Amendment No. 257Z, which relates to the governing bodies being able to be reconstituted in advance of the appointed day. We would wish to consult further on precisely when such a body could be reconstituted. It obviously relates to the point where the new framework comes into effect and further consultation is required as to precisely how that will be done.

As regards Amendment No. 259E, the noble Baroness asked about interest where transfers were made, and it would not be to the benefit of schools if we were to include the interest where transfers were made under the education Act 1996 rather than this Bill. She also mentioned Amendments Nos. 257AE and 258R, which relate to Church of England schools. She asked why they did not apply also to Catholic schools. The amendments relate to the Diocesan Board of Education Measure 1991 which does not apply to Catholic schools, only to Church of England schools. They have been brought into line to accord with the provisions of the Bill and have been agreed with the Church of England Board of Education.

Amendments Nos. 257AG and 257AF relate to the removal of the instruments and articles of government which we dealt with a few days ago. As articles are being dispensed with, the reference to those instruments will no longer be relevant because they will not contain the relevant information.

Amendments Nos. 257AH and 257AJ relate to the SEN provisions and raise questions of class size, which we dealt with at an earlier stage of the Committee. The question was whether it related to children without statements. The answer is no, not in this provision. We have indicated that provisions for a child with a statement would override the other provisions relating to class size.

As regards funding, we indicated at earlier stages in Committee that funding would meet those provisions. If the noble Baroness requires more detail of that commitment, no doubt we can provide it in writing. That is the principle.

As to the whole question of the FE sector, the noble Baroness went into details, referring to schedules, which I could not entirely follow. Again, it would be better if we dealt with the implications for the FE sector. Amendment No. 257F and other amendments were covered in the noble Baroness's remarks. There are other provisions where I did not fully follow the questions because they related to sections rather than amendments. I need to provide her with more information which we can return to at Report Stage, if she wishes. I hope that I have covered at least some of her queries.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

I do not find it at all satisfactory. It was almost impossible to follow some of the noble Lord's answers. When I referred to spent provisions, I referred only to one amendment put down by the noble Lord, Amendment No. 255D, and some of the provisions listed in Schedule 30. I asked which provisions. The noble Lord misunderstood my question on Amendment No. 257Z. I did not want the answer that he would consult on the content of such regulations. I know that because it is stated in the note. I asked when the Government would consult on the regulations. That was my question.

I thank the Minister for his answer on Church of England schools and Catholic schools. On FE, he gave me no answer. He said that, yes, there was an FE sector and perhaps we would deal with it another time. But he did not answer my question as to how the provisions relate to the provisions on the grammar school sector where there may be re-organisations. Nor did he say why it is intended that the option of designation should not be open to former county or community schools or how services and deficits would be attributed in Section 37 and whether the religious ethos of a school would be protected in the event of re-organisation where a school was closed and became part of an FE college. That was not referred to, nor was Section 58. The noble Lord has not answered all my questions to my satisfaction.

Lord Whitty

In terms of the consultation in relation to Amendment No. 257Z and the reconstitution of the governing bodies, I can indicate that the consultation will be engaged in during the coming months. As for further education, in general it would be helpful for me to provide further information on the FE interface. The reason for the reference to further education is that the Further and Higher Education Act contains references which will be overtaken by the new framework. Most of the amendments relating to FE are therefore consequential.

On Amendment No. 255D, I may have indirectly answered the question by going on to the other amendments which relate to spent enactments. I am informed that those specifically covered by Amendment No. 255D are Section 31 of the London Government Act 1963 and Sections 166 and 167 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It would be sensible for me to deal with any other queries at this stage in writing and perhaps clarify some of the answers I have given so that the noble Baroness can be clear whether or not she needs to come back on any of these matters at Report stage.

Baroness Blatch

I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will write to me. However, it makes my point that to bring forward this number of technical amendments with only an explanatory note is not acceptable. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tope, received such a note. It is difficult to follow and hard work to look up each clause of the Bill to see exactly what is going on and then be expected to accept a block of 30 amendments which range right across the Bill.

It is difficult to understand the explanations given. I do not blame the noble Lord; he is probably having as much difficulty as I am understanding the amendments. I should like to think that some of them could be held over until Report stage pending the explanatory letter from the noble Lord. The noble Lord was kind enough to do that in relation to the previous block of amendments which we found difficult to understand.

Lord Whitty

This is a different situation. The noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite received no information on the first block and I therefore withdrew the amendments to return at Report stage. With these amendments, as with some intervening amendments, we have attempted to explain them. The vast majority deal with issues which relate to transfers of property and land; they do not deal with any point of educational substance. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to accept that we shall try to clarify the amendments further between now and Report stage, but at this stage perhaps the noble Baroness will accept them. I take the general admonition of the noble Baroness that it is a large number of amendments, but they relate to detailed consequential areas and not to the main points of substance of the Bill.

Baroness Blatch

I am sorry to come back on the FE amendments. One of my questions was how Sections 25 and 26 interact with the reorganisation proposals, particularly in the light of some of the changes that will come about as a result of the Bill? In Section 28(2)(a), why is it intended that the option for designation should not be open to former county or community schools? They are now part of the group of schools for which a foundation acts under Clause 21 of the Bill. In relation to Section 37, how will surpluses and deficits be attributed? In Section 44, how will the religious ethos of a school be protected? The school may be closed and taken into an extension of a further education college. As I said earlier, it is inconceivable that a school could be closed and become a further education college. But it is helpful to know that the protection is there.

If I am wrong, fine. However, the noble Lord is not even attempting in a cursory way to answer those questions. My final question concerns Section 58 and the way in which that section interacts with the reorganisation proposals.

Lord Whitty

These amendments relate solely to the areas that I described. Clearly, they are consequent upon changing the framework of the schools. There are some implications for FE. I am happy to provide further explanation. The whole question of the religious ethos of the schools was dealt with under earlier amendments. It is clear that the religious ethos of schools will be protected and the possibility of a religious school being absorbed, as a result of these provisions, into an FE institution is extraordinarily unlikely. However, in earlier amendments—I recall the exchanges but cannot immediately point to the precise clause—provision was made for the religious ethos to be protected by the Bill.

In relation to options on designation, in that sense designation has never been available to county or voluntary controlled schools. The amendments do not make any substantive change to the situation.

Lord Tope

I had not intended to intervene on this batch of amendments and I am not particularly keen to do so now. But this situation is unsatisfactory. We have a large batch of amendments from the Government. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says; that is, that they are technical. We received nine pages of explanation this morning. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is rather more diligent than I am; I have not had time to go through and understand them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is asking a lot of questions about them but I am in no position to judge the merit or otherwise of her questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is clearly struggling to answer the noble Baroness. I say that by way of statement and not criticism. I understand why he is struggling; I would be. But I do not understand why, in all the circumstances, the Government feel that they cannot defer the amendments until Report stage when even I might have had a chance to understand them. The noble Baroness may well have received answers that satisfy her and at that stage the Minister will have had a better chance to understand them. Why cannot the Government agree to that?

Lord Whitty

I understand why the Opposition Benches are concerned at this number of amendments. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that none of them raises the kind of anxieties which lie behind the questions of the noble Baroness. I offered to provide further information to give further reassurance between now and Report stage.

At Report stage we should be dealing with the central issues of the Bill. I do not believe that there will be sufficient additional information on the content of these amendments to erase anxieties among Members of the Committee. When there was no written information available earlier to noble Lords, it was sensible for me to withdraw my amendments and suggest that we come back to them at Report stage. On this block, it is not sensible. Far less central issues are involved than on many amendments we agreed earlier. The position was that the noble Baroness would not oppose the amendments at this stage but would reserve her opposition until Report stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will do the same for this set of amendments.

Baroness Blatch

I regard this situation as extremely serious. In practice we have had almost no sight of the explanation at all. I was lucky enough to come in an hour early and was able to skim through the amendments, although I have only just done so. The noble Lord has made no serious attempt to offer a satisfactory explanation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I am not making a personal criticism of the noble Lord. However, he made no attempt to answer my queries. We are asked to take the amendments on trust. We are told that we should not be anxious. Yet there has been no attempt to answer the points I raised.

The noble Lord cannot treat the Committee with that kind of contempt. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has not even had an opportunity to read the amendments. To send a nine-page explanatory note on the day of the Bill when we are already busy—we do not have the back-up that the Minister has and are doing most of the work on our own—is not on. It is not part of our democratic process and is certainly not in keeping with the character of this Chamber to ask us to accept 30 amendments on trust with no proper explanation.

My questions are fairly detailed and concern eventualities that will happen after the Bill has gone through. For example, Section 28(2) says that it is intended that the options for designation should not be open for county or community schools. But they do not even exist at the moment. They are now part of a group of schools. Section 44 relates to voluntary schools within the meaning of the Bill which need to be included because a number of them will have entered the FE sector before 1st September 1999.

The explanation goes on to say that the provision also covers those foundation and voluntary schools which may enter the FE sector on or after that date but excludes those foundation schools which might be ex-county GM schools because they will not have denominational status. I asked a question in relation to religious ethos protection and that does not relate to the discussions we had earlier about a school changing within a school sector; this relates to a school moving into the FE sector. We have not had a proper answer to any of those questions.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty

On the noble Baroness's final point, it is clear that any change of status of a school, whether by reorganisation, absorption or any other method, is protected by the earlier clause which relates to protection. That would include absorption in the extremely unlikely situation of absorption into an FE institution.

Most of the rest of the noble Baroness's questions will easily be clarified in written information, but not on the basis of exchanges across the Floor, either now or at Report stage. I accept that, in relation to the whole batch of provisions raised by Amendment No. 257AF, which relates to the further education sector, I was not able to follow all the noble Baroness's questions. Therefore, I would be content to withdraw that amendment and its implications and come back to it at Report. However, the rest of the points raised by the noble Baroness on the amendments are highly technical and hypothetical. I do not think it would be sensible for me to withdraw the amendments at this stage. I hope the Committee will accept those amendments on the basis of my withdrawing Amendment No. 257AF relating to the whole of the FE sector and the interface with that.

Baroness Blatch

I am grateful for that, because that is where my concerns lie and that is what I understand the noble Lord is going to write to us about. If Amendment No. 257AF, with all its sections, is remitted until the next stage of the Bill, I shall be happy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already said that he has not had an opportunity even to consider the other amendments. If he is happy with the proposition, we can move on.

Lord Tope

I would accept that, but I would do so unhappily. I asked the Minister directly why this cannot be deferred until Report stage. His only answer was that the purpose of Report stage is to consider the broader issues and matters of substance. Of course it is, but the situation we face now is not of our making; it is entirely of the Government's making. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is prepared to accept the Government's word on the matter, I am as well. However, we are supposed to be here to scrutinise a Bill and we are supposed to be scrutinising amendments. Frankly, we have not had an opportunity to do so on a large batch of government amendments. Although that is not the primary purpose of Report stage, I was suggesting that it would at least allow us the opportunity to do that.

I will accept, as others will, what the Minister is proposing. However, I still have not had an answer as to why the Government are not prepared to give us the two weeks—perhaps slightly more than that by the time we reach Report stage—to enable us to do that, and probably to reach the same conclusion the Minister is assuring us we will reach, but at least to be reassured and to know that we have done the job we are put here to do.

Baroness Blatch

Perhaps I may add to that because I think the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues are at a disadvantage. What is the problem with delay? Once we have had an explanatory letter, this should have a fairly smooth passage at the next stage. What is to be lost between this stage of the Bill and Report stage? I really cannot see the Government's problem.

Lord Whitty

We would have a very distorted Report stage if we had to come back with these amendments at that stage. We are moving into a grave difficulty if we are not prepared to accept the technical amendments which appear on every Bill. They appeared on the previous government's Bills and they will appear on our Bills. Even if the noble Baroness was not personally responsible for some of those Bills, she will find that there were late amendments to a large number of Bills, both in this House and another place, during the previous 18 years. I fear that the draftsmanship of Whitehall has not dramatically improved in the past 12 months, for which I apologise, but it was not one of our early pledges. I hope it will improve over the course of this Parliament.

I believe it will be more sensible for the proceedings of the House if we study carefully the issue which the noble Baroness indicates is her major concern—the inadequacies of my answers and her main substantive concern which is the interface with the FE sector—and try to reassure her between now and Report stage. Clearly, she will still have the right to bring back issues at Report stage if she is still unhappy. The whole proceedings at Report stage would make more sense if we accepted the amendments now, subject to the commitments I have given and the withdrawal of Amendment No. 257AF. Then we can make some sensible progress at Report stage on what I think are the more substantive issues.

Baroness Blatch

This is becoming more absurd as we go on. If the noble Lord is really saying that we will have a distorted Report stage if these amendments are put on ice until then, that is just the most bizarre statement I have heard today. If the noble Lord is not prepared to give us, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues, and indeed other Members of the Committee, a proper explanation of what the amendments are about and answer some of the questions I asked and perhaps some of the questions the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when he has read them, may also raise, the only course left for us would be to ask for a recommittal of this part of the Bill. That really would hold up the Report stage. To say that what I have proposed would distort the Report stage is nonsense. I overheard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying from a sedentary position that the Report stage would not make sense. I have to say that I am not sure that the Bill makes sense. But if it does not make sense, the whole idea of the Report stage is to put the Bill into a state in which it does make sense. Therefore, the amendments could be put forward at Report stage.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I did not say from a sedentary position that the Report stage would not make sense. I said that the Bill would not make sense. It would make more sense if noble Lords opposite saw the amendments in their place together with the explanation which will be provided. It will simply be easier at Report stage if we proceed in the way that my noble friend proposes.

Baroness Blatch

I am not prepared to accept that. That would leave us looking at 30 detailed amendments and having to start changing, modifying and bringing forward amendments in order to address our own concerns. Once the amendments are passed, they are passed and they are in the Bill. We have things to do other than trying to work on these amendments.

The noble Lord should simply withdraw the amendments and give us proper explanations and some answers to the questions we have asked. He should also give the noble Lord, Lord Tope, an opportunity to study the amendments. After all, a nine-page letter was delivered today to explain 30 technical amendments. All the questions that were put on the amendments have not been answered satisfactorily. That is not acceptable. Either we will ask for a recommittal or the noble Lord will find that we have great difficulty at the next stage. If the noble Lord is minded to put this to the vote now, it will create a distasteful atmosphere in the Chamber, in that we in the Opposition were not privy to a full explanation of what the amendments are about. That is unacceptable.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Having spent a number of years on the Opposition Front Bench when the party opposite were in government, I had the privilege of receiving 50 new clauses on the Financial Services Bill at Report stage in this House without receiving any explanation at all. The only solution was to move amendments on Third Reading. When the noble Baroness is objecting to what my noble friend is saying, I hope she will bear in mind that she is perfectly entitled to move amendments on Report. There is no problem about that. But please do not waste the time of the House in quarrelling about government amendments that come forward in Committee.

Baroness Byford

As a newcomer to the House, I am slightly appalled by the noble Lord's comments. I happened to be in the office this morning when we received the letter. It was very complex and very full. Just to say that that happened in the past and it is therefore acceptable seems completely irrelevant. We should have plenty of time to discuss these complex matters. My noble friend Lady Blatch has done extremely well to come up with as much as she has today, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has honestly admitted that he has not had a chance to study the amendments. I do think that that kind of intervention is most unwise.

Lord Williams of Elvel

If the noble Baroness thinks that the intervention is unwise, I would just refer her to Hansard under the previous government, which will show that the Opposition had exactly the same problem. I accept that this is a problem, but this is the Committee stage. If the amendments are, in my view rightly, written into the Bill, it is perfectly possible for the Opposition, in whatever capacity they may be—Liberal Democrats or Conservatives—to move amendments to the Bill when it is reprinted for Report stage. There is no problem with that.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

Before the noble Baroness replies, I rise to confirm what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said about the passage of business under the previous government. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is in her place. She will recall, as I do, that over 90 amendments were tabled on a health service Bill at Third Reading a week prior to the dissolution of the last Parliament.

Baroness Blatch

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness make my point. There are two distinctions. The first is that where the Opposition were very concerned they won recommittals as regards some Bills where the House took the view that there had not been sufficient discussion. Secondly, I can say hand on heart that in the years when I took Bills through this House I did most of the work on those Bills myself, being the lead Minister. I was never left wanting in order to answer questions on technical amendments. If I had come into the Chamber armed with 30 amendments in one batch, I would have made absolutely certain that I had the answers to all the devil's advocate questions which might have been put to me.

The distinction here is that there is not a Minister on the Government Front Bench who can answer the questions that I have put on this Bill and these amendments. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues only had sight of the explanatory letter this morning. I am simply saying that if the noble Lord had been able to answer our questions today the situation would be different.

I know that my colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and others, with whom I have worked on the Front Bench, and indeed my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, were assiduous in being prepared. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was assiduous in always having answers to technical questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, shakes her head. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege had a very high reputation and was much respected for the way in which she took legislation through this House. She was usually able to handle questions about her Bills.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

Perhaps I may respond to that point. I was not in any way attempting to undermine any confidence that the House rightly has in the competence of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She was indeed kind in her explanations to the Opposition. But it is true that there were many occasions on which business of a complex kind was tabled at a very late stage and that is the point under discussion.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

May I make what I hope is a constructive suggestion? If we allow these amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 251AF, to go into the Bill it will then be possible to prepare two versions of the Bill, one with the amendments and one without. In Opposition I would have found that enormously more helpful than having to do what an Opposition have to do now, which is to put the amendments into the Bill in order to understand what difference they make. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I had that experience on Home Office Bills.

I suggest to the noble Baroness that we have the two Bills side by side, both amended and unamended, and that we have a full explanation for each amendment. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord Tope will be invited to spend as much time as they think appropriate after receiving the written briefing. The noble Baroness was good enough to say earlier on—the noble Lord, Lord Tope, agreed reluctantly with her—that she was prepared to let these amendments go through without that particular amendment. On the basis of what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have already agreed, I hope that we can now make progress.

Baroness Blatch

I am mainly concerned about the dismissive answers we had from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in reducing this to a trivial matter which we should not bother our pretty little heads about. I am saying that there could be quite important points involved. We have asked specific questions and we have had no answers to them. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting two Bills. I have transposed the amendments on to my Bill. I do not need someone to print them out in a Bill. I did that work this morning when I received the letter and that is what took such a long time. The amendments are already transposed. We do not need two versions of the Bill, one with the amendments and one without.

The point made by the noble Baroness about Third Reading is very difficult especially if the legislation has to go to the other place. We are talking about the Committee stage in this House. The Report stage is to come and these amendments could easily be dealt at that stage. By the time we fully understand them and we have had our anxieties allayed, there will not be a problem.

Lord Tope

I said at the beginning that I had not intended to intervene in this matter at all. As the Government Front Bench has continued digging, the hole has got deeper and deeper. At first we were assured by the Minister that the amendments were technical and that we would find no objection to them. I cannot find that consistent with why, taking them at Report stage, they would distort that stage of the Bill. If the Minister is right—and I am prepared to believe him—the amendments would probably have gone through without comment.

The next thing I heard was that this performance is justifiable because the last government may have behaved in a worse manner or in the same way. I do not wish to join in an argument about that, but it is no assurance to me and my colleagues on these Benches that the present Government are as bad as the previous administration.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am sorry it has taken so long to get to this stage. He has made a helpful and constructive suggestion. I did not get the letter until this afternoon because I did not arrive at the House until then. I have not done all the work that the noble Baroness has done. I find the noble Lord's suggestion very helpful. If we can proceed on that basis, we can bring an end to the matter now. But it has been a very unsatisfactory performance.

Lord Whitty

On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just said I hope that we can complete Amendment No. 246D and then move on, as suggested by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.

Baroness Blatch

I am not going to oppose that because it would hold up things even more. I intend to make a complaint through the usual channels because I find the dismissive way in which my questions were treated quite distressing.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 246E and 246A:

Page 96, line 19, at end insert ("or paragraph 4A(3) of Schedule 31").

Page 96, line 20, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (4A)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 248 to 255 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255A:

Page 96. line 25, at end insert—

("(4A) Subsection (3) also does not apply to—

  1. (a) any order under—
    1. (i) paragraph 19 of Schedule 18, or
    2. (ii) paragraph 16 of Schedule 24 or paragraph 14 of Schedule 25; or
  2. (b) the first regulations to be made under—
    1. (i) section 37(3) or 38(1),
    2. (ii) section 45, 46 or 47(1), or
    3. (iii) section 100 or 101(2);
and no such order or regulations shall be made (whether alone or with other provisions) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4B) If a draft of the statutory instrument containing any such regulations under section 100 would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 128 agreed to.

Clause 129 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255D:

Page 97, line 12, after ("30") insert ("(which include certain spent enactments)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255C:

After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—