Lords Sitting of 5 May 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 Exeter.

"Powerhouse::uk" Exhibition
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the costs for the erection and dismantling of the Powerhouse::uk exhibition; and how frequently the erection and dismantling of the exhibition will take place during the next 12 months.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the total cost for the erection and dismantling was £150,000. Discussion on the future use of the building and the exhibition is currently taking place.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does he not agree that, to put the matter very kindly indeed, these edifices are at the very least hideous, impractical and expensive? Does he not further agree that, if they are supposed to be some representation of Cool Britannia, it is time to turn up the heat under the person whose idea it was?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the visitors did not find it objectionable at all. A survey was conducted and the reaction of 87 per cent. of the visitors was that it was rather a good exhibition and certainly promoted British products.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that recently it was agreed that the cars of all officials would be removed from Horse Guards Parade in order to preserve the beautiful vista over the Inigo Jones building? If we are to have these great balloons every few months, is that not going to be spoilt?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we are not to have these balloons every few months. As my noble friend said, prior to the exhibition Horse Guards Parade was used as a car park. This Government believe that it is time to use it in a more inclusive manner. Certainly, car parks exclude, but exhibitions invite people to come.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that I tabled a Question five weeks ago when the drums were being inflated on Horse Guards Parade? The noble Lord himself suggested that I move that Question because the Prime Minister was about to make a statement on the subject that or the following day.
472
Is the Minister aware that no such statement appears to have been made? Can the noble Lord throw any light on the case of the "phantom" statement? Clearly, the noble Lord acts in good faith and cannot be held responsible. Nonetheless, this looks like a muddle from which Parliament has been missed out.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to write to me about this and I responded by saying that there was a paragraph in the Prime Minister's speech about this matter, but for some reason he did not say it. I have never been able to discover why. However, officials are burrowing away and as soon as I have any further information I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as regards the first Answer which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, can he say, first, how many people attended this Cool Britannia exhibition so that we can work out the cost and, secondly, can he enlighten us about the cost of the survey that was carried out among those who attended and who said that they liked it?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, there were about 23,000 paying visitors and about 2,000 non-paying visitors. I must emphasise that the purpose was to provide an exhibition of British ingenuity and products for the ASEM conference in London. In addition, the CBI, the Design Council and one or two other organisations used it as a venue for hosting various exhibitions and meetings of their own.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, what was the cost of the survey?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I do not have the detail of that, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there must be something that can be said for an exhibition which acquired that amount of attention?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I quite agree. It was a very successful exhibition and showed off British ingenuity and industry very well indeed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's noble aspirations in the purposes of the exhibition could have been housed in a more dignified way? Will the Minister be interested to know that a Scot who recently came to London asked me, "What are those bouncy castles they have put up where they usually Troop the Colour?"
Lord Haskel: My Lords, part of the purpose of the exhibition was in fact to show off the buildings, which are easily erected and taken down. The department is in an advanced state of negotiation with a number of organisations which wish to use the buildings for exhibitions and meetings of their own.

Executive Pay
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to have the recommendations of the Greenbury and Hampel reports on executive pay implemented.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the President of the Board of Trade indicated in her speech on 4th March, responding to the Hampel report, that the Government preferred corporate governance issues, such as those relating to directors' remuneration, to be implemented either as best practice or by the listing rules of the London Stock Exchange rather than by legislation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but does my noble friend accept that many of the payments made recently to chairmen and directors have reached a degree of obscenity never seen before, particularly when some of the companies concerned have been losing money? Does he further accept that if a Labour Government stand for anything at all, they stand for fairness but that that will be eroded if the present situation continues? Lastly, have the Government considered what might happen if and when the trade unions and others quite understandably take the view that some of those payments are suitable for some people but not for the rest of us?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are certainly concerned about this. Obscene pay awards not only bring the whole system into disrepute but they also fail to have regard to the wider issues of morale and effectiveness in business. That is why the Government support the Greenbury and Hampel recommendation that reports of remuneration committees be voted on each year by shareholders. The Government consider that to be part of best practice. If there is no evidence that companies are adopting best practice, the Government have not ruled out legislative action. The Government's views on fairness will be published shortly in our paper on fairness at work.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, ought not the workers, as well as the shareholders, have some say about the remuneration of the bosses? Could not the vote be widened to include them?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in many companies consultation involves everybody. I am sure that there is an element of worker participation in the good practice favoured by the Government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is not the best way of controlling such matters for the institutional shareholders in particular, when they conclude that a company is not providing the returns which they expect for their investment, to withdraw their support from that company, not for the Government to try to monitor all the wages and incomes in this country?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right in theory but, unfortunately, many institutional shareholders do not vote at annual general meetings so the companies do not know their views. On the point about institutional shareholders withdrawing their support by selling their shares, many institutional shareholders take the view that they should be changing the management of the company rather than selling their investment in the business.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the fundamental problems is that there is a significant dichotomy between the answer that the Minister has just given and, indeed, the answers which the President of the Board of Trade gave when asked about these issues in other places and the position which the Labour Party took in its manifesto? There is clearly a distinction between whether—dare I say it—the more liberal approach of Greenbury and Hampel should be followed by the Government, as the Minister appears to be suggesting, or whether a far more interventionist approach, as heralded in the Labour Party's manifesto, should be taken. Confusion is arising because the Government cannot make up their minds which of the two approaches to take.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are waiting to see whether companies adopt the approach that I have just stated. If they do not adopt that approach, the Government will take a more interventionist approach, as laid down in the paper on competitiveness and company law which was recently published by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is it not the case that the critical recommendation in all of these reports—Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel—is the setting up of a remuneration committee? It is clear from paragraph 4(4) of the Hampel report that it is recommended that remuneration committees should include non-executive directors rather than executive directors. What we do not know—what the latest Hampel report will not tell us and what it says that it cannot tell us—is to what extent there are remuneration committees; to what extent they consist of non-executive rather than executive directors; and how far they have moved away from crude comparisons. Surely it is time that the Government undertook an independent survey to ascertain to what extent those excellent recommendations are being implemented.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are undertaking some surveys. Indeed, a survey has revealed that only three companies have set up independent remuneration committees and that shareholders vote on their reports at the annual general meeting. I agree with my noble friend that it is important that research is carried out into this. Indeed, some organisations which monitor investments on the London Stock Exchange are beginning to carry out such research.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, some answers back the Minister said that unless companies publish in their

475
annual reports the reports of their remuneration committees the Government will want to take action. May I assure the Minister that the institutions are pushing the people involved in remuneration committees to publish those reports? Is it not better that that the investing institutions have that role rather than the Government?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if the institutions will carry out that work, it will not be necessary for the Government to use legislation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the light of work done by the Law Commission and other bodies on the state of our company law, and as corporate governance relates not only to matters of pay but also to the whole structure of directors, shareholders and others, when the Government are considering legislation on this matter they should take a cool and calm look at the state of our company law?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend, and the paper published in March by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade incorporates that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate the attitude of the Government to the views of the Hampel committee on the role of chairmen and non-executive directors of companies, which appear to be much more relaxed and to go back on what was originally proposed in the Cadbury report?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are broadly in favour of the recommendations of the Hampel committee as regards chairmen and non-executive directors and their independence.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Government introduce what would be a wages policy for top salaried people, will the noble Lord invite his noble friends to look at the history of wages policies undertaken by previous governments to see what a marked failure they have been before they proceed with a narrow wages policy designed to catch top earners?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is not a wages policy but a corporate governance policy.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend said at one point that the Government would wait and see how companies reacted to the two reports named in my Question. Can my noble friend give an indication how long the Government will wait? Are they considering a period of six months, 12 months or something of that order?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government will wait for as long as is required for consultation to take place on this matter. In addition, other events are taking place. The paper on fairness at work is to be published next month and there is to be a government paper on
476
company law and competitiveness. All of these matters are subject to consultation at the moment. When those consultations have taken place the Government will be able to take a view.

EMU: Italy and the Convergence Criteria
2.51 p.m.
Lord Cheshamasked Her Majesty's Government:
As President of the European Union, what factors led them to agree that Italy met the convergence criteria for the single currency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Italy passes the economic criteria for inflation, interest rates and exchange rates as well as the requirements for legal convergence. The key issue for Italy is the sustainability of the fiscal position. The deficit was 2.7 per cent. in 1997 and is forecast to fall further. In the latest draft outline budget debt is forecast to fall by at least 3 per cent. a year. Italy ran a substantial primary surplus of 6.8 per cent. of GDP in 1997. The draft outline budget has broad political support with approval from the budget committees of both Houses of the Italian Parliament last Thursday. The stability and growth pact locks in fiscal discipline for the future in EMU. The new declaration by ECOFIN on Friday re-emphasised the importance of fiscal discipline in EMU and brought forward implementation of certain aspects of the stability and growth pact to ensure its effectiveness in the important early years of EMU. Taking these factors into account, the Government endorsed the recommendation that Italy should join the single currency on 1st January 1999.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand that there was a requirement under the Maastricht criteria that debt should be no greater than 60 per cent. of the GDP of the country. Currently, Italy's debt is running at 122 per cent. of GDP. That figure has been brought down by a one-off tax this year to reduce borrowing. When will Italy meet the Maastricht criteria? When will that figure be sustainable at less than 60 per cent. of GDP? I should like to have a date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the important matter, as recognised by ECOFIN, the European Parliament and the meeting last weekend, is not compliance with the convergence criteria but the trend. All of the trends in Italy are in the right direction. It is not appropriate for me to give a date.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, was it not always sensible to view the convergence criteria in perspective and essentially as guidelines to the important question of whether or not member states could sustain a lower rate of inflation? As the debt criterion is the least important, rather than adopt an attitude of carping superiority towards Italy, as so many Opposition statements have done, would it not be more appropriate to congratulate

477
the Government of Italy on their extremely successful and strenuous effort to impose financial discipline, which has resulted in their economy coming in well below the really important 3 per cent. deficit criterion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is worth recording that the Italian Finance Minister was congratulated by his fellow Finance Ministers at the meeting in Brussels last weekend on exactly those achievements.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if Italy had been excluded on the ground that its debt to GDP ratio was too high and was falling too slowly, the almost inevitable result would have been an immediate rise in interest rates in Italy? If that is so, would it not have meant that a perfectly laudable debt reduction scheme would have been virtually ruined by the enormously increased cost of servicing the debt? Does my noble friend agree that that would be a case of Europe shooting one of its own in the foot?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend rightly draws attention to the interaction and interdependence of the convergence criteria. He is right to say that if we pick on one at the expense of all the others we will be in danger of doing greater damage to the economy of Italy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to "financial discipline", does he mean simply the convergence criteria or something else? What happens when that financial discipline breaks down and shatters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I made it clear in my initial answer that the Government were looking wider than the requirements for legal convergence. In particular, in the case of Italy we were looking for sustainability of the fiscal position. I have no intention whatever of answering hypothetical questions about what might happen if this broke down.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Italian Government were able to push through their special tax only by promising that they would repay the tax in due time? Can my noble friend tell the House the timescale of that? Secondly, as my noble friend has said that in his view the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is absolutely right about the Treaty of Maastricht, does he agree that if the provisions of that treaty can be ignored as far as this matter is concerned therefore all other matters under the treaty can also be ignored?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Good try! My Lords, of course one does not take a single year when considering the deficit. The facts of the matter are that Italy's deficit has fallen from a peak of 11.1 per cent. in 1990 to 2.7 per cent. in 1997. It is forecast to fall further to 2.5 per cent. in 1998 and to 2 per cent. in 1999. Therefore, the so-called euro tax is simply one point in
478
that process. No implications should be drawn from the sensible interpretation of the convergence criteria for any other aspects of the Treaty of Maastricht.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while it is one thing to take a sensible view of the convergence criteria surely it is quite a different matter to view 118 per cent. of GDP as anything vaguely in the same ball park as 60 per cent. of GDP, which is what the Maastricht convergence criteria say about debt as a percentage of GDP? Is it not a long way from 60 per cent? Further, is it not odd that when the Government were being so kind to the Government of Italy, Prime Minister Prodi said of the Prime Minister of Britain after the weekend that he thought he was singularly ill-prepared for the weekend's council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government were not being kind but agreeing with ECOFIN that, taking all of the convergence criteria into account, Italy was moving in the right direction and should therefore be admitted to the single currency on 1st January 1999. I have no comment to make on the alleged statement of Prime Minister Prodi. I would not dream of commenting on alleged statements of the heads of state of other member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, under the terms of the treaty, Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility in these matters? The conditions of convergence are finally determined by the Commission on whose authority they rely in terms of advice on reaching decisions, as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Government have no responsibility whatever. Is the Minister further aware that the final terms of convergence in conformity with the sanctity of the treaty are determined by the Commission, which is responsible for the production of all the figures? Her Majesty's Government are entirely innocent and have no responsibility whatever. Indeed, they have never had any power in the matter!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the House will agree that in view of the Prime Minister's Statement today, which is to be repeated in this House, it would be inappropriate for me to answer questions about anything other than Italy, which was the subject of the original Question.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, would it not be easier for us to move forward on these issues if we accepted that the draftsmen of the Maastricht Treaty were people of great precision, but that the interpretation has been handed over to Humpty-Dumpty?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my answer to the previous question applies.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wonder whether—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, we are in the 24th minute. I think that we should move on.

Paedophiles: Release from Prison
3.2 p.m.
Lord Rowallanasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to deal with paedophiles and other disordered people who are released from prison but who represent a danger to the public; and whether they are satisfied with the arrangement of keeping Sidney Cooke in a police station to protect him from vigilantes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the main consideration is and must be to protect the public. New measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill, in particular the sex offender order and the extended supervision of sex offenders, will help to provide that protection. Sidney Cooke has agreed to be under 24-hour supervision and to be tagged.
We have been considering whether new machinery is necessary to assist in the handling of cases such as that of Sidney Cooke. The Home Secretary has instructed officials to convene a group including representatives of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the Association of Chief Police Officers together with sex offender treatment specialists to take forward this work. The group, which we expect to start work soon, will be charged to identify high profile, difficult-to-place sex offenders in prison and assess their release plans, oversee their handling and consider any funding necessary to meet likely additional accommodation costs.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. I am extremely concerned that such people, having served the sentence for their crime, still pose a danger, as they admit. Will the Minister advise the House whether they should be released or spend the rest of their lives in gaol? Should the press be allowed to whip up vigilantes against them? Furthermore, is it right that taxpayers are spending almost £5,000 a week to keep Sidney Cooke in a police cell away from the vigilantes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, those are important questions. The release of a particular offender is entirely dependent on the sentence originally passed. It is a well known constitutional convention that matters of sentence are for trial judges and not for politicians, and I believe that that is proper.
I take the noble Lord's point about the press. The Government's view is that it is much better for people such as Sidney Cooke to be managed carefully without whipping up undue public fears, in particular when those fears are based on inaccurate information. I am sure everyone would deprecate attacks on police officers, for instance, who are doing their public duty in attempting to safeguard public order, security and safety.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate Paddy Ashdown on the way he handled a difficult meeting in Yeovil? Will he confirm that the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset is satisfied with the control of Sidney Cooke while under his supervision? Although I welcome the setting up of the group to
480
examine the policy for dealing with paedophiles, does the Minister agree that the public needs immediate government plans about the post-release supervision of paedophiles and an undertaking that funds will be forthcoming from central government to meet expenses incurred by police forces in accommodating such people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that Paddy Ashdown behaved properly, courageously and rightly. The arrangements that have been made with Sidney Cooke are the best that can be made in all the circumstances. The noble Lord asked for an immediate response about funding and treatment. The group has been set up and we ought to await its recommendations before blundering into short-term solutions which may not be of long-term use.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill frequent reference was made to the report in 1975 of the Butler Committee on mentally disordered offenders? The suggestion was that a new indeterminate sentence should be created called a "reviewable" sentence so that those who were still a danger were not released from prison until the review declared that it was appropriate, and that the review should take place every two years. Does the Minister agree that if those recommendations had been in place none of the present anxieties would have occurred? Will he now take urgent action to see whether there should be legislation to put into force either Lord Butler's recommendation or similar measures for a new indeterminate sentence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I recall the debates we had on the occasion to which the noble and learned Lord refers. If a reviewable sentence had been available and had been passed on Sidney Cooke, some of the present difficulties might have been avoided. Serious and urgent consideration is taking place in the Home Office for further legislation in the light of policy development along the general lines to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
My Lords, I have about half a second. No one has welcomed back the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on economic and monetary union. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on Statements should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to take advice from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that I wish to make a comment before we discuss the amendments to the Bill. I do not know whether to do so now or to wait until the Motion has been put.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will do so now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice. I rise to express concern about the negative response to my letter requesting supporting information on four issues in the Bill. They are the creation of action zones; the power of the organisation committees and of the adjudicator; and the future of grammar schools. I shall deal with the detail in a moment.
No doubt the Minister will argue that a great deal of information was made available as the Bill proceeded through the other place and since. At the outset, I acknowledge that that is the case and I thank the Minister and her colleagues for making that information available. However, the information leaves very important questions unanswered.
It is important to repeat yet again that in this House we are engaged in making legislation. Therefore, it is extremely important to have an interest in the detail, especially as in the case of this Bill the impact on parents and children will be considerable.
The contempt with which this Government are treating Parliament is palpable. I take the first issue; namely, action zones. They are addressed by just four clauses in the Bill. The bidding documents in relation to becoming an action zone have been distributed widely. Indeed, they were distributed almost as the Bill received its Second Reading in another place.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is it right to continue with this particular line? I thought that the noble Baroness was raising a question on a point of order. I believe that she is going too far.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to be advised by the House but I understood that I could make this statement before the Bill proceeds to Committee. However, as I said, I am happy to be advised by the House.
Action zones are addressed by just four clauses in the Bill and the bidding documents were distributed widely almost as soon as the Bill received its Second Reading in another place. Civil servants have been out and about around the country—I can say—sometimes coercing a
482
positive response to becoming an action zone. Ministers are saying one thing behind closed doors in the department, different from that which is said publicly or which is consistent with the written materials. The closing date to become an action zone was 20th March.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is going too far. I should like to have a ruling.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it was known on this side of the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not perhaps entirely happy with the way in which the Bill is being presented to the House. The Motion before the House at the moment is that the House should resolve itself into a Committee. The question is whether the noble Baroness is speaking to that Motion or making a statement. She is entitled to speak to the Motion but if she wishes to make a statement, I believe that the House should pass the Motion following which the noble Baroness can say what she wishes on the first substantive issue that arises. I am fortified in that by those who are unmentionable in this House. Perhaps the better way to deal with the issue is for the House to agree to the Motion and then for the noble Baroness to make her statement at the appropriate stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I am making relates to our going into Committee on the Bill. In order for that to happen, there is information which we need, as Members of this House, in order to give proper consideration to matters contained in the Bill. Again, I shall be advised by the House. I cannot make this statement once the House is in Committee because we shall deal immediately with individual amendments to the Bill.
We had an unedifying experience on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill but at that time the Bill was already under way. I wrote to the noble Baroness and said that I wished to avoid a repeat of that on this occasion. However, the noble Baroness has responded negatively to my request. I know that there are many noble Lords in the House who are extremely concerned—as is the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—and I wish to make this comment at the outset of our consideration of the Bill in order to elicit from the Minister the sort of information which we require in order to give it proper consideration.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have not concluded what I was saying and I should like to continue my statement. I am looking for advice as to whether I am able to complete what I wish to say. It relates to going into Committee on the Bill.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, my anxiety is the possible exceptions which the House may take in future if we adopt this procedure. Like all members of the Opposition, past and present, the noble Baroness is obviously alarmed and concerned about information which is available on approaching the Committee stage.

483
The purpose of the Committee stage is to elicit the information which the noble Baroness seeks from the Minister. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that if this procedure were to be adopted in relation to every Bill which came before the House, we should have such a debate, taking half an hour or an hour, on every Bill.
The noble Baroness will well know that no Opposition—certainly none of which I have been a member for many years—have ever been satisfied with the material available to them in Committee. I believe that the noble Baroness should deal with these issues in Committee, pursuing them urgently and strongly. She can then decide whether she has received a satisfactory answer and what further steps she should take. I do not believe that the noble Baroness will receive a satisfactory answer in this way. I urge the noble Baroness and the House to adopt the recommendation of the Leader of the House.
At the end of the day, this matter affects us all and it is for each one of us to decide. The House is always willing to grant discretion but I believe we are going a little too far in this particular circumstance.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it seems to me that the proper way to proceed is for the House to move into Committee. If the noble Baroness then feels aggrieved or does not have sufficient information on a particular amendment, she can say what she wishes to say on that amendment. I do not believe that the Opposition are in any way prejudiced if we move into Committee. Indeed, I thought that that was broadly what the House would have wished at this stage.
I do not know of any circumstance or any rule of order of this House which would entitle someone merely to make a statement at the beginning of business without the business being before the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have been a Minister on the Benches opposite and I faced noble Lords when they were on these Benches. I dealt with this particular circumstance on a number of occasions. I recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is not in his place, making a statement either at the beginning of a Committee stage or Report stage and his insistence on seeing a code of practice before we embarked on further discussions. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will well remember that on one occasion the House adjourned because we were pressed to bring forward a code of practice. We had to repair to the room of the Leader of the House in order to sort out that matter. I believe that we are ill equipped to discuss this Bill. If what has been said is the advice to me of the Leader of the House, then so be it. However, if that is the position, the noble Lord will forgive me if I leave the Chamber.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not inclined to change the nature of my advice to the House. It is considered advice and I express it to the House consciously and deliberately and with a deal of consideration. This is a Committee stage of a Bill. I know of no precedent for this sort of behaviour at the
484
beginning of a Committee stage. I have known it to arise later during our deliberations on a Bill. I put my advice to the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did see the Government Chief Whip before we came into the Chamber and he knew that I would be making this Statement. He proffered no advice to me on the matter. If he had felt unhappy about it, he could at least have had the courtesy to tell me that it was out of order or that it would not be acceptable to the Leader of the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should make it clear that when I saw the noble Baroness, I wished to get clear what action she was going to take. I thought that she was going to refer to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. She said that she had some concerns about lack of information and I said that I would pass that on to my noble friend. I certainly did not expect or agree to a statement, as she said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("CHAPTFR AI
KEY STAGE 1: ANNUAI. PERFORMANCE TABLES
KEY STAGE 1: PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE TABLES
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish annual performance tables for the results of National Curriculum assessments at the end of key stage 1 for all relevant schools.
(2) The performance tables defined in subsection (1) shall Include the average class size.").
The noble Lord said: The problem relating to this Bill is, in many ways, a lack of detail and the generalities which are presented in it. The object behind the proposed new clause is to enable us to relate class sizes to particular facts. As Members of the Committee know, there are disputes as to whether or not class sizes will be a total panacea leading to the success that it is hoped will be achieved. But these are actually discoverable facts.
Although key stage 1 tables are at present available to parents and to other people, they are not available at a national level. Therefore, one would like to see the results of key stage 1—that is, the results of the performance of children at the age of seven—known nationally, so that the country as a whole can make decisions regarding the worth or non-worth of the very extensive regulation and expense of reducing class sizes. I hasten to add that, in an ideal world, we would all believe in smaller classes. Therefore, the proposed amendment suggests that the actual performance of schools should be available to the nation at key stage 1, together with the size of the classes which produce those results. I commend that to the Committee because, basically, we are all aiming in the same direction; namely, to improve our educational performance.

485
As the Minister knows, we on this side of the Committee are worried about the excessive bureaucracy involved in the Bill and the lack of facts which is sometimes behind it. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that the amendment before us is a practical proposal. I am sure that the Minister will see it as such; indeed, she may even see value in it. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify his amendment a little further. If I remember correctly, when the noble Lord's party was in power something like the amendment proposed was not his party's policy. Therefore, this is a new development. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us about it. Further, did I understand the noble Lord to say that the point of his amendment was to assess the value of reducing class sizes for this age group? I thought that he said so, but I may have misheard him. If that is the case, does the noble Lord agree that what he needs to relate to class sizes is not performance per se but something which is nowadays called, "value added"; namely, what is achieved as an improvement by lowering class sizes, comparing like with like. Is that what the noble Lord has in mind? If that is so, the noble Lord will, again, have to explain to Members of the Committee why that suggestion was opposed by him and his colleagues only a few years ago when my noble friend the Minister, myself and other noble Lords on this side of the Chamber were pressing for precisely that aim. What has changed other than the Government to cause the noble Lord to put forward such a view at this time?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: As the noble Lord knows, I have had greatness thrust upon me. Indeed, I cannot be accused of being concerned with the decisions of the previous government as I did not occupy office at the time. However, perhaps I may speak as a practical educationalist. As regards class sizes, I believe that, on the whole, a smaller class allows for better teaching. However, there are many other factors involved. The noble Lord knows, as well as I do, that the nature of the argument going on in education at present is whether or not whole class teaching is better than part class teaching. I am not prepared to comment at present on those particular arguments.
My amendment is designed to place on the national record facts which might help us when making decisions as and when particular issues arise. What I am asking is really very little. I am asking for the results of key stage 1 to be known nationally and not just to the parents of the children in the particular school. I am also asking that we should know the average class size of the various schools performing. The intellectual queries of the noble Lord and mine will be met if those facts are published. We are not deciding policy; we are deciding the little parts of the Meccano set which will make up policy. Indeed, I believe that much of the Bill reflects policy without having the Meccano kit. That is the essence of the amendment.
Lord Peston: I trust that the noble Lord will forgive me for returning to the theme, but it is one of great importance. If we published such results and related them to class sizes and there was no correlation between the two—or indeed if there was a rather perverse correlation that the smaller the class size, the worse the apparent performance—the noble Lord must know as well as I do that that would tell us nothing, unless we actually allowed, as he rightly pointed out, for all the other factors at work. I have in mind, in particular, the fact that if we reduce class sizes (a point I remember making some 20 years ago) in the worst performing schools, it will look as if there is a correlation between small class sizes and bad performance. However, all we are revealing is a sensible government policy; namely, that where schools are not performing well we ought to reduce class sizes in order to help them perform better. It is a common-place remark, although people did not fully understand when I first made it. But I make it again now. In those circumstances, the noble Lord's crude amendment will be unhelpful, not helpful. That is why I asked him to clarify the matter.
I know the noble Lord personally very well. Indeed, I know that he actually wishes to be helpful in the matter. Therefore, my own judgment is that such an amendment will not do what he wants; namely, to assess what we are achieving at this key stage. Either the noble Lord needs an amendment on the lines of "value added"—in other words, comparing like with like—or the suggested amendment will not do.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to express my support for the amendment. I am fascinated by the argument produced by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. If he believes in what he just said, it seems to me that he should help my noble friend by devising a suitable amendment which would bring in the factor of added value as well as the simple matter of class size. Surely it must be better to take decisions in the light of some information than, apparently, in the light of none, which is the alternative if the amendment is rejected? Indeed, we should be moving forward.
I have one further point to make in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said when he first rose to speak. The noble Lord said that he could not understand why this proposal was being put forward now as it was not the policy of the previous government. I believe my noble friend has dealt with that on his own behalf, but I hope that the noble Lord was not suggesting that, because something was not a particular party's policy in the past, it should not be so at the present time. If that was the noble Lord's suggestion—and it was certainly implicit in his remarks—I believe that all Members of the Committee sitting opposite, and those in government, will find themselves in a very peculiar situation.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support in principle. I am sorry, I do apologise to the noble Lord; I should have said the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Clearly that is a confusion that I should not have made. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for his

487
support in principle for a policy of smaller class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds. I think that the noble Lord is aware, as other Members of the Committee will he, that there is now good evidence to show that children perform better at that age in smaller classes. I believe passionately that it was right for the Labour Party, prior to the election, to make a manifesto commitment to ensure that there are smaller class sizes for this group of children to enable us to achieve our goals of raising school standards.
In Section 537 of the Education Act 1996 we already have the statutory provisions necessary to enable the Secretary of State to require information from schools on pupil performance and to require the publication of that information in performance tables. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was not on the Front Bench of the previous government, but he is probably pleased to hear that the government he supported enacted a power to enable the Secretary of State to require such performance tables. Like the previous government, this Government are committed to the publication of comparative data 9n school performance in support of our pledge to raise standards and to provide parents with information on the performance of their local schools. I believe that information is helpful and valuable to parents. It is often, of course, an important benchmark for teachers to gauge how their schools are performing.
We aim to provide as full a picture as possible of pupils' achievements. We have already introduced changes to the secondary tables, to enable parents to see at a glance how each school's performance has improved over time and to reflect better the achievements of pupils across the ability range. We have also delegated the responsibility for publishing primary school performance tables of key stage 2 results to local level, allowing LEAs to provide additional information on the performance of their primary schools beyond the core requirements and to set the results in a local context. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite will be able to support that initiative.
We are committed to the publication of measures of value added by schools—that point was raised by my noble friend Lord Peston—as the necessary data on pupils' prior attainment become available in a suitable form. Of course that takes a little while as we need to measure progress over time. The next step towards this—the publication of information on progress in secondary schools between key stage 3 in 1996 and GCSE results in 1998—will feature in this year's secondary tables. These are significant developments. They need to be planned carefully and introduced step by step, to ensure that we do not place unreasonable demands on schools or increase the burdens on teachers—something we are trying to reduce—or overload parents with too much information which is difficult to digest. I share the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to see more data on school performance becoming publicly available but I wonder whether the time is yet right for national performance tables at key stage 1, so early in children's education.
488
I refer to what my noble friend Lord Peston said with regard to some of the technical issues. I very much agree with his remarks on that. I say to the noble Lord opposite that I am not sure whether it is my noble friend's job to design new amendments for the Opposition Front Bench to resolve technical problems contained in their amendments.
I shall try to explain briefly why we do not intend to publish information on average class size in individual schools. Such figures were not published under the previous government for exactly the same reasons. Each January every school completes a form—known as the Form 7—one section of which records information on classes as taught. They must record the details of all classes being taught at a given period on the census day. For each class they record the number of pupils, teachers, support staff, the year group, the key stage, and whether it is an "ordinary lesson" or one such as sport, music or drama that may involve non-typical groupings of either larger or smaller numbers of pupils.
The information collected is thus a snapshot of a given moment. Like any such snapshot, there may be occasional anomalies at the detailed level. The figures are robust at national level and at LEA level, as "swings and roundabouts" will level out such anomalies. However, when reporting on individual schools, the figures may be misleading. For example, a school may hire two part-time teachers for one afternoon only and regroup pupils in small groups. To record their average class size at that time would not be a true picture of the whole week.
The schools census should, however, enable us to spot any classes that do not comply with limits. As our limits will cover all ordinary lessons for infant classes, there should be no single-teacher classes over 30 unless they have been brought together for music, sport or similar activities. If we make any limited exceptions to class size limits, of the kind set out in the draft regulations issued for consultation last week, we shall have to record those in the census. I thought it would be helpful to the Committee if I made that clear. The department's statisticians would discuss the practical details with their colleagues in LEAs. In those circumstances and in the light of what I have said about the Government's commitment to good performance indicators and the various steps that we are taking, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I welcome some of the comments that the Minister has made in replying to the amendment. I very much welcome her comments on the importance of comparative figures at different levels as between schools. It ill behoves the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to chide us for modifying our views as regards seven year-olds when the views expressed by his party have not changed marginally since 1987—when I introduced the 1987 Bill—but 180 per cent. The party opposite voted against examinations and tests at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 and the publication of league tables. I welcome the fact that the present Government now accept all of this. I do not gloat over that at all. I believe it is a sensible change of policy on

489
the part of the Labour Party. It recognises the reality that parents want to know how their children are performing at different levels. That is now fully accepted in respect of key stages 2 and 3.
It is interesting to note that the Minister reminded the House that in 1996 the previous Conservative government gave themselves the power to allow the wider national publication of league tables for seven year-olds. I drew some comfort from the Minister's words as she did not say that she would not use the power but that she would consider so doing in the future. I suspect that that will happen. When the tables are published it will be possible to measure some degree of value added. With the wider extension of nursery education one will be able to measure the performance of a child at various stages. That is, after all, what parents want to know when they decide which schools their children should attend. I welcome this provision. My noble friend who moved the amendment has done us a service by prompting a clear exposition from the Government of their support for this policy. I hope that we shall go a little further and that this provision will be applied to seven year-olds during the lifetime of this Government.
Baroness Young: I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Baker has just said. When he was Secretary of State league tables, testing and assessment were introduced. Those of us who sat on the government Benches in those days remember the hard battles that were fought on all these matters. We are extremely pleased to see the Government's conversion to league tables, testing and assessment.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I, too, welcome the indication given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that local education authorities have been given the power to publish this information if necessary. This is one of the most important stages in the education of children. If they do not make progress at the beginning of their school lives they are more than likely to continue to fall behind. Everyone welcomes value added but it can so easily be used as an excuse for bad performance. At the end of the day what really matters is not the value added, or even the school, but rather whether the child has acquired the skills that it should have acquired at key stage I. Any information which will contribute positively to that is to be welcomed. It is not an argument about whether one should have larger or smaller class sizes or more teachers. What matters is whether at this important stage the children acquire the fundamental skills of reading, writing and numeracy.
Only the other day I read published evidence that children who drop out of school and quite frequently turn to crime are those who never learned to read. Once again we learn that. The sooner one identifies those children who are in trouble, the better. If one can identify them at the age of seven or eight, so much the better. Parents also require that information. Quite properly, parents are becoming increasingly demanding on the subject.
490
If the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendment as it stands, I hope that she will accept the spirit in which it is put down. I believe that we are all interested in the same aim. If necessary, perhaps the noble Baroness will bring forward an amendment which will meet some of the technical difficulties that she has identified. They are difficulties to which we shall return as we proceed through the first part of the Bill on class sizes.
Lord Dearing: I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister for her response. I agree that the performance of children at seven is probably the most important indicator of what their educational experience will be. It is right that we should be deeply concerned that parents and governing bodies have the information.
Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. Rather than looking forward to an undertaking that the information will become available during the life of this Parliament, I hope that with value added it will become available in the next two years or so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was extremely interested to hear the noble Baroness's very kindly rebuke and advice offered to her noble friend Lord Peston. I understood her to say that it is not her noble friend's job to find new or better amendments—
Baroness Blackstone: I think that there is a misunderstanding. I in no way rebuked my noble friend. The noble Lord opposite suggested that my noble friend should redraft the amendment put down by the Opposition Front Bench. I was suggesting that it was not my noble friend's job to do that. No rebuke was meant in any way to anyone.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I apologise to the Minister if I have misconstrued her. Perhaps I may put it this way. The friendly advice that she offered her noble friend was most interesting. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, took it in the most gentlemanly fashion.
However, the reason for being on my feet now is to express the earnest hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not in any way be discouraged from offering improvements to the amendments of the Opposition Front Bench. Let me make it clear that I have unqualified admiration for my noble friend Lord Pilkington. Knowing him and admiring him as I do, I have absolutely no doubt that he will be very grateful, as the debate continues, to have advice from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on how his amendment should be improved.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may respond. I did not feel that I was being rebuked by my noble friend. Indeed, I know that she would wish me to help the Opposition in their present plight.
However, I am little puzzled on one point. When the noble Lord, Lord Baker, introduced his Bill (as it then was) in 1987, I do not remember that he used the expression "league tables". I think that that vulgarity

491
emerged elsewhere. I agree with much of what noble Lords opposite said. However, while the analogy with league tables may be appropriate for congratulating the Arsenal football team—I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will agree with me on that—I do not believe that looking at schools in league table form is helpful to schools, children or education in general.
The whole point of the concept that we put forward then—I remember working with my noble friend and others—was that we did not want a league table approach but something a good deal more sensitive. Our views on value added were strongly rejected at that point. I stick to my view. I deplore the concept of league tables for assessing schools. One might say that that is just a matter of taste. But I believe that it is more than that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the importance is what a school achieves for the individual child. A school can do a great deal for an individual child without appearing in a powerful position in any league printed in the press. That is and remains my concern with the amendment of the noble Lord. It, too, would lead to reinforcement of the league table approach which I hope I am not alone in finding not very helpful when considering education.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may intervene again; I had not expected to do so. The weakness of publishing any information is that someone else will turn it into league tables. However, that should not be a concern of this Committee. What other people do with information is their concern. If good information is published, parents will make good use of it. It must be better to publish information, acknowledging that there may be abuse by some in other places, with other disciplines and other interests. We have to learn to live with that.
When I suggested that there might be some co-operation on amendments to the Bill, I was well aware that the approach was not likely to be looked on favourably. However, that allows me to regret that in all too many of our discussions on legislation our concern is not always to produce the best legislation but to follow the conventions of party divisions, party discussions and party antagonisms. I think that that is a little unfortunate.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that there is any party antagonism on this complex issue. I believe that performance tables rather than league tables is the more appropriate term, although it is always nice to have people sitting behind one who support the right football team. In that case there is a genuine league—and Arsenal won and is at the top!
However, perhaps I may pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. We shall want to look at the impact of the wider extension of nursery education. This is important new policy. It is necessary that in future we monitor it, and see what impact it has had. At the same time, we might regret rushing straight into performance tables for schools teaching these very young people. We have to remember that many children at present in this age group will be at school for only two years before the measures come into force. Some of those children
492
will have a lot of catching up to do because of their social circumstances. Some will have arrived at school with poor language development, few social skills and a great deal to learn in that respect. In many of our cities, quite a few will arrive speaking little English. So it would be wrong at this stage to make a commitment to performance tables.
I wish also to support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Peston. I do not believe that we should introduce performance tables until we have the value added methodology properly worked out and applied to the later key stages, in particular in secondary school. We are still in the process of doing that. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will agree with me that while we must identify and support those children who are in trouble—I could not agree more with her in that respect—performance tables for schools do not identify individual children. Nor should they. It is up to teachers, in the assessment they carry out, to identify children who need extra remedial help. The Government are very much encouraging that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord—
Baroness Young: Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive my intervening. She is on to a terribly important point, and one with which we are both in agreement. If I have understood her aright, she is saying that a performance table will not necessarily indicate how well an individual child is doing. That may well be so. However, it will give a clear indication as to how well the school as a whole is doing. I hope that she will consider this point further. The difficulty is that at this early stage a school can hide behind all these problems—language difficulties, bad homes, poor environment. We have heard them for years. I heard them 20 years ago when I was an education Minister. What is required is an answer to those difficulties. Performance tables are a real, public indication as to how well the teaching in a school is going.
Baroness Blackstone: It is certainly the case that this Government will refute any excuses that are made in relation to bad performance. The social factors listed by the noble Baroness are not reasons for schools to shelter behind poor teaching, inadequate use of resources and failure to intervene when early remedial help is needed. Those matters are absolutely vital. The noble Baroness is quite right. A child who does not learn to read at this stage is a child who will fall behind at all the later stages, and will often be one of those who later become disaffected with their schooling, become truants, drop out and then become involved in crime. Therefore the attention that we are giving to the early years is very important. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
At the same time, it would be wrong to castigate those schools in difficult social environments which have large numbers of pupils needing a great deal of help and which receive lower scores than those schools in leafy suburbs, many of whose children are already well prepared to start school and in some cases have already been taught to read at home. They have certainly received a lot of support and attention and may have

493
had two or more full-time years in a very good nursery school. So I do not want schools in any way to make excuses. But value-added tables are a much better way of ensuring that all schools are doing a good job. Without them, we cannot tell whether some of the schools that are in a privileged position in terms of entry are doing as good a job as they should be. They should get very high scores, and we shall not know that unless we are able to measure the performance of children when they arrive.
This is a difficult technical area. Measuring the performance of five year-olds when they first enter a primary school, particularly if they have not had any nursery school experience is difficult and tricky. I do not think that I can make any commitment to going down this road at this stage; but I do not want to rule out making progress in this sort of direction in the longer term.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: This is a probing amendment, though we may return to it on Report. To approach it from a broader sphere, the background to the amendment is this. Perhaps I may first take one historical example.
Towards the end of the last century and the beginning of this, the United States of America took people from everywhere in the world, many of whom did not speak English, and through the early school system transformed them into English-speaking Americans who took a great part in the development of their country. That is my first historical point.
The second is this. The noble Baroness touched on this matter and I must say that I welcome the approach that she has taken. Like my noble friend Lord Baker, I welcome the movement of the party opposite towards views of education that I have held for a long time. There is no joy in heaven so great as that for a sinner who converts. As the noble Baroness knows, it is a fact that in the same deprived area—I know the school where my daughter teaches—one school adjacent to another does amazingly better. Similarly, in privileged areas one school will do badly and another will do very well. My amendment may be crude, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Peston; but it would go a little way towards helping.
Key stage 1 assesses very important areas—areas that will decide a child's future in later life, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I agree with every word that she said. Similarly, class sizes would be another piece of additional information. I accept, as the noble Baroness said, that these facts are available, though mainly to parents. Similarly, the facts about class sizes are available in local authority documents; they can be gained if one is prepared to approach the authority.
I have no disagreement in relation to the idea of value added—though I share the views of my noble friend Lady Young that it can, if not used properly, become a mask that excludes failure. I have seen that happen in schools. To return to my original statement, there are cases where one school in a deprived area, with people
494
from a different ethnic background, does so much better at teaching language and numeracy than does the next one. My amendment would serve to reveal those facts.
I welcome the noble Lord's idea. I am quite happy if the Government wish to add to my amendment a provision in relation to value added. Having been in education, I am afraid that arguments about value added are like those as to how many angels are dancing on a pin. It may mean that this idea is never realised. We have to face the point made by my noble friend Lord Baker: one of the engines fuelling the advance in education has been the performance that has actually occurred in schools. That is what the Government have realised. It is the legacy they have inherited from their predecessors and on which they are building. That said, I shall not force the amendment now. However, we may return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If the next amendment, Amendment No. 2, is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 3 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) The maximum number of pupils that an infant class at a maintained school may contain while an ordinary teaching session is conducted by a single qualified teacher is 30.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations fix the date by which the limit set out in subsection (1) is to be met by such schools.
(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) impose different limits (subject to subsection (1)), and fix different dates, according to the age groups into which the pupils in infant classes fall;

(b) provide that, in any circumstances specified in the regulations, the limit set out in subsection (1) and any limit imposed by the regulations either is not to apply or is to operate in such manner as is so specified.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment will give the Government their first opportunity to respond positively to the report of the delegated powers scrutiny committee. Perhaps I may at the outset read from paragraph 6 of that report. It states:
"The committee accepts the need for flexibility in implementing this highly significant change in schools policy, and thus the need for regulations. But regulation-making powers should be used in this area only insofar as they are essential to achieve the necessary flexibility. In the view of the Committee, the most important parameters, including the all-important target of the maximum number of pupils in an infant class, should appear on the face of the Bill. The House may therefore wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to include the target maximum number of pupils on the face of the Bill. It may also think the use of negative procedure inappropriate for such an important power, and may thus wish to consider amending the Bill to allow for the affirmative resolution procedure".
The Committee will see that the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List will address both of those recommendations—first, in that the figure 30 should appear on the face of the Bill. After all, in this instance the Government have produced draft regulations whereby they commit themselves to the figure 30. Therefore it should not present a difficulty for them to lay that figure on the face of the Bill. If they

495
intend this policy to be in place by 2001, then it is unlikely that they will go for a figure lower than 30 within the period of this Parliament. Indeed, it is likely, if the Government wish to pursue smaller classes in schools, that they will wish to address classes for seven, eight and nine year-olds before going even lower for the infant classes. In either case, the Government would still have to return to this House with primary legislation. Therefore they should accept this amendment.
I wish to refer to a disquiet that I have about this pledge, laudable and desirable though it may be, which, if my newspapers are to be believed, is a disquiet shared by members of the Government. It is that the practical difficulties of implementing this policy are legion. I have always held the view that, if local education authorities and schools themselves had more money, it would be for them to determine their priorities. I suspect that it would be almost inevitable that primary schools and/or infant schools would tend to give priority to younger-aged children. I would trust the local education authorities and the schools themselves to use the money in this way if it were made available. But the Government have hooked themselves on taking control of this policy at national level.
We all know that, where a guarantee is as inflexible as it is in this Bill, the 31st, 32nd or even 33rd child will happen randomly across the country. A school that has 31 children in a class today may have 28 next year. In small schools in the heart of rural England, not only is class size an issue; so too is the age range within a class. In my own village in the county of Cambridgeshire, the school has five, six and seven year-olds in one class, seven, eight and nine year-olds in the second class and nine, 10 and 11 year-olds in the third class. There is a world of difference between a class of 30 five, six and seven year-olds and a class of 30 five year-olds, a class of 30 six year-olds and a class of 30 seven year-olds. In no way does this policy recognise the sensitivity of that very real distinction. If one is measuring the burden on a teacher in the classroom, which is what I believe we should be doing, the burden on the teacher dealing with an age range of three years is vastly different from, and more onerous than, the burden on the teacher dealing with 30 children of a single age group.
I posed the question at Second Reading as to what happens to the 31st child where the school is a long distance from another school or where another school of the denominational preference is not nearby. We know the answer to that now: the answer is that the child will be given a teacher and that the local authority will provide that teacher.
There are huge problems with that. Are the Government saying unequivocally that where there is a 31st child which impedes parental preference, which does not enhance parental preference, which means that a child will travel an unreasonable distance, which means that denominational choice is not nearby, the school will be provided with an extra teacher for one or two children, when numbers in a school can fluctuate downwards or upwards from term to term and from year to year?
496
If local education authorities are expected to have that kind of money pre-empted from their budgets on a term-by-term basis, it will be hugely expensive across the country. Pupil/teacher ratios will be vastly changed. This money will come from the education budget. A later amendment from the Liberal Democrats urges that this money should go into the revenue support grant. Once it goes into the revenue support grant, it is clear that every time a teacher is produced for as few as one or two children, that resource is denied to the other age groups, the seven year-olds and upwards.
The practical difficulties with this policy, however laudable and desirable it is, are legion. It is no surprise to me that the Treasury has concerns about it. It is certainly no surprise to me that, as time goes on, the practical difficulties presented by the policy increase. Because of the way in which the Government have chosen to implement this policy at national level rather than allowing local education authorities to operate at their own level, the minutiae of information which will have to go into the plans to be presented to the Government for their approval or disapproval, as the case may be, and the inevitable paper-chase that will be involved as the plans are handed back down to the local education authorities and then back up again, will mean that much needed resources will be dissipated. I believe that it will cause enormous problems.
The report from the delegated powers scrutiny committee is the strongest that has ever been made of a Bill in Parliament. I hope that that message will be well received by the Department for Education and Employment. My own memory of being a Minister in that department is that a Minister, particularly one in this House, has to work very hard with officials to persuade them that this point is important. They have an in-built aversion to affirmative resolution procedures. When we come to the later amendment, I shall argue for that procedure. In the meantime I believe that, if the Government are serious about this policy, it is only right that we should follow the recommendations of the scrutiny committee and put it on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: Before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was asked by a reporter what the interesting points would be today. One of my comments was that, having followed education over a number of years, I was a little bemused and I thought he would see Members of the Government Bench and the Opposition Bench saying different things and interpreting things differently from the way in which they interpreted them when they sat on the other side of the Chamber. My second comment was that one never knows what will take anyone's fancy in a Committee debate and what will cause excitement. When I made that comment, I had not anticipated that the excitement would happen so early in the day.
In the past there have been fierce arguments about who believes that children do better in small classes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on at least sticking to the policy that was accepted in another place that it is important but is one of a number of

497
measures that need to be in place to improve standards. I made an impassioned speech about this matter at Second Reading. Having been a practising teacher, I have no doubt that children can receive more attention in a small class. I have yet to see a parent pay to send a child to a school that has large classes. Indeed, I know that one of the reasons why parents pay to send their children to certain schools is that they know there will be small numbers in the classes. At least we have more or less agreed here today that this is a very important point.
We support the amendment. It has been recommended by the Select Committee that looks into the way in which we deal with regulations and make laws in this place. I believe we should heed what the committee says. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, laid that matter out clearly, and I will not repeat what was said in the report.
The noble Baroness also pointed out that there are knock-on effects from insisting that there should be 30 children in a class. We support that policy, which was contained in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election. We shall discuss the knock-on effects of that policy when we discuss other clauses this afternoon. It is important for us to recognise that not only are there difficulties about where one puts the 31st child; there are considerable difficulties about how one accommodates extra classes in schools. Those will be matters that we shall look at later on this afternoon.
Lord Peston: It seems to me, as someone who has never taught in an infants' school, that a class size of 30 is enormously large. I have lectured to hundreds of people but have never had to keep discipline or do anything of that kind. I assume that, in setting this as a target, the Government regard this as only the beginning of what we would aim at when we can afford it.
Again, if we are to make progress, we must come up with a number which says that the maximum must be such and such. Whatever number the Government come up with, someone will ask why, and what is to happen to the marginal child. I do not see how that can be a criticism of the Government. If they are going to move at all, they must start with a number and 30 is better than nothing.
Let me say, en passant, that it gives me enormous pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, back on the Front Bench. I was a bit taken aback when she said that she was not staying and thought she meant that she was never coming back. However, I gather her demonstration was simply for one amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, had greatness thrust upon him for only that one amendment, though some of us hold him in high esteem anyway.
It seems to me to be reasonable that the Government should come up with a number. It also seems to me—I hope I am in order in mildly criticising the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—that if the Government come up with an objective of 30 but many believe that in due course the number should be progressively lowered, and if we consider the question of flexibility to be important, regulation is the correct way of achieving that. Putting a precise number on the face of
498
the Bill does not make any sense. Why would we put a number on the face of the Bill if in due course our intention is to make it lower still?
For once our respected committee may be slightly mistaken. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is not mistaken in suggesting that we use the affirmative resolution procedure. It is part of the game that the Opposition always say that they would like to use the affirmative resolution procedure. But in this case I hope that the Minister can be supportive or will at least think about the position. It is quite separate from the question of a maximum, where I would not like to see a number on the face of the Bill. That would somehow imply that we regard 30 as being particularly attractive rather than that it is the best we can do for the moment but that we have ambitions to do more without changing primary legislation.
To summarise, therefore, flexibility means that we should do this by regulation. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is right that, in a matter as important as this, my noble friend ought at least to think about the idea of using the affirmative procedure.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps I can contribute briefly to this Committee debate. I am the father of a seven year-old and have nothing but admiration for anyone who can control any seven year-old, bearing in mind the way my seven year-old behaves.
I wanted to draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the document published in April of this year entitled Reducing infant class sizes: guidance. In paragraphs 15 and 17 it addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness. Paragraph 15 specifically talks about rural schools and what happens if there should be more than 30 pupils. It goes on in paragraph 17 to talk of contingency funding and how the LEA may be able to apply for small amounts to address that point. I agree also with the point made by my noble friend Lord Peston.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree with me that it will be expensive to provide a qualified teacher? We are not talking about a teaching assistant; many infant teachers would welcome a teaching assistant for the 31st or 32nd child, which would be an extremely economic way of meeting a difficult challenge. However, we are bound by the legislation to provide a qualified teacher.
Does the noble Lord agree therefore that the cost of providing a qualified teacher, which may be anything from £20,000 to £35,000, to a school for one or two children is disproportionately uneconomic when the knock-on effect of that in a rural county will be substantial? It is pre-emptive moneys and nothing on the face of the Bill guarantees that pound for pound will be given to local authorities. They are simply invited to bid for small contingency sums, and therefore the money

499
will come from a local education authority's budget, even if it is not the local education authority's priority or the school's priority.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps that is the reason it is not on the face of the Bill but is in regulation, so that that kind of consideration can be taken into account. From my point of view, I would be happier if there was a fully qualified teacher to take up the provision of education for a few extra pupils. The noble Baroness is gesticulating that it would be for only one child; I should like a fully qualified teacher to be involved in teaching my child.
My point concerned what my noble friend Lord Peston said. I agree with him that regulation is the proper place to put these considerations. The figure of 30 should be a maximum and I hope that the Government will seek to work towards reducing class numbers for five, six and seven year-olds to way below that figure.
Baroness Young: The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Blatch is extremely important. It follows from a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee makes a firm and clear recommendation in paragraph 6 of its report, which says,
"In the view of the Committee, the most important parameters, including the all-important target of the maximum number of pupils in an infant class, should appear on the face of the Bill".
That is what the amendment seeks to do in subsection (1).
The answer to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether we want to see this as a maximum or a minimum, is that all of us, as a general principle, would think it desirable that class sizes should reduce in number. I do not believe that there will be a great deal of argument on that point.
It is a huge change in policy to legislate on this matter. It raised many questions, as my noble friend Lady Blatch indicated, which we now understand. I hope that we shall have even greater clarification on the matter of, where there are one or two extra children in a classroom, whether another teacher should be forthcoming. I hope I understood the position correctly. It seems to me that it will create immense expense, apart from anything else, far greater than anything that was anticipated.
When we turn to the sums, I believe that it was all going to be paid for by the winding-up of the assisted places scheme. I wonder whether that money will cover the provision of the right number of teachers. I can think of a school which I know well where at the moment a class is oversubscribed by four pupils. That creates immense difficulties for the school and for the poor teacher who usually has to confront the irate parents who cannot get their children in. There are therefore many subsidiary problems and it is important to have them cleared up.
I hope that the Government will consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is contrary to what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny
500
Committee suggested, that this is not going to be put on the face of the Bill, and that the regulations should be introduced by affirmative resolution procedure. The issue is clearly important.
Baroness Blackstone: It may be helpful for me to speak now. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, these amendments reflect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which reported on this Bill only last week. We had sight of the report on Thursday afternoon. That is not a criticism of the committee. I know that the Easter Recess intervened and it is a large and complex Bill.
The Government noted the committee's report and we are now in discussion with our legal advisers in regard to the necessary amendments. We are only too well aware of the importance of the committee's recommendations on a wide range of issues, not just class size, and it is our intention to respond as positively as we can.
On the question of infant class sizes, I am pleased to confirm that the Government will give effect to the committee's central recommendation that the limit of 30 should be on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she was aware of the various knock-on effects and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised the issue of money, as did my noble friend Lord Peston. There are, however, a whole range of later amendments down, including amendments on costs and on issues such as extra teachers versus assistants and so on, so I wonder if the Committee would agree that it would make more sense if I responded to those issues when we come to those amendments.
Meanwhile, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Peston that, of course, 30 is not a magic number, but there has to be a firm limit. I am sure he would agree with that. We think that 30 is the right limit and the right limit to place on the face of the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her proposed amendment. My preliminary view is that wording such as that proposed for subsection (1) may be close to what is needed. However, we shall want to look carefully at the wording to ensure that there are no unlooked for effects. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we need to discuss these further with our legal advisers to make sure that the precise wording of the clauses reflects the intentions. Therefore, we shall introduce government amendments on this matter at the Report stage of the Bill. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw these two amendments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I wonder if I may ask a question. The National Commission on Education, which I had the privilege to chair, after doing a great deal of research, recommended the maximum class size in nursery and primary schools as being 30, so I am glad to hear that that recommendation is now being accepted by the Government.
Taking on board the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if it turns out that in a particular school at any one time there are 31 or 32 children in a

501
class, is it a requirement under the law that the extra one or two must be taught by a qualified teacher, or is it possible that for a temporary period they might be taught by a teaching assistant?
Baroness Blackstone: No. We shall come to this matter a little later. It is the Government's intention to ensure, as is absolutely right and proper, that all children of this age should be taught by a qualified teacher. That is what we will ensure happens.
Baroness Seccombe: We are talking about legislation and the rigidity of having 30 children in one class. If at a rural school which was miles from anywhere the parents of most of the children thought that it was right that a 31st child should be added, but one parent felt as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, feels, and insisted that another teacher was enlisted, what would be the situation as regards enforcement of the law? What would the sanctions be and who would be offending in that situation?
As a magistrate I always think of how one enforces the legislation. It would be interesting to know the thinking of the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Baroness said, and I am sure she pleased the Committee, that it was the intention of the Government to look positively at the thinking behind the amendment. I wonder if the noble Baroness would make it clear whether that positive look applies to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of using the affirmative procedure. If, by chance, it does not, I should like to make the point, which I made very often when we were in government, at a time when I was doing my utmost to support Ministers, that I still recall some arguments which I had with my noble friend Lady Blatch, who is now in a different situation, on this very subject of affirmative procedures.
I understand very well that it would be extremely unfair to throw all the odium for this bad habit at the noble Baroness. It seems to me to have been for quite a long time an ingrained habit of the department she now represents to indulge in these thoroughly bad practices. I found, to my great distress, that complaints levelled from the other side of your Lordships' House had little effect.
I am extremely hopeful now, supporting as I do the point made with great cogency by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that his argument will commend itself to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness first. Of course, I do not believe that any school would want to fail to respond to what the law requires it to do in circumstances of this kind. It will be provided with the resources, and it cannot be in any school's interests to do other than commit itself to what the law requires. The Secretary of State could issue a direction to the school or the local education authority under Section 497 of the Education Act 1996 and get a court order to enforce it.
502
I now turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. We have been able to respond positively on the issue of affirmative procedures in relation to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. We will, of course, look and think carefully about it in relation to this part of this Bill. However, I should say to the noble Lord, and I am sure my noble friend will agree with this, that given that we are conceding that the limit of 30 should be on the face of the Bill, that will obviously have some effect on what the thinking might be about the affirmative resolution. Of course, we will take this away, think about it and consult our legal advisers.
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaks, perhaps I may ask her doubly to reassure me. She said that she would take legal advice on the question of what goes on to the face of the Bill. I am always delighted when a Minister responds positively to someone in Opposition. Equally, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I suffering from the same besetting sin; namely, that we try to be consistent no matter where we are sitting, which I do not think will meet with approval from everybody. Nonetheless, on this matter we do.
I am a little worried that in following the recommendation of your Lordships' Committee the Government might be getting themselves into legal hot water, not far removed from what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, implied might arise. Can my noble friend reassure us, in trying to respond sympathetically, that we will not end up with a worse state of affairs, including a legal minefield, than we had to start with? In other words, I do not wish to deflect her remotely from being supportive of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but I do not want her to give us a Bill that will become an Act of Parliament which, rather like one or two aspects, if I may say, of the Act introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, when he was Secretary of State, will be unenforceable. That would worry me a great deal. I refer, of course, to religious courses.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question before she proceeds further with the Bill? I very much welcomed hearing the noble Baroness say that although the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on delegated powers had only been seen by her Department last Thursday, nonetheless heads had been put together. I think the noble Baroness's words were that there would be consideration of necessary amendments. I hope I am not sounding as though I am niggling when I say that I think it would help the Committee if we knew how the noble Baroness intended to proceed. Can she give a very quick assessment of the report of the Select Committee, a Select Committee which, incidentally, exists in order to examine whether there are inappropriate delegated powers in Bills and which expresses considerable concern so far as this Bill is concerned. Eight or 10 of its recommendations would fall within the ambit of the undertaking given by the noble Baroness.
The next recommendation made by the Select Committee relates to Clause 21 which we shall not reach today. However, I am raising the issue to ask the

503
Minister whether she will be revealing to the Committee, point by point as we reach the relevant clauses, the Government's thinking on the regulation-making powers in those clauses or whether she is considering making a statement to the Committee—possibly when we sit next or the time after that—about the way in which the Government will tackle the Select Committee's recommendations.
I apologise if I sound as though I am niggling. I do not think that I am; I think that it would help the Committee to know the way in which the Minister intends to give effect to the undertaking that she has given, which I welcome.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may raise one point. I preface my remarks by saying that I am no breaker of laws, but I hope that the Minister will not get into too much detail about breaking the law with regard to the example that we are currently considering of the 31st or 32nd pupil. The first point to consider is where the money will come from for an extra teacher. I believe that it has been suggested that it might cost between £25,000 and £35,000.
I put it to my noble friend and to the Committee that we are breaking the law every day with regard to education. The law has been broken many times today simply because religious services—school gatherings for religious purposes—tend not to be held, although that is the law. There is supposed to be a daily religious service in our schools, but such services do not take place—and for a number of good reasons. First, in secondary schools in particular, there is not sufficient room for all the pupils. Secondly, in some cases teachers are unwilling to undertake such duties. I believe that the number of such teachers is increasing.
I hope that my noble friend will realise that certain practical difficulties have to be borne in mind. However, I am not saying that we should not have this as an aim. I tend to agree with some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Peston, particularly on numbers. At some point, I am sure that we shall say, "This cannot be done at present". At the moment, for example, there is a shortage of teachers and until we can move towards finding a solution to such difficulties, some of the problems being raised now simply cannot be met.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin by responding to my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Dormand. Of course, we do not want to enter a legal minefield, but perhaps I should remind my noble friends that we have a clear manifesto commitment that five, six and seven year-old children should be educated in classes of no more than 30 children. That is a commitment, a pledge, that we intend to meet. I believe that schools will want to meet that pledge and that it will be in their interests to do so. The resources will be made available to enable them to do so. Therefore, there should be no legal minefields and no resort to the courts. I believe that schools and local education authorities will respond extremely positively.
504
I turn now to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We shall, of course, let the Committee know, as we go on, how we intend to respond to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. As I have already made absolutely clear, we intend to be extremely positive. Perhaps I may help the noble Lord by saying a little more about that now. The report makes a number of recommendations about appropriate resolution procedures. As I have said, we shall respond as constructively as we can to the recommendations in respect of the provisions covering, for example, the responsibility and functions of governing bodies; local management of schools; the LEA code of practice on LEA school relations and in respect of appeals procedures, relating to both appeals for admission to a particular school and exclusion appeals.
The report suggests tightening some of the provisions of the Bill. In particular, the Select Committee was keen to see clarification of the regulations governing foundation bodies and that the definition of "school lunch" should appear on the face of the Bill. It wanted the power in Clause 84(8) to determine or vary admission arrangements to be drawn more precisely. Again, the Government will respond positively to all those recommendations and, where possible, we shall bring forward amendments in Committee rather than delaying them until Report. However, there may be a few cases where, because of the legal complexities involved, it will be necessary to table amendments on Report. I hope that that helpfully answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Baker of Dorking: The noble Baroness was very frank at the beginning of her last intervention when she said that the clause was a Labour Party manifesto commitment and that it should therefore be implemented. In fact, if one considers carefully the Labour Party's policy before the election, one sees that this is its one specific declaration. The rest of the Labour Party's education policy amounted to the clever use of adjectives—but I believe that we have a government of adjectives. This is a specific commitment and it is therefore appropriate that it should be part of Clause 1 of the Bill. To the extent that it is a commitment, it should be on the face of the Bill.
However, I hope that the Minister realises the complexities and difficulties of implementing such a policy, which were mentioned by a noble Lord opposite. A class of 29 can swell to a class of 32 because of the influx of gypsy or travelling children or simply because new families have moved into the district. The school will then get an extra teacher. However, the situation could be reversed and the class may decrease to 28. It will then have to go back to having one teacher.
This is a random way of spending £120 million. I only hope that, as the debates proceed and the regulations become more specific, the Minister will indicate exactly how the provisions will work in practice. I suspect that such things are best left to local management of schools. It may well be that when a class temporarily increases to more than 30 children, the money could be better spent in another way rather than on an extra teacher. Only the school will know. A school

505
may be situated in a rural area or in a difficult inner-city area. Even if we are talking about a manifesto commitment, it will be very difficult in practice for schools to operate within such a strait-jacket.
Baroness Blatch: I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Baker. I tabled the amendment because, given that the Labour Party had made such a specific promise, I thought that such a provision should appear unequivocally on the face of the Bill. I believe that local schools would like to be able to decide their own priorities. I agree with the Minister that, by and large, schools will welcome the thrust towards smaller classes in this age group. However, I want the Minister to know that delivering this policy will result in real pain. The 31st or 32nd child in a class will be bussed out of the village in which he or she lives and away from the school attended by brothers and sisters. Is the Minister saying that siblings will be protected, along with denominational preference and parental preference, and that no child will have to go to a school that is poorer in terms of performance standards than that in his or her locality?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand; I took down his words precisely. He said, "Some of the problems being raised now simply cannot be met". That is right. The Minister will find that this is a blank cheque because capital moneys have been promised as well as moneys for teachers. Those of us who have been in local government know that, down the line, that means pre-empted local government moneys, irrespective of their priorities as local education authorities or the priorities of the schools themselves.
Perhaps I may clear up a slight misunderstanding with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. If a school thought that it made more economic sense to have a teacher-assistant for the 31st or 32nd child rather than a costly, fully qualified teacher, I would not want anybody to think that I was suggesting that the teacher-assistant should be the teacher of the 31st or 32nd child. I was simply saying that that person might assist in the classroom with the management of the 31 or 32 children. Where the parents want it, the governors are happy to accept it and the school is also happy to accept it, that makes economic and educational sense. In those circumstances there should be flexibility to accede to local preference. That is not allowed for in the legislation. When one is considering the interests of rural England, I believe that to be a great pity. It is disproportionately uneconomic to tie up one qualified teacher for possibly one or two children.
Lord Peston: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. I realise that we want to get on to other business. We do not want to delay the Lord Privy Seal or the Leader of the Opposition. But for my sake can she just clarify this matter? Does she want "30" on the face of the Bill or not? I am sure that it would help my noble friend if she answered that she wants that number on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am looking for honesty and integrity as regards this policy. We would not put
506
"30" on the face of the Bill. We would be doing what we can to free up as much money as possible and as taxation will allow in order to provide the local education authorities and the schools themselves with the money to determine local priorities. I have said to the Minister that I believe most primary and infant schools wish to re-emphasise the importance of spending that money on the lower age groups. Therefore, I put my trust in the schools and governors themselves, supported by the parents, in proposing that that is the best way to deal with the matter.
The Government display a rigidity which will be difficult to deliver in practice. As I said, we have heard early mutterings of concern from the Treasury because this is a kind of blank cheque. We shall come later as to how much of the policy can be met by savings from the assisted places scheme.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe raised a very important point. If the Government mean what they say and intend to put this provision on the face of the Bill, and if action were to be taken under the 1996 Act, then who would be the guilty partner? Would it be the school, the governors or the local education authority? If the school, the governors and the parents agreed to take the 31st child but one parent said—and the law says so—that she wanted her child educated in a class of 30, and if, as the noble Baroness suggested, action were to be taken under the 1996 Act, who is the guilty partner?
The noble Baroness said that she was discussing ways of giving effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I very much welcome that. I hope that I shall be able to welcome the next recommendation of that committee that the regulations which ensue will be through the affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps I may ask one last question for clarification. Is the noble Baroness saying that in principle the ministerial decision is that "30" will be on the face of the Bill and that the discussions taking place are as to how that can be done and what the form of words will be, or is it the case that the Government are discussing with counsel whether it is appropriate to put that figure on the face of the Bill or keep it, as proposed at the moment, in regulations?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall answer the two questions that the noble Baroness has raised. I hope that she will then be able to withdraw her amendment and wait until we come forward with proposals. It is the Government's decision to accept the specific recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on "30". As regards the specific question of what would happen if a school failed to obey the law in that respect, local education authorities will be responsible except in the case of voluntary-aided schools where the governors would be responsible. I hope that that answers the two questions asked by the noble Baroness. The only other point

507
I wish to make is that I hope she does not believe what she reads in the newspapers about the views of the Treasury. That is pure speculation.
Baroness Blatch: On the basis that harmony has broken out in the Treasury and the Cabinet, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage be adjourned until after the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Economic and Monetary Union
4.44 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the meeting of the European Union Heads of State and Government on economic and monetary union which he chaired in Brussels on 2nd May. My right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend the Economic Secretary were also present. The Statement is as follows:
"The aim of the meeting, and separate meetings of the Finance Ministers during the weekend, was to take decisions on which countries would participate in the single currency from 1st January 1999; on the nominations for the president, vice-president and members of the executive board of the European central bank; on the bilateral conversion rates that will apply between participating currencies from 1st January; and on fiscal discipline and economic reform. I have placed a copy of the resulting documents in the Library.
"The Heads of Government had before them a unanimous recommendation from the Finance Ministers on which countries should be in the first wave of economic and monetary union, and a supporting opinion from the European Parliament, which had met that morning to consider the Finance Ministers' recommendations. Heads of Government agreed unanimously that the following 11 countries should join the single currency from next January: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
"We also agreed without difficulty on the following nominations for the executive board of the ECB: as vice-president, to serve for four years, M. Noyer; and the following four ordinary board members: Herr Issing, to serve for eight years; Signor Padio-Schioppa, to serve for seven years; Señor Domingo, to serve for six years; and Mrs. Hamalainen, to serve for five years.
508
"Heads of Government also agreed on Saturday night a statement that, in future appointments to the executive board, appropriate weight and consideration will be given, according to a balanced system of rotation, to recommendations for nationals of member states not on the initial slate.
"The declaration on fiscal discipline and economic reform, which was adopted by Finance Ministers on Friday evening, is a significant document, building on a UK presidency initiative at the York informal ECOFIN in March. It emphasises the importance of fiscal consolidation in high debt countries and economic reform—both essential to help create jobs and to ensure that EMU is successful.
"All these issues were decided with relative ease. However, as is well known, there were very difficult negotiations over the presidency of the European central bank and it is important to set them out in detail. There was ready agreement on the following. First, that Wim Duisenberg, the current president of the European Monetary Institute, and a highly respected former Dutch finance minister and governor of the Dutch Central Bank, was the best choice as the first president of the ECB. As president of the European Monetary Institute he has already been in charge of the practical preparations of the euro. As president of the ECB he will be well placed to continue this role. Secondly, that we expected his successor to be French. President Chirac made clear his nomination would be Jean-Claude Trichet, again an experienced and respected governor of the Banque de France. Thirdly, that both nominations should be for the full eight-year term. Where there was disagreement was not on the substance of any of this but on the length and form of Mr. Duisenberg's tenure as president.
"Because of the controversy, not least in the European Parliament, it is important to he clear what the precise issue at stake was. Much of the subsequent press reporting has rested on this simple factual inaccuracy: that Mr. Duisenberg intended and wished to serve for a full eight years, as opposed to being nominated for that time, which is the time stipulated under the treaty.
"In fact this was not, and has never been, the case. Eighteen months ago, before any French candidate had been suggested, Mr. Duisenberg very properly made it clear that he would not want to serve a full eight years, in view of his age. Indeed, he did so publicly. At that time he was saying he would not guarantee staying more than two years. Later he talked of between three and five years, but he did insist on being nominated for eight.
"The issues for us were therefore these. If he wouldn't serve the full term was it nonetheless right to appoint him? What was the minimum term we should ask of him? Should there also be a maximum term, given the circumstances?
"The answer to the first question was yes, in our view, because as president of EMI and a highly respected central banker, Wim Duisenberg was plainly the right person to launch the euro. The

509
answer to the second question was again clear for us: he should at least stay until the euro was launched and all transitional arrangements, particularly the introduction of the notes and coins, were in place. This accorded with Mr. Duisenberg's own wishes that he oversee this process and step down shortly after. It was over the answer to the third question that there was disagreement. Some preferred a fixed date for Mr. Duisenberg to retire, while others argued that this would not be consistent with the treaty. The protracted discussions were essentially over how to resolve this. Mr. Duisenberg's view, backed by ourselves as presidency, was that, though his intention was clear, there could be no question of there being any formal, obligatory end to his term.
"In the end Mr. Duisenberg's view prevailed. At my suggestion, he stated his position personally, in his own words, to the Council. He explained that, because he would be 67 in 2002, he did not wish to serve the full term, but that it was his intention to see through the transitional arrangements for the introduction of euro notes and coins, including the withdrawal of national notes and coins. He made clear that the decision was his and his alone. At the end of the negotiation, the Heads of State and Government accepted this.
"I have no doubt at all that, though the process was very difficult, the decision was right. What is more, since Mr. Duisenberg is under no obligation whatever to retire early, it is entirely consistent with the treaty. Moreover, if the nomination of Jean-Claude Trichet is eventually confirmed, as I expect, this will mean that two highly respected and experienced central bankers known for their independent views will be in charge of the European central bank for a total of 12 years. This is an outcome which ensures long-term stability.
"We were told financial markets would react badly and the pound would go through the roof. In fact, the deutschmark has risen against both the pound and the dollar since Friday. Stock markets in France and Germany are higher than at the close of business last week. British 10-year gilts have not moved since Friday. The markets across Europe and the rest of the world are calm. What they know, as we know, is that the fundamentals are right, a good board is in place and the euro will be strong, not weak. Many people had said the euro could not be launched on time or with a wide membership and that the argument about the presidency could not be resolved satisfactorily. In the end, all these issues were resolved satisfactorily and the single currency will become a reality on 1st January 1999.
"The United Kingdom's own position on joining EMU was made clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Parliament on 27th October. It has not changed. But, in or out, it is in Britain's interests that the single currency is successful and strong. The decisions this weekend, despite the frustrating nature of the process, were in the end the right ones—right for Europe and right for Britain.
510
"The House will nevertheless agree with me that the biggest challenge to Europe lies ahead. To ensure that the single currency is successful, member states must continue to implement reforms of product, capital and labour markets and to promote employability and job creating entrepreneurship. That is the way to a genuinely prosperous future for Europe. It is what we will be pursuing at the European Council in Cardiff.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement of my right honourable friend.
4.53 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place with his usual verve and conviction, although I believe that it must have strained even his powers of stage management to imbue that quality of conviction into his delivery of the Statement. But I agree with him on one point. This is a matter of some importance to this House, to the future economic management of this country and to the future economic prosperity of western Europe which matters so much to all of us.
Perhaps the noble Lord will recognise the following quotation:
"The criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed".
I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise the typical orotundity of the Prime Minister, in this case the ringing endorsement that he delivered on 4th June last year. Does the Leader of the House believe that the deal that he has announced to the House this afternoon conforms with the provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht and is not a fudge of the criteria set out in that document?
I give two examples where I believe it may be helpful for the noble Lord to explain to the House why he believes that it conforms to the provisions of the treaty. First, how does such an assertion square with the overall indebtedness of Belgium and Italy? Earlier this afternoon we covered this particular matter at Question Time. I believe that in this case conformism is the essence of virtue. I have heard it said that the Labour Party is occasionally more Methodism than Marx but, surely, this takes non-conformism too far.
The second example is the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg. The Statement indulged in casuistry of an extraordinary kind of which the Order of Jesus would itself be proud. Does the noble Lord agree with the member of the Bundesbank Council who is quoted as saying that the deal under which Mr. Duisenberg is to stay for only four years is a clear breach of the Treaty of Maastricht? Further, does he agree with Pauline Green, Leader of the Labour Group in the European Parliament, that the deal was accompanied by "unacceptable shenanigans"? The Treaty of Maastricht stipulates that the president of the bank should serve for eight years, yet the Prime Minister was still reported as saying—he said it in the Statement repeated this afternoon by the Lord Privy Seal—that he was "maintaining entirely

511
the sanctity of the treaty". I find it difficult to understand—perhaps that is more my fault than that of the noble Lord—how that contention can be sustained when it is clear that Mr. Duisenberg has absolutely no intention of staying for more than four years in the first place. How does that conform with the treaty, in spite of the rather elaborate explanations that the House has been privileged to hear this afternoon?
I believe that this is yet another example of Bellman politics. If the Government say it three times it must be true. Is it not much more convincing to take the evidence of one's own eyes and ears and conclude that the euro has been floated on a liquid sea of fudge? How is it possible, in the light of this latest addition to that liquid sea, to suggest that we are witnessing the launch of a solid, stable currency? After all, many believe that the Maastricht criteria are in themselves insufficient to ensure long-term convergence, particularly in view of the one-off measures that a number of aspirant members of EMU have had to adopt to get as far as they have.
Further, has the Lord Privy Seal noted the remarkable comments on the Prime Minister's chairmanship of the summit, particularly those made by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the Austrian Chancellor, who I believe was quoted as saying that he had never seen anything like it in his experience? I assume that that was a compliment. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that? Can he also tell the House whether, in view of the nature of the public comments of the Prime Minister's friends in Europe, he has received any private comments about his chairmanship in addition to those which the press picked up and whether they have been any more helpful?
I hope, too, that in view of the fudge, the noble Lord will share my gratitude to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister, Mr. Major. He was skilful enough to negotiate an opt-out from EMU so that we could have the privilege of not having to take part in the fudge and at the least to see how events develop before the British people at a later date decide whether to join.
In that context, can the noble Lord explain to the House whether he regards EMU as purely an economic project or whether he agrees with Herr Waigel who said that he regarded EMU as a stimulus for European political union? If he disagrees, can he explain to the House how such a fundamental disagreement about the objectives of the policy can be resolved and European unity of purpose still be maintained?
On a more technical matter, can the Lord Privy Seal guarantee to the House that so long as we remain out of EMU we will keep our ability to set our own rules on clearing bank cash reserve ratios? I am sure that the noble Lord will have noticed that the Select Committee of another place addressed that matter and that some people who gave evidence believed it to be a technical
512
matter which could have considerable effect on the ability of this country, in particular the City of London, to sustain its present competitive position.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wish to make sure that I heard and understood the question. It was about the freedom of clearing banks—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it was about cash reserve ratios. I am sure that the Minister is aware that all clearing banks in this country must keep a proportion of their cash reserves with the Bank of England and that those reserves are a smaller proportion than is common with continental banks. A smaller proportion of the total number of banks in this country have to keep those reserves than is the case on the Continent, which gives considerable competitive advantage to the British banking system.
In the light of that, will the noble Lord accept that what we saw in Brussels last weekend was not only a blow to the Prime Minister's reputation and therefore to the reputation of this country, but confirmation that as regards the euro sound money has been sacrificed to short-term political expediency for a purely political project? Will the noble Lord explain how that will help his aspirations, which we all share, for a strong currency, aspirations which the markets clearly discounted in view of their reaction in the past 24 hours?
5.3 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I join the noble Viscount in thanking the Lord Privy Seal for repeating in this House a Statement made in the other place by the Prime Minister. I share his view, although I would not use his words, that the appointment of the first president of the European central bank was uncomfortable, undignified and clumsy. Indeed, it was a somewhat messy deal and it is not unreasonable to examine why that happened.
If it was badly handled and if it can be ridiculed there is a point at which to stop. By next weekend it will be a minor part of the development of the European Union. I regret that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, commented too much about matters which are insignificant compared with the large issues relating to the development of the Community. I also believe that we should not be too holier than thou in our approach. We are all aware of the need to "politically fix" from time to time—it is not as though it never happens here—and we know that the circumstances of the European Union often need compromises of a kind which we might not otherwise like.
However, I say with regret that the view murmured by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that the remarks of the noble Viscount were trivial seem to be near the mark. The fact is that the bank is launched; the fact is that it was launched on time; the fact is that it has a highly experienced board; and the fact is that the markets have been little disturbed by the course of events, which greatly disappointed some people.
Of course there is confusion about the wishes of Mr. Duisenberg and his intentions. I am surprised that the noble Viscount did not draw attention to his remarks

513
to a Select Committee of Your Lordships' House in February when it appeared that it was a matter of eight years or none at all. There have been apparent inconsistencies in his views, but I do not believe that your Lordships should lose too much sleep over that. Events will soon lose their salience and whatever may have happened at the weekend it is far better that your Lordships' House contents itself with wishing the bank well under its first president and executive board. The aim of the meeting, as set out in the Prime Minister's Statement, was to make four decisions. Those decisions were all made. It was a historic occasion, whether we like it or not, and the caravan moves on.
My main concern is different from that expressed by the noble Viscount. It is with the United Kingdom's position and the Chancellor's Statement on 27th October. From the foundation of the Coal and Steel Community, through the conference at Messina, through the signing of the Treaty of Rome and at every major development in European union, United Kingdom Governments have said, "It will not happen". When it did happen, they said, "It will not work"—but it did. My anxiety is that once again we have missed the opportunity. We have been far too cautious. We have had many opportunities to lead in Europe, but we have turned them all down. The EMU will work and I greatly regret that Britain is not taking a lead but again is on the sidelines watching sceptically, perhaps on this occasion hoping for success but not prepared to take the necessary step and to show the necessary courage to play its full part.
I am prepared to concede that this Government are marginally better and more positive than most over the past half century. However, it must be said—it is a wider comment on Britain's position in the world—that this Prime Minister and his Ministers are happier in Washington than in Paris, Bonn or Brussels because they find it easier to do business there. The time must come when Prime Ministers and their governments believe that paying attention to and bothering with the detail of their partners in Europe is at least as important, even though it is harder work, than lunching with President Clinton and his successors in the White House.
I have a single question for the Lord Privy Seal. It is simple to ask but perhaps more difficult to answer. It is at the heart of Britain's position. While remaining on the outside, how do the Government propose to help the European Union to make the most of the decisions reached this weekend? How will they help to make EMU a success?
5.10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the noble Viscount's response to what I have to say. He thanked me for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I reciprocate by thanking him for repeating the comments made by Mr. Hague in another place with regard to my right honourable friend's Statement.
514
As the Prime Minister referred to them and categorised them in the House of Commons, they were somewhat facile debating points. I shall try to answer some of them. The noble Viscount referred to a technical matter. He asked whether we should be able to retain our freedom on clearing bank cash reserve ratios. I am informed that no decision has yet been taken by the European central bank on the level of reserve ratios applying in participating member states. But it is quite clear that such requirements will not apply to banks located in the United Kingdom unless and until we join the single currency. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Viscount.
He asked me a number of questions about Mr. Duisenberg. Perhaps I may read an extract from an interview with Mr. Duisenberg in November 1996, long before Mr. Trichet ever appeared on the scene. Mr. Duisenberg said:
"I will still be just under 63 at that time",
that is, when he will first become president of the European central bank,
"and I will be appointed for a period of eight years".
So he has. He went on to say that,
"but I will not give anybody the guarantee that I will stay on for that full period. I do promise, however, that I will not stop after three months nor after two years, but my guarantee does not go beyond that. One has to be realistic and not forget about one's age".
As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, which I repeated to the House, Mr. Duisenberg met the Council in Brussels when this was being considered so that the Council would have the benefit of his own words in regard to his position. He said:
"I want to thank you for the honour of nominating me for the function of the President of the European Central Bank on this historic occasion. I explained to the President of the European Council that I will, in view of my age, not wish to serve the full term. On the other hand, it is my intention to stay at least to see through the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the euro notes and coin and the withdrawal of the national notes and coin in accordance with the arrangements as agreed at Madrid. I wish to emphasise that this is my decision and my decision alone. It is entirely of my own free will and mine alone and not under pressure from anyone that I have decided not to serve the full term. Also, in the future the decision to resign will be my decision alone. This must be clearly understood".
As the noble Viscount was criticising the Government on the position of Mr. Duisenberg, I asked myself whether the Opposition would have vetoed the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg because I cannot imagine anything that would have been more destructive to the creation of the euro which the noble Viscount is so insistent should be launched strongly. Would the party opposite have prevented the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg, the man who at present is the president of the EMI and is obviously the best person to do the job? Of course they would not have vetoed him nor should we have been prepared to do so, which is what I presume the Opposition are now urging that the Government should have done.
I ask a similar question in relation to Belgium and Italy. Would the Opposition have vetoed the membership of Belgium and Italy in the single currency? What is their position on that? That was

515
approved by the EMI and recommended by the Commission. Both Belgium and Italy were recommended for inclusion in the first wave.
What is the Italian position? Italy passes four of the five criteria with no problem. They are: inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, the requirement for legal convergence. The only issue where there is any question mark is the sustainability of the fiscal position. In 1997, the deficit was 2.7 per cent. and forecast to fall further to 2 per cent. in 1999. In the latest draft outline budget, debt is forecast to fall by at least 3 per cent. per year. Italy is running a substantial primary surplus of 6.8 per cent. of GDP in 1997. That draft outline budget has broad political support inside Italy with approval of the budget committees of both houses of the Italian Parliament last Thursday.
In addition, it is also extremely important—and the noble Viscount did not mention this—that the new declaration by ECOFIN on Friday re-emphasises the importance of fiscal discipline within EMU and it brought forward implementation of certain aspects of the stability and growth pacts to ensure its effectiveness in the important early years of EMU. Taking those factors into account, the Government endorsed the recommendation that Italy should join the single currency on 1st January 1999.
The noble Viscount referred to this as being a weak currency and a bad launch. The markets do not seem to think so. On Friday and Saturday Conservative spokesmen were going round the country saying that the pound was going to go through the roof. It has not. On the contrary, the markets seem to have recognised the fact that the euro is launched, is launched properly and with a suitable person at its head. Therefore, the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not take particularly seriously a great deal of the criticism which he has thrown at us this afternoon.
I was very pleased with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said. He concluded by asking me a single question which he said is easy to ask and difficult to answer. It is difficult to answer. He wants to know how, while remaining outside, the Government will help the euro to function properly. On many occasions we have said that we wish the euro to succeed. On the occasions when we have an opportunity to put that into practice, as last weekend, that will be the principle that we shall adopt. In other words, we want it to succeed and we shall do whatever we can, as a Government, to make sure that it does.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that he really does believe that this is not a terribly serious issue? Is he really telling the House that this all arose and was public knowledge suddenly over the weekend? That is disputed in many quarters, the suggestion being that Duisenberg changed his mind after the original decision and that, in fact, there was 18 months' notice of that problem. Is he aware that Mr. Leon Brittan was saying on the radio yesterday that he thought it was a great pity that it turned out like this? He had 18 months to get used to it and convince people.
516
These arrangements, and specifically the term of office, were designed with one objective and one objective alone: to protect the central bank from political interference by national governments. As I understand the noble Lord's argument, it is that it was not really a question of pressure from national governments, it was just that this chap Duisenberg would not do it that way. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is really saying that this extraordinary arrangement, this crisis over the weekend, was not due in any way to totally, clearly improper political pressure by the French Government but instead was due simply to the insistence of Mr. Willem Duisenberg who, for the past 18 months, has said that all the national governments must surrender to his personal convenience? Will he tell us that?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord expresses himself in his customary rather florid way. If he is asking me a serious question, I shall try to answer it seriously. But there is no question about Mr. Duisenberg wishing to serve the eight years, as I understand it. He would have been appointed for eight years, as indeed he was appointed for eight years. But there is no compulsion on him to retire during that eight year period.
There is one other quotation I would like to give the House. Mr. Wim Kok, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, a man whom one would have expected to be the most bruised if improper political pressure had been applied, said:
"We must respect that Duisenberg has said that he will not serve the full eight-year term in view of his age".
The Prime Minister is pleased that Duisenberg will stay on at least until 2002 when the introduction of the euro notes and coin has taken place. Duisenberg himself will decide the timing of his departure. That is in line with the independent position of the bank president. Mr. Wim Kok said that the Netherlands had won a double victory:
"We have the right man, in the right place and the European Treaty has been respected."
If that is the view of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands—and Mr. Duisenberg is, after all, Dutch—it should at least encourage a degree of hesitation on the part of some Members of this House on the extent to which the euro was damaged.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal—
Lord Barnett: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find it very difficult to referee. However, I think that it is the Government's side first, followed by the Cross-Benches, then perhaps the Opposition and then the noble Lord, Lord Boardman.
Noble Lords: Lord Boardman!
Noble Lords: The Opposition!
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that on 27th February this year

517
Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee took evidence from Mr. Duisenberg in Frankfurt and that that evidence, although recorded, has not yet been published? In that evidence, Mr. Duisenberg was asked specifically about the eight-year term of the proposed presidency. His answer was very clear and in complete contrast to the answer reported in the Statement repeated by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It is inconceivable that that Statement could have come wholeheartedly from the man who gave evidence to the Select Committee of this House earlier this year. It casts considerable doubt on the credibility of EMU.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, what it casts doubt upon is the credibility of the statement of Mr. Duisenberg that I put to the House. I can actually give your Lordships chapter and verse for it. Indeed, it came from an interview to a Dutch magazine called Opzij—and I hope that I have not done too much harm to it by my pronunciation. The interview appeared in an issue dated November 1996 and the following is a direct quote from the article written by Mr. Duisenberg:
"I do promise, however, that I will not stop after three months nor after two years, but my guarantee does not go beyond that … I will not give anybody the guarantee that I will stay on for that full period".
I can only go by the evidence in front of me, in just the same way as the noble Lord can only speak according to the evidence available to him. I should say that Mr. Duisenberg repeated that when he came into the Council during the course of deliberations on Saturday. Indeed, I have already told the House what he said on that occasion.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I should tell my noble friend that I very much regret the events which took place over the weekend. Perhaps my noble friend can explain to me why some governments never seem to be willing to say that a compromise has been reached, especially in the case of Europe. As far as concerns the noble Viscount, I am not clear as to whether he was arguing in favour of qualified majority voting on a greater scale. I see that the noble Viscount indicates that he was not. Therefore, he would either have done a compromise deal or would have done no deal at all. I see that the noble Viscount is nodding his head in agreement. However, I believe that that would have been a disaster.
The real problem is not that what was done will destroy the economic independence of the European central bank; indeed, that is not at issue. What has always been a problem with this whole issue is the independence of the European central bank, balanced by some form of accountability. That is the real issue: whether there will be any accountability. As regards Duisenberg and Trichet, I do not wish to divulge the unpublished minutes of my committee. I have the honour to chair that committee and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is a very distinguished member of it. He disagrees with me fundamentally on most issues, but the plain fact is—and I am sure that the noble Lord will not disagree with me on this—that Duisenberg and
518
Trichet are both very impressive central bankers. When you have central bankers of that kind then, whatever is done in appointing them, there will be independence in the European central bank. Indeed, we should make no mistake about that fact. The power given to those two by the treaty will be used to the fullest extent.
However, the truth is that an independent central European bank—and I put this to my noble friend—is the last thing that its critics want. They will not admit it, but that is so. They include the noble Viscount, his right honourable friend in the other place and, if he was speaking for them, his honourable and right honourable friends. I cannot say whether he was speaking for all of them; indeed, I doubt whether he can. Nevertheless, they really want the European central bank to fail. That is what it is all about. They will not admit it, any more than my noble friend will admit that a compromise deal was done over the weekend, as often happens in the European Union. Why do we not admit it? Why do we not say so? It is better than doing nothing and it happened. If they wanted a qualified majority voting system they could have had it, but they do not. They have objected to some of the QMV that has gone on so far. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether or not it is a fact that the Opposition and the critics want the ECB to fail.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have no doubt about that at all. I am intrigued by the sudden zeal for the purity of the treaties which is now coming from the very people who protested most, strongest, longest and loudest about their imposition. My noble friend is quite right.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lord deserves the congratulations of the whole House on the remarkable feat of having repeated the Statement and given his answers with a straight face. Is not the most regrettable aspect of the proceedings in Brussels the fact that one important nation pursued its own national interest as it thought—and it may have been wrong—to the detriment of the interests of the Community as a whole? Does that encourage the Government if they still intend to join the single currency in due course?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not share that view and my face is perfectly straight. The reason that my face is straight is that, when the Government arrived in Brussels on Friday and Saturday, they were faced with a real difficulty; namely, that Mr. Duisenberg was letting it be known—and indeed, had let it be known—that he was not going to serve for the full eight years. I trust that noble Lords will accept that for the sake of argument. They may not agree with it, but I ask them to accept it at this stage.
If that was the position—and, so far as I can tell, it clearly was the position in the minds of almost everyone who was present in Brussels—clearly some way out of it had to be found. Indeed, two or three ways could have been found; for example, the treaty could have been torn up and people could have said, "Right, Duisenberg will have four years and Trichet will take over from him at the end of that time". However, that would have been

519
in contravention of the treaty and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was well aware of that fact. Therefore, he negotiated to try to preserve the obligation in the treaty that the appointment had to be for eight years. How could one do that? The only way in which it could be done was to create a situation whereby Duisenberg would be appointed for eight years, while recognising that at some stage during that period he will go. The precise timing of his departure is very much a matter for Mr. Duisenberg.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was asked at a press conference immediately after the Council meeting: "What if he changes his mind?". That is an interesting thought. If Mr. Duisenberg were to change his mind, that is a matter for him as my right honourable friend said. If he were to change his mind, who knows when M. Trichet would become the governor of the European Central Bank?
However, the fact of the matter is that the terms of the treaty were preserved and Mr. Duisenberg's position was protected to his satisfaction. Every other country that was present seemed to be reasonably satisfied with the outcome. The Dutch have expressed their satisfaction with the end result. The result of the weekend is that the euro is launched with a membership of 11 countries. Some people, like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, think it is a great shame that we are not the 12th country. That is a view which I know is held strongly in some quarters. As I said, the euro is now launched. All the dismal Johnnies who said that it would not happen or that it would not work or that the markets would not react to it are wrong.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that this is a good news Statement in the sense that we now have 11 participating countries in the single currency and we have also chosen the president of the bank? I wish to explain why I believe this is the case and why some of the arguments that have been put forward are wrong. Is my noble friend aware that we have now chosen two people to be president of the bank? Is he also aware that the treaty makes this central bank the strongest central bank in the world? Is he also aware that M. Trichet and Mr. Duisenberg are honourable men who I believe will fulfil their functions properly? Does he agree with me that the combination of the treaty and the right people will result in a successful bank?
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is interesting to note that in this entire exchange no one has questioned the independence, integrity or competence of M. Trichet. No one has alleged that M. Trichet is a French stooge because he clearly is not. No one has alleged that he will not be a good, competent and independent central banker because he clearly is such a person. As regards the people who will run the central bank for approximately the next 12 years, both of them are highly experienced, independent central bankers. That is thoroughly to be welcomed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal explain one passage in the Statement
520
that I find a little troubling? I believe he said that it was agreed that the next president would be French. However, it was not said that the next president would be M. Trichet. That seems to me to be a mistake. If it is to be M. Trichet, that is all well and good—assuming that M. Trichet is around at that time—but it should not be assumed that any French candidate should follow Mr. Duisenberg.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said. My right honourable friend said,
"There was ready agreement on the following … we expected his successor to be French. President Chirac made clear that his nomination would be Jean-Claude Trichet, again an experienced and respected governor of the Banque de France".
It was M. Trichet—not just a Frenchman—who was nominated.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Statement makes much of the fact that the financial markets remained steady in the wake of the events of last weekend. I put it to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that those markets react unsteadily only when they are surprised. They were certainly not in the least bit surprised by the laughable events of the weekend.
But what is much more important, I am sure most noble Lords will agree with the final paragraph of the Statement which starts with the following sentence:
"The House will nevertheless agree with me that the biggest challenge to Europe lies ahead".
I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question about EMU, which I have tried to put without success to some of his colleagues and which encapsulates what is perhaps the greatest challenge to be faced by EMU; namely, given the lack of labour mobility in Europe, what effect do the Government think the single interest rate required by EMU will have in Italy, for example, if the Italian economy is in decline but a majority of the other euro economies are doing well? Will the interest rate be fixed to suit the Italians, or will it be fixed to suit the others, and at what cost in terms of unemployment and interstate transfers?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the rate will, of course, be fixed by the central bank according to the criteria which it considers appropriate. It would be foolish indeed for any spokesman in your Lordships' House this afternoon to attempt to say what those criteria would be and how they would be applied in the hypothetical case that the noble Lord has indicated.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to Protocol 18 to the Maastricht Treaty which sets out the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank itself at Chapter III, Article 11.2. If the noble Lord reads that article, he will find that the protocol of this section states nothing about nomination at all. All it states is the following,
"Their term of office shall be eight years and shall not be renewable".

521
I cannot recall any amendment being moved to that protocol. We had negotiations on the Treaty of Amsterdam where no point on this was raised. The correct point at which to raise an amendment to this article was at Amsterdam. It was not important then in spite of the prior knowledge which was apparently held that in 1996 the nominated president had some doubts about the matter. I find this a difficult issue. Why was no amendment moved to make the whole thing completely open and above board? Does the noble Lord expect us to stomach the story that this difference between the French and the Germans is somehow dreamt up by the press? It either exists or it does not. If there was a conflict, why was that? I am afraid that the explanations sound a little thin.
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that Chapter III, Article 11.2 of Protocol 18 of the Maastricht Treaty is not exactly my bedside reading, nor indeed is it either on my lips or at my fingertips. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the whole of the Community, the Commission, EMU, and the Council of Ministers, together with their respective civil servants, are moving in one direction, but somehow or other they have all missed an obvious legal point which my noble friend has been adroit enough to appreciate. I shall consider Chapter III, Article 11.2 of Protocol 18 of the Maastricht Treaty. I do not know what opinion I shall arrive at, but I suspect that my opinion will probably be on the side of the Council, the Commission and the legal departments of the Commission and the Council and the lawyers in the Foreign Office. I may be wrong and I may experience a Damascene conversion to the legal expertise and perception of my noble friend, but we shall see.
In some ways this 40 minute discussion on the Statement has been rather sad. I believe that noble Lords have concentrated on the trivial and have missed the important point. The important point is that the euro is launched. The markets are treating it as a strong currency and we in this Government will do our best to make sure that it is a success.

School Standards and Framework Bill
5.39 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("() In respect of any infant class, nursery class or reception class in any maintained school which includes one or more children under compulsory school age, the limits imposed by the Secretary of State under this section shall not exceed the limits from time to time established by regulations for the size of similar classes provided by the independent or voluntary sector.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 is a probing amendment. It is intended to clarify the Government's position on four year-olds in reception classes. It is widely held that the current policy for four year-olds in
522
reception classes places many vulnerable children at risk. I hope that the Government's intention in setting down Part I of the Bill includes the intention to use their delegated powers in such a way as to protect those children. However, on the face of the Bill there is no indication of that, and the noble Baroness at Second Reading did not give any indication of what policy is likely to be.
To give some idea of the scale of the problem, in 1997 there were 343,824 four year-olds in reception classes, representing 51 per cent. of all four year-olds. There are probably more than that today. It is quite an important group, yet there are no regulations whatever governing class size or teacher-pupil ratio for four year-olds. They seem to fall somewhere between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of the regulations in relation to other groups of four year-olds. These fall under regulations from the Department of Health depending upon the Children Act. In summary they require, for four year-olds in day care, a staff ratio of 1:8; in nursery schools, a staff ratio of 2:20, and in nursery classes, a staff ratio of 2:26. However, in the case of nursery schools and nursery classes the two adults have to be made up of a trained nursery teacher and a trained and qualified nursery nurse. Why is it that in a reception class we can have 35 four year-olds with one teacher? It is a ridiculous anomaly. It has to be said that the Department of Health in its guidelines, while it does not feel itself able to lay down what should be done in reception classes, does say:
"Local education authorities and schools should determine what staffing levels may be appropriate in particular cases".
It also states:
"Studies by HM Inspectorate have shown that the provision made for those who are younger than 4 years 9 months has not always fitted their needs".
In another section it says:
"For three and four year-olds research suggests an upper limit of 6–8 for peer group size [is best] to optimise peer interaction".
What has been happening in practice? Why is this so important? The answer is that primary schools across the country for some reason, possibly financial, have been "hoovering up" four year-olds into their reception classes and very often numbers are reaching well over 30. This may be good for the schools' finances but it certainly is not good for any of those children who are vulnerable. It will be agreed, I am sure, that a child's success in integrating into school and benefiting from education is dependent upon the child having the necessary confidence, emotional maturity and social skills to cope when he or she arrives at school.
A four year-old from a stable, loving, supportive family who has gained self-confidence in the early years, a child who has learnt to play with other children, may be able to cope with a class of 35 children. By contrast, for a child who is just four, who has had little or no encouragement or socialisation, who lacks self-confidence, and who is often from a family suffering multiple disadvantage, to be plunged into a

523
class of 35 children, most of them older than himself, is a terrifying and traumatising experience. It can cause that child to hate and reject the school. Indeed, that very often is the case. Those children, as the noble Baroness said earlier, may well go on to violence, disruption, truancy and exclusion, and end their schooling functionally illiterate.
I hope that the amendment will enable the noble Baroness to give the Committee an assurance that the regulations which the Secretary of State will issue under this part of the Bill will ensure that four year-olds in reception classes have the benefit of class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios at least as favourable as those which, rightly in my view, are required from the private and voluntary sectors and for maintained nursery schools. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to support the noble Lord in raising this very important issue. I was somewhat disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity in the Bill to clarify the whole area of the ratio of teacher or supervisor to young children. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us an inkling of the thinking of the Government on the issue.
Things have changed a lot in recent years. I think of my children; that is partly how I came to be involved in politics. I had to deal with all the bureaucracy of playgroups which I was helping to run. I look at what happened to my own children. They were fortunate enough to go to a playgroup; they were then able to go into their school at rising five—not actually as young as some children now—and have two or three days a week and then half-days for the whole term before going into school so that they could get used to the playground and to being in a big group. I fear that that does not happen so much today. The reason is partly because of what has happened in recent years, particularly the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme. There were difficulties. As the noble Lord said, schools were "hoovering up" four year-olds in some parts of the country because that was how they could get money into their schools. The noble Lord is absolutely right. That may have been in the interests of the schools, but it certainly was not in the interests of young people.
We have an opportunity today to look at proper provision for children from the time they go into nursery classes or into playgroups and to examine realistic, sensible and consistent ratios between those looking after the children and the children themselves. It clearly is a muddle and has become more so in recent years. I hope that the Minister will give us an inkling of how she sees this working out. It does not appear to me from the Bill that it is clear what will happen to these large classes of four year-olds. When someone just reaches the age of four they are very young and very vulnerable in a large school situation.
524
I return to the point. It is not just what happens in the classroom; it is all the other things that happen in school. The four year-old who enters the playground is a very small person in a big playground. I look forward to the response of the Minister.
Baroness David: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on this amendment. I am glad he said that it is a probing amendment. We want information. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. This all started with the nursery voucher scheme. The primary schools were anxious to get the extra money they badly needed—the £1,100—and therefore they were willing to increase class sizes to get children into the schools.
Many children are very vulnerable at that age. It is important that we know what the Government are thinking as to what is to be done about young children going into reception classes which are already probably too big and will have to be reduced. I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Blatch: I had the privilege and, I would argue strongly, the pleasure of being the chairman of my local playgroup, serving approximately seven villages in my county of Cambridgeshire for eight years. Long before the voucher scheme was introduced, in the case of the local school, particularly in a county where there were falling rolls, or parts of a county where there were falling rolls, there was a tendency to take in four year-olds to bolster numbers in order to keep the teachers. For a long time, there has been pressure for four year-olds to go into those classes.
In principle I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As I suspect the Minister will say, the issue is more complex than that. The noble Baroness will be aware that I asked a number of questions about provision for under five year-olds. I believe that a review is taking place—I do not know whether it has reported yet—among the endless reviews being undertaken. It has always seemed to me deeply unfair that a playgroup was confined to having one adult for every eight children, and Montessori schools and private schools were equally restricted in the number of children they could have, yet the local school could take in children with no limit whatsoever on the maximum class size. For a long time there has been an unlevel playing field.
As we move towards the proposals and policies of the present Government, that problem is thrown into relief. The policy has begun to have an effect on playgroups. The pressures mean that the numbers of children in those playgroups will reduce even more quickly as the Government guarantee education for three year-olds. That was always an aspiration of the previous government. But as that happens, the playgroups are being exhorted to think about caring for children before the parents go to work in the morning and after they return in the evening. I have enormous respect for the playgroups organisation. But if we do not watch the situation carefully, it will be turned into a kind of babyminding service rather than an educational/play organisation. Where playgroups were good, they were very good and did a great deal to pave the way for

525
children moving into mainstream schools. Certainly the playgroup with which I was associated had an incredibly good relationship with the local primary school. Indeed, the headmistress or a member of the staff of the local primary school was always a member of our management committee. Therefore the relationship was a fruitful one.
Letters have gone out from the department to private nursery schools. Those bodies say that they cannot compete with the schools. The teacher/pupil ratio by which they have to abide under the rules is so great and uneconomic at the price the Government are offering in order to bring them into the scheme that they will be priced out of the market. I do not believe that it would be good for the country as a whole if playgroups, private nursery schools and, for example, Montessori schools found it impossible to continue. I understand that "top up" fees will be forbidden and that the Government will not accept those bodies into local government schemes if they levy a fee which is greater than that agreed by the local authority. That is a straitjacket that will seriously disadvantage them.
I come back to the principle of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Many four year-olds are inappropriately accommodated in reception classes in schools. They are not ready for that. But sometimes it is about numbers. The phenomenon goes back long before the voucher scheme. It has been a feature of rural communities for a long time.
Lord Whitty: The concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others about the appropriateness of the treatment of children below school age are shared by the Government. It is an issue of which we are well aware. We share the concern about whether reception classes are the appropriate basis for four year-olds. While the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may be right that there may be other pressures, it is also undoubtedly true, as my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, indicated, that the nursery voucher scheme had the effect in some areas of encouraging LEAs and their schools to cram as many four year-olds as possible into their reception classes. We are anxious to reverse that trend.
In the Government's consideration of the early years development plans for 1998–99, we would have rejected any plan which proposed to meet our target by providing a free place for all four year-olds simply by increasing reception class intakes. We have also asked all authorities for details of the specific support their schools will provide for the younger four year-olds in reception classes.
The noble Baroness referred to a review. We have recently issued a consultation paper on the regulation of early education and childcare which addresses issues at the nursery stage such as staff ratios. Indeed, it specifically highlights our intention to review adult/child ratios for three to five year-olds in all the different settings in which they are currently taken into the system.
526
As noble Lords have said, it is a hugely complex issue. The current arrangements are diverse. Therefore the consultation is an open consultation. A copy of the consultation document was placed in the Library of the House when the consultation began last month. The consultation period will last until July. That is our present position on nursery classes and the admission of four year-olds to reception classes.
The noble Lord's amendment, by implication, raises the issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also referred: whether the presence of one child under the compulsory school age in an infant class would mean that the class is subject possibly to two different regulatory limits. I refer either to an infant class size limit as in the proposed legislation, which would state the maximum number of pupils to be taught by one teacher irrespective of the presence of support staff; or the maximum adult/child ratio for classes containing pupils below compulsory school age, which is the situation so far as concerns nursery school guidance.
We shall need to consider how best to address the issue in the light of the responses to the consultation to which I have referred on the regulation of early education and day care and on the draft guidance on class size policy. Since the noble Baroness raised the issue of playgroups, perhaps I may say that part of that consultation will include the role of playgroups and other forms of private provision in the early education plans.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord recognises that this consultation period addresses the issue that he raised and that in the light of that he will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Referring to cramming four year-olds into reception classes, he said—I took down the words—that it is the Government's plan to reverse that trend. Where do they intend sending those four year-olds?
Lord Whitty: We hope to improve both the quality and range of nursery provision. Some of the children to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred do not fall within this category because they are effectively rising fives. But we hope that the outcome of our consultation on the nursery age provision will lead to more effective provision outside the infant school reception class.
Baroness Young: We all appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has gone into some detail on the matter. I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He raised another important issue about four year-olds in mainstream schools. My understanding is that a rising five is defined as a child who will be five in the first term of his arrival at school. That is very different from the child who has just turned four, who really is very small. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained that there is consultation on this matter. But it is yet another part of the Bill which is very unclear.

527
I am surprised that the noble Lord needs to consult about the adult/child ratio. Why should not the regulations laid down for private organisations be exactly the same for public organisations? If they are not good enough for private schools they should be improved, and improved now, or we are left with the feeling that the children in maintained schools are unquestionably worse off because the same regulations do not apply. This inequality of treatment in this regard is a serious issue. Almost the most important thing with tiny children is the adult-child ratio. They require considerably more help, even than five year-olds.
Although I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recognises that there is a problem, I am bound to say to him that it would be helpful to know whether he expects this matter to be resolved in the form of the result of the consultation before the Bill completes its passage through this place.
6 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The consultation period will not necessarily be complete in terms of the Government's assessment of it in time for this Bill. Indeed, it does not relate to the guidance covered by this clause, which relates to infant classes and their size.
The noble Baroness is right. There is differential treatment as between the private and public sectors. One aspect of the consultation will examine what is appropriate for the different forms of provision. But that does not affect the position in relation to this clause. I have said that the presence of the younger four year-olds to whom the noble Baroness refers will not prejudice the attainment of the targets for infant class sizes.
The problem raised by the noble Lord is being dealt with differently through this consultation period, which will, it is to be hoped, lead to some change in the guidance relating to pre-school provision—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord sits down, do his remarks mean that we could find ourselves in a situation whereby children of statutory school age are in classes of limited numbers—I shall not enter into the argument as to whether the figure 30 should be on the face of the Bill, but I refer to a limitation on the number in the class—whereas younger children, because they are not statutorily a part of the education process, can be in much larger classes?
Lord Whitty: No, that is not the intention; nor is it the reality. At present, private sector pre-school provision is subject to regulation, and the public sector is subject to fairly firm guidance. There is no intention of relaxing that as a result of these regulations.
Baroness Blatch: I can tell the Committee that that is far from the practice in the field. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as he shares the education portfolio on the Front Bench, ought to get out there and see that there is a vast difference between the restrictions on private playschool provision and what in fact happens in reception classes, where four year-olds frequently reside in schools.
528
Perhaps I may tempt the noble Lord, who hints at being empathetic and sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. There seems to be agreement across the Committee that whatever the outcome of the review—I would not put numbers on it—and whatever the adult-child ratio is for one part of the sector for under-fives, that should pertain throughout, whether public or private. If the noble Lord can give acceptance to that idea, perhaps we can bring forward an amendment to set it down on the face of the Bill that equal treatment should be meted out to under-fives, whether in public or private provision.
Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Baroness will consider whether she wishes to bring forward amendments to the Bill. However, this clause is not the appropriate point for such an amendment. I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. The view may well be that differential arrangements are appropriate. I accept the noble Baroness's point that there are differing problems in different parts of pre-school provision. Clearly, that will form part of the consultation in which we are engaged with all groups—public, private, parents, local education authorities, health departments and so on. I do not wish today to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. The noble Baroness is correct in saying that I have some sympathy with the point that lies behind the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the Minister for being helpful. We have not by any means got there yet. I wish to make one point before withdrawing the amendment at this stage; namely, that the definition of "infant class" in the Bill is,
"a class containing pupils the majority of whom will attain the age of five, six or seven during the course of the school year".
It therefore excludes all younger children.
If we are to have any kind of coherent, seamless policy, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment will have to get their heads together. I hope that they are both participating in the consultation. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage so that I can look at the consultation and discuss it with colleagues. I may or may not wish to bring the amendment back in another form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("(c) provide that schools are separately reimbursed for any capital costs of complying with provision made under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: I notified the noble Baroness the Minister that I shall move the amendments on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who apologises for not being able to be present today. Most are probing amendments. His Amendment No. 4 refers particularly to the capital costs of complying with provision for schools under this section.

529
The noble Lord wished to ask the Minister whether she is able to confirm that this amendment is unnecessary because schools will be fully funded for any improvements that they need to make and will not be expected to dip into their existing budget.
Earlier in the debate today she said with regard to this point that the cost would be met. However, at that stage we were not discussing capital costs. This amendment refers in particular to the capital costs—in other words, extra classrooms, extra buildings. Will the Minister tell the Committee who will be responsible for that extra cost? Will it be fully met by the Government, or will LEAs also be involved in the capital cost? I hope that that is indeed the suggestion that the noble Lord would have put to the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 21 in this group. I shall also refer to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 21 is also a probing amendment. Its purpose is to encourage the Minister to make a commitment that the money made available from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be transferred to the revenue support grant by September 2001. That is the date by which the Government have said their pledge on class sizes will be honoured.
In another place the Minister explained that the funding for the reduction in infant class sizes would eventually be distributed through normal grant mechanisms. However, there was no undertaking as to when that would happen. We seek to press the Government to commit themselves to a timetable for the policies that they have pledged themselves to introduce. That should not present a difficulty for them, unless in their hearts they fear that the Treasury may not be able to stump up the money that is required at a later date. We support the Government in this matter. I hope that they will realise that we are trying to be helpful to them in ensuring that the Treasury enables them to take forward their commitments.
I now turn to Amendment No. 4. Behind this amendment is another important issue; namely, space standards. The amendment relates to capital costs. However, in carrying out the reduction in class sizes, those classes will require somewhere to go. I know that the Government, like ourselves, were against the reduction in space standards under the previous government. I have experience of being a governor in a first school and I know how important space is if a large number of special needs children enter mainstream schools. Furthermore, modern teaching methods have seen the introduction of a lot more equipment for information technology. The ability to take small groups aside and help those who are failing, particularly in reading, requires space. Yet under the previous government we saw a reduction in space standards. I had hoped that this was one of the areas that this Government would reverse. Government Ministers, when in Opposition, heavily attacked the previous administration on the reduction in space standards. I therefore hope that today the Minister will give us
530
some hope that the Government recognise the problem and can assure us that capital will be available to ensure that children have not only enough teachers, but enough space in which the teaching can be done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not previously joined in the discussion on the Bill. I was unavoidably prevented from speaking on Second Reading and I could not be here to discuss class sizes, which I very much hoped to do because there is a good deal of experience on that subject in Scotland.
On this point, I emphasise that we are not talking about sweeties; very large sums of money are likely to be incurred if extra classes have to be put in. I notice from a brief which the Local Government Association kindly sent me that it is anxious about how the Government intend the finance to be fed to the schools. This matters to it very much. The Government will incur huge expense, the amount of which is unknown, if they meet the whole of their aspirations on the reduction of class sizes to 30. It is a very good aspiration, which no one could possibly oppose, but it is important to know how it will be achieved and how the money will be found. I hope that the Minister has a clear idea of how the capital cost will be met so that the schools may have confidence in the Government being able to back them in what they are trying to do.
Baroness Blatch: This is another practical example of how implementing the policy will cause local education authorities some heartache. It seems to us that the matter needs to be unequivocal, either on the face of the Bill or in Hansard using the Pepper v. Hart reference system. Where a capital cost is incurred which is directly related to the class-size pledge, if the Government do not meet it pound for pound, local authorities' priorities will be pre-empted because they will have to meet the cost. They will have no choice but to do so because it will be the law; the letter of the law will have to be met by local education authorities.
We have already heard that the Government can take action under the Education Act 1996. If that is the case, local education authorities will have no option. Where they are expected to meet a capital cost, if it is not reimbursed, their own moneys will be pre-empted. In many instances LEAs may have very different priorities, concerned with health and safety, for example. Their capital moneys under any government will always be limited. This becomes yet another way of pre-empting what local authorities want to spend and their ability to determine their own priorities. I believe it essential that there should be an unequivocal promise that where capital expenditure is incurred as a result of meeting this clear-cut class-size pledge—it is not an obscure policy; one can see it and measure it—the local authority should be reimbursed and the reimbursement should be at the time the local authority requires the money. Local authorities do not have the ability to put money up front in the hope that, through a bidding system, it may or may not come on-stream at some other time, as the case may be.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I support my noble friend on the Front Bench. It seems to me that the detail of the

531
Bill has not been thought out. My noble friend Lord Baker talked about travellers' children. We all know that at some times, perhaps during the pea-picking season, travellers will come into a village, stay for six to eight weeks and then go. What does that mean in terms of capital costs for extra classrooms? There would not even be time to put in demountable classrooms. I cannot see how this will work. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My understanding was that we were also to debate Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 in this group. So far only Amendments Nos. 4 and 21 have been spoken to. All these amendments are about funding. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would like to say a word about those two amendments before I respond to the whole group.
Baroness Byford: I apologise and thank the noble Lord the Minister for allowing me to come back. With regard to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, my noble friend Lord Lucas would like to ask the Minister what kind of conditions he has in mind. With regard to Amendment No. 20, he would like to know what the Minister intends should be the scope of these powers.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. The four amendments are linked and it is easier for me, if not for the Committee, to deal with them together.
Perhaps I may first respond to Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary. It would give the Secretary of State the power to reimburse capital costs which schools may incur in complying with limits on class sizes, but it would not place a duty on him to do so. Clause 1(3) above the new paragraph (c), which is introduced, says "may" rather than "shall".
I am pleased to be able to confirm to the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State already has such a power. Indeed, as I shall say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, with regard to Amendment No. 21, he has already announced that we are making available £40 million in this financial year for the cost of the extra classrooms needed to accommodate more, smaller infant classes. This refers to the issue of space. I shall be able to give the noble Baroness an assurance on that point. Local education authorities have to submit applications by the end of this week, and the allocations will be announced in due course.
I can understand that some noble Lords may feel that schools require reassurance that the Government will provide enough capital funding to cover the costs they may incur. Clause 1(4) places a duty upon governing bodies, and also upon LEAs, to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring that limits on class sizes are met. Governors would not wish to be faced with such a duty if they did not have the financial support to exercise their functions as required.
532
I can give this reassurance. We shall provide the legislation and the funding and we shall expect them to exercise their functions so as to comply with class-size limits. Let me be absolutely precise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We shall provide the necessary capital resources to enable all LEAs to accommodate infants in classes of 30 or fewer. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we could not he more precise than that. We are confident that LEAs will do so, as they know that this policy has the support of parents. Infant classes in all schools will contain no more than 30 pupils from September 2001 at the latest.
Amendment No. 4 would not require the Secretary of State to do any more than he is already able to do. I hope that that reassurance will persuade the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we have no intention of placing duties upon governing bodies and then denying them the resources to fulfil those duties.
I should like to cover Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together as they relate to the same issue. Again, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that we have no intention to place anything other than the relevant conditions upon the payment of grant. Under Clause 3(1), as presently drafted, the Secretary of State would not have the power to impose unreasonable conditions—he could be subject to judicial review if he did so—or conditions which bore no relation to the implementation of class-size limits.
Perhaps I may illustrate this point by reference to the draft regulations, which are in the Library of the House. We propose four conditions. First, the approval of the LEA's statement by the Secretary of State; secondly, the provision of such information as may be requested annually by the Secretary of State; thirdly, the provision of evidence of how funds have been spent in line with the arrangements set out in the statement: and, fourthly, compliance with arrangements set out in the approved statements to limit class sizes.
The Secretary of State also needs a power to impose requirements of an administrative nature such as, for example, requiring the repayment of grant if it is not used for the proper purpose. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish to prevent the Secretary of State imposing requirements designed to ensure that grants paid were properly accounted for and were used for the intended purpose.
If Members of the Committee have suggestions about the conditions I have read out, we shall, of course, be happy to consider them; but questions of detail of that kind can perhaps best be dealt with when we consider the regulations that we shall be making under Clause 3.
I turn to Amendment No. 21 which concerns how we will supply funds to local authorities to enable them to reduce infant class sizes. The amendment calls for us to move away from specific grant and to use the revenue support grant mechanism by September 2001 at the latest. I understand the motivation behind the amendment and the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. But there are two reasons why we do not want to do it in that way.

533
The first reason involves ring-fencing and the effective targeting of resources. We want to make sure that the extra funds that we provide to reduce infant class sizes are used for that purpose only. Specific grants make it clear that the Government are using all the savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme for that purpose. That was an undertaking we made last year in the assisted places Act.
The second reason involves a flexibility in funding levels. The needs of each LEA will differ. They start from different points. They have different class sizes at the present time and will need to take into account different factors when reducing their infant class sizes. The formula used in education standard spending assessments—that is what would be used if the amendment were accepted—may not allow us to provide sufficient funding in the transitional years to LEAs with specific difficulties. It is precisely in those authorities where class sizes have risen most that we must make a difference if we are to achieve our pledge.
However, we keep an open mind on the longer-term approach to funding. We will have to continue to use specific grants at least until our target has been met and the three-year group of pupils are in classes of 30 or under. That will be the case in September 2001. After that, it will be a question of maintenance rather than change. It may possibly be more appropriate then to move to the revenue support grant mechanism. We do not need to decide that now and may in fact decide it in the next Parliament.
I hope on that basis that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 4 and that other Members of the Committee will not feel it necessary to move subsequent amendments in the group.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make one further point. The noble Lord referred to a period of time when we will be dealing with maintenance rather than new build. But that does not happen automatically when one makes a pledge to have class numbers below 30, or any number. It does not work like that.
In some local authority areas demographic changes mean that rolls rise and fall considerably. Families move in and out of the area. In 60 per cent. of the country, the difference can be critical when a family moves in or out of an area. I know that over half a century in my village one or two families moving in or out of the village has made the difference between class numbers being above or below 30.
I do not believe that we will ever reach the stage of pure maintenance, though we may get to the stage of over-provision in some areas and serious under-provision in others. Once that situation is made permanent, the local authority faces a serious problem. It is left with the cost of maintaining a situation in the face of pressures in other parts of the authority area. That is why I say again that it is a decision best taken at local level, where the local authority can make real
534
judgments about where to penny pinch and where it would choose to spend its money, given the ability to choose its priorities for spending capital.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we have an entirely benign misunderstanding. I did not say maintenance as opposed to new build. I was saying that the extra effort which will be required to bring down all class sizes to 30 will be at an end.
The noble Baroness is right to say that in both local areas and nationally there will be demographic changes which will affect the demand for places in infant schools. As she said, that has always been the case. There are movements of population; there are demographic changes in fertility, childbirth and so forth, all of which mean that local authorities will have to plan for changes after the initial push, so to speak, has been completed.
The noble Baroness is right also to say that local education authorities have the responsibility of planning for change. The difference will be that they will have to plan for it in future on the basis that they cannot allow class sizes to rise above 30. In all the rest of what the noble Baroness says in relation to future changes, she is entirely right.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Did the Minister say that the Government would put in £45 million initially for the "push", for expenditure on classrooms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said £40 million this year.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Obviously the Government have done some costing, even if it is only speculative costing. Can the Minister say how many new classrooms they expect to get throughout the country for £40 million?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The figure of £40 million is for this financial year only. It is intended to respond to applications from local authorities. As we are talking about a three-year programme of reduction in class sizes, it is not appropriate for me to do other than say that, on the basis of the applications and the way in which the £40 million is spent. we will have a clearer picture in terms of pounds per place or pounds per school. On that basis, capital allocations will be made for future years in order to achieve our objective.
Baroness Young: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful explanation of the position in relation to the money. He clearly set out how local authorities, for this financial year, will have to make their bids by the end of this week. That seems to be a rather short period of time, though they have probably been thinking about it for a while.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They did not start today.
Baroness Young: At any rate, the local authority has to think for the year ahead. I too have been in local

535
government and recall clearly the immensely complicated problems which arose unexpectedly from the building of a new estate and the consequent "bulge". Vast numbers of young families with young children move in and then they move on. A huge demographic change takes place.
I am anxious that in a matter as full of variables as this is (as the Minister admitted) with population growth, changing fertility rates, movements of population, with people moving from north to south and so forth, quite apart from the points made in relation to the movement of people for fruit picking and so on—which results in a local problem when numbers of children suddenly move into a school—if the local authority finds itself suddenly with classes of more than 30 it will be breaking the law. It is therefore an extremely serious issue. It is not a simple debating point. No doubt local government accounting officers and their lawyers will be quick to point out the difficulties should local authorities find themselves in that situation.
I make these points because, when the regulations come to be issued—when we shall see how all this works—a degree of flexibility will be required. I do not see how it can work and how we can guarantee that, from Land's End to John o'Groats, there will not be a single class with more than 30 children among the five, six and seven year-olds, desirable though that may be. Though it is extremely helpful to hear that £40 million will be available for building classrooms and for the extra teachers, the fact that it is difficult to predict movements of population by anybody who has ever tried to do it, means that the regulations will need to include some measure of flexibility as a recognition of the reality of the situation.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister finally concludes on this matter, perhaps he can answer a concern which I am beginning to develop. This is a difficult area for all the reasons that have been outlined. If we give a school or an LEA a responsibility to meet the target of 30 there is the problem of how to arrange the finance. For various reasons schools and LEAs get caught with sudden movements of population. I come from an area where we are used to having to plan for enormous and rapid changes in school population. We can plan the fluctuations up and we can plan them down again and life is very interesting in those circumstances.
Let us suppose that we have a hypothetical school—I know one should not deal with hypothetical situations—and that school finds itself in breach of the law. We are handing parents the right to take that school, or the LEA, or possibly the Secretary of State, to court for being in breach of the law. I am not sure what happens at that point. Is there a penalty? If so, what is it? If there is no penalty, what is the point?
I am absolutely clear that the intention is wholly benign and the intention is to get class sizes down to a particular target. None of us has any difficulty with that.
536
I am dealing with the practical implications of having a school that is temporarily outwith the law. What happens at that point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not achieve the seniority in local education of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I have been a councillor in a local education authority and I and the Government are well aware of the valid points about the difficulty of making provision when there are variables in numbers and in location of pupils. That has been the case ever since public education first existed. Nothing has changed and nothing will change.
We are adding to the list of legal obligations which have always existed for local education authorities. They have always had duties to provide education. Many of those duties were taken away or reduced by the previous government who did not much like local education authorities. But we like education authorities, and we intend to give them the responsibilities and the resources to deal with those responsibilities.
We are not going to make exceptions. We are saying that it is educationally desirable—all the experts agree—that those aged five, six and seven should be taught in classes of not more than 30. That has been shown to have an effect right the way through the school career and throughout life. We are imposing this as one extra obligation on local education authorities and we shall provide the resources both of revenue and capital to deal with it. I cannot see what the Committee can object to in that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am not objecting at all. When we get to 2001 the law will say that an LEA shall comply with this provision. I have no problems with that. I have no problems with the ambition. I have one or two worries about the provision of resources. What happens to the LEA or the school which, for a particular reason, finds itself in breach of the law at that point? If the Minister will forgive me, that is a point he did not answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know my noble friend Lady Blackstone wishes to come back, but may I respond to that particular point? My noble friend has already answered that point. The Secretary of State could issue a direction to the school or the LEA under Section 497 of the Education Act 1996 and, if necessary, get a court order to enforce it.
Baroness Blatch: I support my noble friend in saying that we are not objecting. We are rather wide-eyed. We welcome the fact that the Government, on this single policy alone, says that it will be imposed. It will be inflexible; it will be met. Any expenditure whatever resulting from the application of the policy will be met pound for pound. The Minister has made that absolutely clear.
It has also been made clear in the guidance that there will be no inhibition of parental preference; no inhibition of denominational choice; and no inhibition of sending a child an unreasonable distance to another school. It shall not have the effect of sending a child to

537
a school which has a poor reputation and it shall not, at any time, inhibit enlarging classes anywhere else in the education system. In other words, the money will not disadvantage any other part of the education system.
That is manna from heaven for local authorities. They will welcome the statement. It is so unequivocal that it is my view that it should be on the face of the Bill. We shall bring forward amendments to that effect. The Government have absolutely nothing to fear because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been so clear and so unequivocal. There can be no doubt whatever. Local authorities have had the benefit of hearing what the Government have to say today on the matter.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Committee for participating in this debate on Amendment No. 4, with which we have considered Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I wish to take up a point raised earlier with regard to the movement of children. My noble friend Lady Platt, who is not in her place at the moment, referred to children in villages whose parents have seasonable occupations. The concern arises also in inner cities where even within a term one can see many children moving in and out of schools because their parents, for whatever reason, are moved. When does the figure of 30 apply? Does it apply at the beginning of the term or during the term? I am concerned about the implications.
My noble friend Lady Blatch said that we are not objecting to the suggestions mooted in this part of the Bill. We are, however, pointing out the practical implications. I am grateful to the Minister for so clearly stating that the money will be there and that it will happen.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although my noble friend Lord Lucas may wish to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert ("shall be obliged, subject to circumstances specified in regulations under this section, to secure that that limit is complied with in relation to that class.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 6 and my noble friend Lady Maddock will speak to Amendment No. 22.
The effect of Amendment No. 5 is to make clear that LEAs and governing bodies are under a statutory duty to comply with class size limits, subject to tightly-defined exceptions set out in regulations. That would make it easier for the Secretary of State to use his powers contained in the Education Act 1996 to direct governing bodies to comply with those limits.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the wording in the Bill which simply says that LEAs and governing bodies,
"shall exercise their functions with a view to securing that that limit is complied with".
I wish to press the Government on what they mean by "with a view to securing". I am sure that most schools—probably all schools—would wish to comply with the class size but there are 13,000 schools with infant
538
classes. It is a near certainty that some of them, at some stage, are going to feel either that they cannot achieve it, for some of the reasons we have been talking about, or that they have other priorities. Will it be a sufficient defence for them to say, "We have tried to do so; we have acted in accordance with the Act in trying to comply, but we cannot do so"—or even, "but we don't want to do so"?
I am probing what the words "with a view to" mean. Do they mean, "You must do it" or "You must try to do it and you must demonstrate that you have tried?" There is an important difference. Given that 13,000 schools will be in that position, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, one, or probably more, will test that. The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be to make it clear that that is a statutory obligation.
I understood from an earlier answer from the Minister that the body responsible for non-compliance is the local education authority, although I thought I heard just now that the body responsible is to be the local education authority and/or the governing body. I should like to probe that a little more and here I speak as the leader of a local education authority, at least for another two days, and subject then to the will of the people. An LEA has no local leverage to require a governing body to meet the pledge. Having to be responsible for non-compliance is a bit hard if you cannot do anything to bring about the compliance. The amendment would deal with that problem.
I turn now to Amendment No. 6. At Second Reading and on many other occasions, I have made it clear that my party would have wished to extend the reduction in class sizes to all primary classes. I do not intend to return to that point specifically in this Bill except to reiterate that that remains our policy. We accept that if priorities have to be chosen, it is right to start with infant classes. Therefore, we fully support the policy that will be enacted under this Bill.
However, we remain concerned about the possible effect on junior classes and about what may happen if reducing infant class sizes has a deleterious effect on junior classes by increasing their size. When the Bill was being discussed in another place, the Government made it clear that they would not expect schools to accommodate the pledge on class sizes for infants by increasing class sizes at key stage 2. I am sure that they would not expect that—none of us would—but that may well be the effect. We are anxious to discover what the Government will do if that should come about. What will they do when they see education authorities' development plans which appear to have that effect? How serious are they in their intent? Do they still intend to fund plans which could have the effect of disadvantaging seven to 11 year-olds?
I happen to be a governor of a junior school. It is physically separate from its infant school, but I know that this is a matter of concern there. We need to know from the Government how serious they are about

539
these proposals. I leave my noble friend Lady Maddock to speak to Amendment No. 22, and I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 22, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. This amendment goes a little further than did my noble friend in his other two amendments. It seeks before the next general election to extend the Government's policy on reducing infant class sizes to all children from the age of five to the age of 11. It assumes that by the beginning of the financial year 2000–01. Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, will have reached the end of his commitment to stick to Tory spending plans.
In another place the Minister responsible for school standards, Stephen Byers, said, at col. 79 of Commons Hansard:
"Obviously, as the class size pledge rolls on year by year, it will benefit seven, eight, nine and ten year olds. This will he a clear consequence … We do not intend to deliver it for key stage 2 children by way of regulation. Those who know how schools operate will be conscious of the practical consequences of introducing a class limit of 30 for five, six and seven year olds".
It is for precisely that reason that we have tabled Amendment No. 22.
If one establishes a reception class of below 30, it is naÏve and simplistic to expect that group to stay intact as it moves up the junior part of the school. That is an over-optimistic view. We know that when schools are strapped for cash they will make different arrangements. They will be required by law to limit the size of their infant classes. We heard explicitly this afternoon about how the law will bite. However, if schools make different arrangements because of cash difficulties, other children may suffer, irrespective of the assurances we have been given to the contrary. We believe that such assurances must be backed by cash. We do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that priority should be given to improving education by extending the policy to pupils at key stage 2.
I hope that the Government will agree with us in principle. They may find it difficult, with the footsteps of the Treasury behind them, to commit themselves to it, but I hope that they will agree with the principle. Before the general election, their cry was, "Education, education, education". We, as a party, were also committed to education. Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree with us. Indeed, they seem to be in a fairly good financial position at the moment. The Treasury coffers are doing much better than anticipated, so I can see no reason why the Government cannot make some commitment. I hope that they will look favourably on this proposal. It is a little pie-in-the-sky to think that one can insist on infant classes of fewer than 30 children, but fund only that part and that there will be no effect on the children subsequently.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can explain where the extra money will come from. For two years and at the last general election the Liberal Democrats claimed that their party would
540
increase spending on education by the equivalent of one penny extra on income tax although the Government are already spending more. Where will the extra money come from? Clearly, we are going far further than her party promised at the last election.
Baroness Maddock: I am happy to respond to the noble Lord. His intervention reminds me of being in the other place. This is the way in which we used to debate matters there. There is a dispute about the figures. We as a party do not accept the noble Lord's figures. Indeed, in the other place and elsewhere we have vigorously expressed our disappointment about current spending on education. We believe that the Government have misled people. They are not spending as much as we would like on education.
Lord Whitty: We have some understanding of, and sympathy with, the reasons behind this group of amendments, but we do not believe they are necessary. The intention of the Bill is clear. We do not seek to finance the limitation on infant class sizes by a knock-on "deleterious"—I think that that was the word that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, used—effect on junior school classes.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 5. At first sight, it seems an obvious amendment, seeking to place a duty on LEAs and governors to secure compliance with limits rather than just to exercise their duties so as to secure such compliance. I am sure that the amendment is intended to be helpful, but I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord that the present wording of Clause 1(4) already suffices. I should also record the fact that our own legal advice has been that the noble Lord's amendment might in practice weaken the duty on LEAs and governors to secure smaller infant classes. The amended text would constitute a duty on those bodies, but it would be one of many duties, and there would be no indication that that duty takes precedence over any others. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention, so perhaps it is better if I explain why the present wording should suffice.
The Bill is drafted to require LEAs and governing bodies to perform all relevant functions under the Education Act with the objective of ensuring that class size limits are met. In response to the noble Lord's question about where the responsibility lies as between the governing bodies and the local education authorities, I advise him that each of the bodies concerned will have to perform all of their relevant functions so as to secure compliance with the class size limits. If the limits are not met then the responsibility will be with whichever of those two bodies was in breach of those duties. I reassure the noble Lord that each of those bodies will have to perform its relevant functions to secure compliance with those limits. When they both do so those limits will be achieved. Therefore that is an obligation and not a pious aspiration as, I believe, the noble Lord was hinting. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the present drafting makes that obligation clear and that his amendment, if anything, might weaken those obligations.

541
Amendments Nos. 6 and 22 are concerned with the size of junior or key stage 2 classes. The noble Baroness clearly wishes to ensure that the benefits of class limitation apply to key stage 2 pupils as well as to infants whereas the Bill clearly restricts its specification to limits for infant classes. However, the noble Lord's amendment is concerned simply that LEAs and schools may allow key stage 2 class sizes to rise in order to free funds and resources to pay for more infant teachers. I recognise the logic of that concern and in doing so I would not wish to suggest that we believe that there are grounds for LEAs to behave in that way and drawing resources from other areas of funding to meet the infant class size element. The Government are determined that that should not happen, but we believe that the amendment, as drafted, does not represent the best way of ensuring that it does not happen.
The Secretary of State's power to specify the information that will be required from local authorities in their initial statements, together with his power to approve or reject those statements, represents a sufficient safeguard. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has yet had an opportunity to consider the draft regulations and guidance that were issued for consultation on this issue last week. If Members of the Committee have not had such an opportunity, it is perhaps worth my drawing attention to a couple of the points in those documents.
In the information to be provided by LEAs we specify that their initial statements of their strategies to meet these objectives must contain measures that they are taking,
"to ensure that smaller infant classes are not delivered at the expense of key stage 2 classes".
In paragraph 19 of the draft guidance we make the position abundantly clear to LEAs that,
"plans will not he approved that show reductions in infant class sizes being achieved at the cost of increases in key stage 2 class sizes arising from a transfer of funding from junior to infant classes".
These documents are still in draft at this stage and I would obviously welcome any proposals for improving or strengthening the drafting. The difficulty with the amendments to the Bill as such lies in linking cause and effect at school level. It will be necessary to prove that a change in key stage 2 classes which were considered to be a disadvantage had arisen directly and solely from action to cut infant classes. In some cases I suppose that that would be obvious. It might be clear that if four junior classes of 30 were changed to three classes of 40, then it is pretty obvious that a transfer is taking place. But in many cases the link would not be so evident. We believe that the most effective way of ensuring that there is no risk of disadvantage to other age groups in the delivery of the infant class size pledge is through the initial approval of the statements produced by the LEA and then through the effective monitoring of the measures taken on the ground by the LEA and the school. I hope that the noble Lord accepts that that is our intention.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 22. I wish to make it clear that our principal approach is that the Government are committed to providing higher
542
educational standards for all pupils. We have established a clear priority here in placing limitations on infant class sizes. That is why our pledge to the electorate was focused on this group. The intention of the Bill is to deliver that pledge. There is plenty of evidence that class size at that stage in the education process is the most significant. That is the point at which chances of educational success can so often be determined. Research shows that the benefits of having been taught in small classes early on can still be observed even where the children concerned were later taught in larger classes. Therefore, that seems to us to be the clear priority. The extra funds that we have provided for schools this year will help to maintain teacher numbers at all stages, but we are not convinced of the priority needs or case for imposing statutory limits on older year groups.
I turn to what the noble Baroness said and to the quotation from the Chancellor. While we have no plans to impose class size limits on junior classes, the progression of pupils through primary schools will, in time, mean that in practice most junior classes will contain 30 or fewer pupils. In typical one or two-form entry schools, children are likely to remain in their groups of 30 or fewer as they move through the school. In addition, junior schools and class sizes will benefit in the short term from the £835 million extra funds for schools in England that the Government have provided. In the longer term they will benefit from this automatic progression although I do accept that there will be situations where that does not apply because of particular complications in individual schools.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has just said that as the numbers work through the schools the classes in junior schools will become smaller. If extra teachers are provided for five, six and seven year-olds, but not for eight, nine and 10 year-olds, how is it that that smaller progression goes all the way through the school? The year groups are the same: they do not simply drop off the end. If there are fewer teachers per child in year groups eight, nine and 10, then the smaller classes cannot be replicated lower down the school without the teachers.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may add a further complication. There are primary schools which have two published admission numbers. There is one for five year-olds and another for eight year-olds. There will be a complication because additional pupils are coming in after key stage 1.
Lord Whitty: As regards that last point, clearly there will be some situations where there is no automaticity of class structures moving from the infant stage through to the junior stage. But in most situations there will be some congruence between the structure of infant classes and junior classes. As regards resources and the number of teachers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, we have already provided substantial additional resources which will benefit junior schools as well as infant classes. Given the priority of education I am sure that those priorities will continue without pre-empting

543
anything that my right honourable friend the Chancellor may say in future. Nevertheless, we have already provided substantial resources which will allow for improved teacher numbers and not just in those places where we are prescribing the class size.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the priority must be on prescribing limits on infant class sizes rather than on reflecting it all through the junior school system. It is clearly our intention that all pupils will eventually benefit from that process. I also hope that the noble Lord will accept that the drafting as it stands meets his point rather better than the amendments he has tabled here. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The noble Lord has dealt with the scenario of a governing body meeting these commitments—that is to say, by possibly shifting resources from the junior to the infants. He has explained why he does not believe that that will happen. Another way in which governing bodies might attempt to meet this commitment is this. In a one-form entry school one would expect three classes in the infants consisting roughly of one class of five year-olds, one of six year-olds and one of seven year-olds. It would be perfectly possible to have a different structure which would consist of three equal forms each having within them, five year-olds, six year-olds and seven year-olds. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to that possibility earlier and also to the possibility that that might impose greater demands on a teacher.
If one followed that system then it would give more flexibility to a governing body. If one simply has classes with one age group, a six year-old arriving would have to be accommodated in that one class. If one had a vertical structure then one would have an option of three classes into which such a child might be placed which would give governing bodies a little more flexibility. Is that not one possible way in which some governing bodies might choose to give themselves just that little bit of leeway that they might need?
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: In general, the advice about the structuring of classes has been based on age cohorts, but obviously there are some schools, particularly those with a small intake in rural areas, where a different structure has been chosen and agreed by the school and the local education authority. It is conceivable that that situation may lead to a more flexible follow on into junior schools. However, I do not suggest that that is a general trend or something that we recommend beyond those areas where special circumstances apply.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has raised an interesting point. In Scotland for many years the contractual agreement with the teaching profession is that there should be no more than 33 in any class in any school for pupils of any age. Where there is a mixed age group the limit is 25. The teaching profession regards it as being very much more difficult to teach a mixed age group class. I wonder whether the Minister really believes the brief that the noble Lord has just read
544
out. I am astonished, given my experience of what happens when there is an absolute limit on class sizes. I know that in one city not very far from where I live schools flatly refuse to admit anybody when that would bring the class size over 25 or 33, regardless of brothers or sisters, choice and all the rest of it. That is the only way in which they can make the system work. I do not believe that that is a good idea. What the Government intend to do is much better, but I do not believe that they have the slightest idea of the costs and complications of this.
Lord Whitty: I note the point just made by the noble Baroness. I suggest that because class limitations have applied in Scotland for some time Scottish local authorities and schools have managed to meet those criteria. We are trying to avoid the kind of situation just described by the noble Baroness in which an absolute limit takes no account of differing pressures and choices. That is intrinsic to our whole approach to this matter.
Lord Tope: When I moved this amendment I made clear that it was essentially a probing amendment. I had no intention of pressing the matter at this stage. As to Amendment No. 5, the Minister has received legal advice that it is better as drafted. I must take seriously that advice. I am not sure that I wholly understand it, but I certainly accept it tonight and will look at it further.
As to Amendments Nos. 6 and 22, I accept that it is not the Government's intention that this measure should have a deleterious effect on junior classes. My concern was to press the Government on how they intended to fulfil their intention. The Minister referred to the draft regulations issued last week. I confess that, given the London borough council elections on Thursday, I have not given a high priority to studying those draft regulations in the past week. Perhaps I shall have time to do so next week. I shall certainly look at them carefully. However, I remain concerned about how the Government will fulfil their intention, which I wholly accept is right, that this measure should not have an adverse effect on junior classes.
My noble friend may wish to comment further on Amendment No. 22. In moving this particular amendment we are attempting to help Ministers. We are on the side of the Government in this respect. It is well known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have an enormous war chest by the turn of the century. We are trying to help Ministers ensure that they can secure a little more of that war chest to follow through this very good intention. We all accept that the priority to reduce infant class sizes is right, but those infants will grow older; they will turn into juniors given the period that we are considering here. I do not suggest that they will necessarily go straight from classes of 30 or fewer to classes of 40, but they will be going into larger classes. The Minister may well be right in saying that in some cases the lower class size will follow through, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is undoubtedly right that there will be occasions when that does not happen.

545
We seek to support Ministers in their endeavours rightly to persuade the Treasury that a larger proportion of the war chest should be used for the continued support of children up to and beyond the age of seven. I am sure that the Minister recognises that we are on his side in moving the amendment. If we return to this matter at a later stage, I am sure that he will equally welcome our intentions. However, at this stage, subject to what my noble friend may say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: I very much welcome the view of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that something should be done about the older children in junior schools. I regret that he does not have the same commitment today to ensuring that that happens, although I understand very well that the Chancellor's footsteps follow the Minister's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Youngmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of any regulations made under subsections (1) and (3) above, the governing bodies of aided and foundation schools with a religious character shall be entitled to exercise discretion in admitting a child to an infant class where so to admit him would exceed any class size limits imposed under this section, provided that there is no school of the same religious character within reasonable distance of the child's home with the capacity so to admit him.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, much regrets that he is unable to attend the Committee today. At the opening of my remarks I make it quite clear that this is a probing amendment. In the course of the Committee stage we have already learned a great deal about the intentions of the Government in relation to maintained schools. I welcome this. I shall look very closely at Hansard. My amendment is concerned particularly with foundation and aided schools. In those cases another consideration comes into play. Parents who choose either a foundation or aided school for their child do so because they particularly want that type of education for their child. I believe that parental wishes in this regard are of the utmost importance.
At Second Reading we discussed what happened with the 31st child in the class. We have heard the Government's response to this matter in relation to maintained schools. But there are many Anglican and Catholic parents who would far rather have their children in somewhat larger classes in denominational schools than in smaller classes in maintained schools. I believe this to be a very important point.
It would be helpful to have from the Minister an answer to a number of points. I deal first with a point made clearly by my noble friend Lady Carnegy about the position in Scotland. There class sizes have been determined by statute. My noble friend has said that in that case authorities simply say that no one else is to be admitted because the class is full. What is the position in aided and foundation schools where the governors are
546
responsible for determining this matter? What is the freedom of choice for parents in those circumstances? What will happen if the governors wish to admit more? Will they be taken to court in these circumstances? Will the local education authority have the right over and above the school to determine how many pupils there should be? Referring to the £40 million that has been set aside for extra classrooms, what will be the contribution that Churches make to the capital cost of building in certain circumstances? Will they be expected to pay once again if it is necessary to provide an extra class, even supposing that the Government pay the full revenue costs of an extra teacher?
I do not pose these questions as debating points. They are very serious matters. I move the amendment because I have had drawn to my attention the considerable anxiety of a number of schools about how the whole policy will work.
It is infinitely easier to determine how the policy will work in maintained schools. However, in the case of aided and foundation schools it is infinitely more difficult and in many cases infinitely more important. It is important to consider the wishes of the parents and cases in which all the children of a family go to the same school. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points so that we might understand more fully how the policy will work in relation to such schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for moving the amendment, although I have some hesitations which I shall express in a moment. I understand that as a result of the policy there will be no reduction in the number of denominational places. If a class in an aided school has to be reduced from 35 to 30, the loss will be made up either by the provision of additional teachers or by the expansion of popular schools, many of which are Church schools.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining clearly the point about capital costs contributions. Revenue costs are not met by the Churches, but a 15 per cent. capital cost must be met. If additional buildings were required under the legislation, would the cost have to be met by a 15 per cent. contribution from the Churches?
My hesitation about the amendment relates to the question of where one stops. The amendment gives no indication of whether 30 or 31 is to be the limit. Why should it not be 32? One is into a game of arbitrarily guessing the limit. That will put great pressure on governing bodies which are already powerfully lobbied over admissions. Indeed, I am lobbied by people who want their children to attend Church schools. If the amendment were passed, governors would be subject to immense pressure by parents who want their children to attend Church schools. That desire is not always as a result of denominational allegiance; parents choose Church schools for other reasons.
Perhaps I am reading too much into the amendment, but there is a possibility that it could be used to override the admissions criteria. I am looking at Amendment

547
No. 8 rather than Amendment No. 7. Under Amendment No. 8 three criteria are required. The first is the desire expressed by the parents. Many parents express a desire for Church schools. The second is the willingness of the admissions authority. It does not state that it must comply with the admissions criteria. The third is that no alternative place is available. If one goes down that route there is a possibility of putting immense pressure on governing bodies to override their admissions policies and a possible relaxing of admissions criteria to which governors strictly adhere.
While I sympathise with the concerns of the noble Baroness, I am not convinced that this way of handling them is an answer.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are in the group and I shall address those when addressing Amendment No. 7. I do not share the right reverend Prelate's cynicism about the amendment—
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I used the word "hesitation" rather than "cynicism".
Baroness Blatch: I detected a note of cynicism that parents will want; that simply, because they want, the pressure will be too great and therefore it should not be acceded to. There is one small addition to that. I am sure the Committee will find that parents do not want their children in classes of 35, 36, 37 and 40. Therefore, the policy will become self-regulating for the school and will strengthen the arm of the governors in setting the limit. After all, the governors are the servants of the parents; they are mediators between the school and parents.
I take the right reverend Prelate's point that many people are desirous of their children attending a Church school. Such schools are enormously popular, and for good reasons. However, if the governors and their parent body take an annual view that the class limit should not exceed 30—I have always thought that it should be the exception rather than the rule—we should trust the governors and the parents to reach that view.
I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young and I turn to the amendments standing in my name. I wish to speak up for siblings and parental preference. I have carefully read the draft consultation document on reducing infant class sizes. It makes pleasant reading for parents of children in school. But can the Government really deliver the policy? Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 present a wonderful contradiction. The Government believe that classes should not exceed 30. For many good reasons, that is a limit they wish to impose by law. However, they make an exception. Can the Committee believe that the exception is for a special needs child? The burden on a teacher will be greater if the 31st child is a disruptive pupil, a child with special educational needs or whatever. The school will be able to exceed the limit and receive a special educational needs child. Therefore, the burden on the teacher will be greater than if the child exceeding the limit were without such special needs.
548
The Government are making a serious contradiction by stating that schools can break the limit in circumstances which will make life even more difficult for the teacher. If ever there was an argument for special assistance for a classroom teacher it would be in the school which in the course of a year was directed to take a special educational needs statemented child into a classroom which already had 30 children, perhaps when other schools in the area did not have such a problem and were treated more generously. I do not know why the Government are prepared to make a single teacher available to the 31st child with no special educational needs but are not prepared to make available a teacher to the 31st or 32nd child who has special educational needs. Where is the logic in that? It simply does not add up. There is a real contradiction.
Paragraph 13 states that, while it is not possible to guarantee all parents that their child will gain a place in the school of their choice, the class size plans of local education authorities must not lead to a reduction in parental preference. Indeed, it goes on to say that they must enhance it. Therefore, it will be difficult to enhance preference in the more popular schools. It says that LEAs should plan on the basis of enhancing the exercise of parental preference wherever possible. That would mean that no children should have to travel unreasonable distances. Surplus places in poor schools should not be filled by keeping children out of schools that offer higher standards and a better quality of education. Before the Bill passes from this House, it is important that we receive from the Minister information as to what the Government consider to be a poor school.
Let us take the example of a parent who chooses a school and the child is rejected because it is the 31st child. The school down the road is not a poor school but it is a poorer school than the chosen school. Is that acceptable or unacceptable under paragraph 13(c)? Paragraph 13(c) states that,
"where extra places are needed, they should be created in popular, over-subscribed schools with high standards".
There should be an open-door policy for all popular schools to be expanded and government will pay. That is based on Ofsted reports and value-added, where available. Paragraph 13(d) states that,
"the proportion of denominational provision for any denomination should not he reduced".
Again, that means that any child who cannot find an alternative denominational school will be allowed to attend that school, irrespective of the numbers, but the teachers will be provided.
In the longer term it states that LEAs,
"should seek to increase the proportion of provision in popular, over-subscribed schools with high standards".
Paragraph 14—and this is in bold type so the Government mean to emphasise the point—states that:
"The Secretary of State will not approve plans that do not demonstrate that the LEA has given due regard to the exercise of parental preference".
As former local government member and member of the local education authority, I would say that that is an equation which simply does not add up. I do not believe that that kind of money is sitting there, waiting to fall

549
from the Treasury as pre-emptive money; that is, money which comes before money to be spent on high standards, teacher training, capital for crumbling schools or whatever it may be. The first priority, by 2001, is class sizes and whatever it costs, that cost will be met. That is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier. The local authorities will be pleased to hear that. But those local authorities which have additional expenditure in order to meet the costs incurred by crumbling schools, training of teachers and governors, or improving standards in many other ways will find, before they do anything else, that are hamstrung by this concrete and unequivocal pledge which must be met and paid for.
Of course, I have already mentioned—and it will not be the last time I mention it in the course of our deliberations—that the 31st child shall receive a qualified teacher if it falls into any of the categories in paragraphs 13(a) to (e). The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has, probably more clearly than anyone, set out that unequivocal promise. Therefore, there is no problem about these amendments. There is not a problem above protecting denominational preference or sibling preference, because that would be a parental preference. There is no problem in relation to my Amendment No. 10 which provides an exception where the majority of parents agree by a ballot—and I suggest a ballot could be used.
Amendment No. 11 takes me right back to where we started painfully at the beginning of the day; that is, that when these regulations come forward, they really must be dealt with by the affirmative resolution. I am reminded that that amendment has now been degrouped. I shall deal with it when we reach the appropriate point in the Marshalled List.
If we put together the answers from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the answers that we have had so far from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we understand that other areas of education will not be disadvantaged; no higher class sizes for junior school children; and no denial of denominational or parental, and therefore sibling, preference. If that is all written on to the face of the Bill, parents will then be really reassured.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend Lady Young understood me to say that there is a statutory limitation on class sizes in Scotland. I do not think that I did say that. The limitation is made by the teaching profession through its contract. The limitation is 33 for class sizes right through the school, unless they are mixed groups when the limitation is 25. There is a lower limit in relation to practical subjects at secondary schools. However, those limits apply to denominational schools as with all others and there is inflexibility.
Baroness Blackstone: These amendments cover the question of whether there is a need to disapply limits in certain circumstances. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 apply to foundation and aided schools. They would both allow denominational schools the discretion to have infants in classes of more than 30, if it were necessary to do so to admit a child who could not otherwise find a place in
550
a school of that denomination. The effects of the two amendments would be very similar, so I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, will be content for me to address these amendments together.
Responding in particular to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the Government are of course sensitive to the concerns of parents who practise a particular religion and wish their child to be able to attend a school of a suitable religious character. I also understand that the Churches wish to offer places to children of their faith. That is perfectly obvious and totally understandable.
But I firmly believe that infants in an aided school—or any other denominational school—have the same right as other infants to be taught in classes of 30 or fewer. That is a view that the Church authorities have supported in discussions with Ministers and departmental officials and it is a view which the right reverend Prelate expressed. And the strong mandate that this Government have for acting to cut infant class sizes extends as much to denominational schools as to others. The educational benefits are the same in those schools as they are in maintained schools. It would be extremely undesirable to have a situation where denominational schools had large numbers in their infant school classes—much larger than in maintained schools.
Lord Elton: I thought I heard the Minister say that the educational benefits were the same in the two different kinds of schools. In fact, the point of having Church schools is that the educational content is different. The Minister's statement was surely a false statement.
Baroness Blackstone: With respect, that is not quite what I said and I am sorry that I did not make it clearer. The educational benefits of smaller class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds are exactly the same in denominational schools as they are in LEA maintained schools.
Again, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made clear, once one breaches the policy of a target of no more than 30 children, where does one stop? It would be extremely undesirable to have much larger classes in denominational schools.
We are seeking to achieve a situation where all children are taught in classes of 30 or fewer but where more children than at present are admitted to a school of their parents' preference. That does not apply only to schools of a religious character. We are aware that it is an issue for rural schools more generally. That is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on several occasions.
In discussions in another place, the Minister for School Standards gave reassurances on rural schools. He said:
"Through the regulations and the code of practice on admissions, the Government will ensure that if a 31st child cannot be accommodated within a reasonable distance of a small rural school, the local education authority will be required to provide additional resources so that both problems can be addressed: the child can attend the school and class sizes can be kept below 30".

551
The regulations and guidance on which we are presently consulting and which the noble Baroness has received—indeed, she just quoted from them—give further information on how that can be effected.
However, perhaps I may return to Church schools. As the right reverend Prelate said, we made it clear in the guidance that the denominational provision should also be safeguarded. We state that in meeting class size limits,
the proportion of denominational provision for any denomination should not be reduced".
Again, that is something that the right reverend Prelate made clear in his intervention.
Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about capital costs and whether Church schools will have to make the 15 per cent. contribution. Perhaps I may state clearly that the Government have decided that a 100 per cent. grant will be paid and that Church schools will not be required to make the 15 per cent. contribution in this instance.
We also made it clear that LEAs will have to consult Church representatives when preparing their class size implementation plans. LEAs must have regard to the demand for denominational provision and find ways to provide suitable provision within their plans.
The principle that all infants—whatever their school—are entitled to the qualified teaching support offered in a class of 30 or fewer is one that we will defend firmly. I do not need to say again that it was a clear manifesto commitment and one that has the support of both parents and teachers. I know that there are implementation issues on which we greatly value the views of the Church authorities; indeed, we have consulted them very extensively in that respect. Their officials have met those of the Department for Education and Employment on a number of occasions. The Minister for School Standards and I will be meeting Church representatives next week. We will of course listen very carefully to any issues that they may wish to raise. Given those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, will agree not to press their amendments.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that children may attend the same school as their siblings. Again, I believe that few of us would dispute that that is a reasonable aim. However, with my own children, who used to argue so much, I sometimes thought that they might have been better off attending different schools where they would not run into each other in the playground. Nevertheless, the amendment is unnecessary. I say that because admissions authorities can determine the criteria on which places will be allocated to children where a school is oversubscribed. The presence of siblings is a factor which almost all authorities—indeed, almost without exception—already bear in mind, though it is perhaps worth mentioning that, even now, a child who has an elder sibling in a school cannot be absolutely guaranteed a place there. There are occasions where that is not possible.
As well as being unnecessary, the amendment could undermine the implementation of the Government's manifesto pledge to reduce infant class sizes in a way
552
that I do not believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had in mind. The amendment would allow any admissions authority that wished to disregard limits on class sizes to do so by excluding siblings from normal admissions criteria, knowing that they could still be admitted after the normal admissions round whatever the effect on class sizes. We expect that admissions authorities will continue to use the presence of siblings as one of their admissions criteria. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree not to press it.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of special needs as an exception. This would only be allowable where the admission took place outside the normal admissions cycle. I believe that I should make that clear. The aim is to ensure that children with special needs are admitted to the most suitable school. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that that is terribly important. However, that does not mean that extra resources will not be provided. We will ask LEAs to set out what they will do in such cases. We would expect extra resources to be provided in virtually all cases.
Amendment No. 10 illustrates, perhaps more than any other amendment tabled for discussion today, what seems like a fundamental opposition to the principle of the Government being able to set and achieve smaller infant class sizes in every school class in the country. Of course, the noble Baroness is entitled to hold that view, but I should remind the Committee that the commitment to reduce infant class sizes, which must involve some limits being imposed by the Government, is a pledge. The Government received a clear mandate from the electorate a year ago.
The amendment would enable any school to "opt out" from limits that the Government may impose. The circumstances in which ballots could be called are not set out in the amendment. But I cannot accept that such a fundamental and popular aspect of our proposals to raise standards in the early years should be open to school-by-school disapplication in the way suggested. I believe that that would be a betrayal of our pledge. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will, therefore, understand our purpose and will not press her amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I have a question for the Minister before she sits down. In her response, the noble Baroness implied that it is important, if possible, for siblings to be able to attend the same school, although in her own family's case she might prefer that that did not happen. However, at this stage of the Bill, we are referring to Church schools where the case of siblings is even stronger than it would be at a normal maintained school. Can the Minister comment further on that?
Obviously, if the 31st place in a school arises, there is not, perhaps, another choice of Church school or denominational school for that child to attend. Therefore, if the amendment were not accepted, we could have a situation where it would be necessary to provide, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested

553
earlier, a whole range of extra expense for one child which might disappear the next year. Can the Minister comment in that respect?
Baroness Blackstone: I thought that I had already clearly explained that it is the Government's intention to meet parental preference, especially one of this sort where there is a double reason why parents might want to send a child to a particular school: first, because it is a denominational school and they are members of the Church concerned; and, secondly, the fact that a sibling is already in attendance. It is our intention to ensure that children aged five, six or seven are in classes containing no more than 30 and that they are able to attend a school of their choice. I have already said—and my noble friends made it clear in the earlier discussion—that we will make the resources available to make that possible.
Baroness Blatch: I have two questions for the Minister. She said that the defence as regards the provision for SENs is referred to in the guidance document. I notice that a good deal of the guidance document does not in fact feature in the draft regulations document. That is a worry for us and one to which we shall certainly return on Report. The noble Baroness said that the reason for it is that SENs very often appear outside the cycle of the normal admission arrangements. However, that is also the case with gypsy families, with many children who have just arrived in a village and with the children of military families who have just returned from a posting in another area. Indeed, children are always arriving and leaving outside of the normal admissions policies.
It seems extraordinary that the policy allows for the payment for the 31st child if it is a child without special educational needs, but if a child arrives with special educational needs he or she is not part of what I will call from now on, "the McIntosh formula". The Minister referred to local education authorities and said that it is not a question of there being no money available because LEAs will be asked to provide. However, do the LEAs which are asked to provide in those circumstances—not the 31st child without special educational needs but the 31st child, or more, with special educational needs who is put into a school thereby breaking the 30-maximum barrier—come under the reimbursement programme? In other words, do they fall under the McIntosh formula? It seems to me that LEAs will be quite anxious if they believe that they will be expected to provide every time a child with special educational needs is assigned to a school where the maximum limit of class size has been broken.
Paragraph 13 refers to parental preference. The noble Baroness said that where possible parental preference must be met. Paragraph 13 does not state that local education authorities should meet parental preference where possible, but places a responsibility on them to enhance parental preference and go beyond that provision at present. There is an inconsistency in the answers given by the noble Baroness. We know that a
554
classroom cannot be built overnight and that therefore if a school is physically full it cannot take another child. But if a school is not full, it seems crazy for a sibling to be turned away, or to turn away, from a Church school a child with a denominational preference simply for the sake of satisfying a policy.
Baroness Blackstone: I have just said that we shall sustain parental preference in those circumstances. As regards a child with special educational needs, I should make clear that any exceptions made for these reasons will apply for the remainder of that academic year only. That is clearly set out in paragraph 8 of the document. As regards the point about resources, any child with special educational needs who is placed in a mainstream school will require additional resources—at least in most cases—but that applies at present. We would expect LEAs to make that provision. There is nothing new about that and it will continue under this legislation.
Baroness Blatch: What is new is the new policy which involves applying a pledge; namely, that no class shall contain more than 30. We have heard of a number of exceptions to the 30 rule, which trigger a new teacher, except in the case of children with special educational needs where that does not apply. The noble Baroness argues that that is because those children have entered a school outside the admissions cycle. However, that is the case with many other children. I have given examples of children of military families and gypsy children who enter schools outside the admissions cycle. If they are accepted, they will trigger a new teacher. Will the 31st special educational needs child trigger the McIntosh formula?
Baroness Blackstone: It is unusual for people in the military to send their children to a new school half-way through a term. These days military personnel can normally place their children in a new school at the beginning of a school term. Gypsy children move around and there has always been a difficult problem as regards adequately accommodating their needs. As regards special educational needs children, they constitute an exception to the pledge. They are not part of the pledge. I have made it clear that an exception is being made for those children who need to have an appropriate school place made available for them in a mainstream school—the most appropriate school for them—within the school year. As I said, that is an exception to the pledge. The local education authority is expected to provide those resources. They are not in any way part of the pledge. I hope I have made that clear.
Baroness Young: We have had a good discussion on these important issues concerning aided and foundation schools. I am sure the Committee is glad of the further information that has been forthcoming, particularly on the point of the 15 per cent. capital costs. I note that the right reverend Prelate nods his head. However, there is always a downside to all these matters because once one gives up one's proportion of the money, one loses many of one's bargaining counters. However, that is a matter for the Church which will determine what it wants to do.

555
None of us knows for certain how all this will work out because we are entering new territory, irrespective of whether it is a manifesto commitment. I admire the confidence of the noble Baroness; I wish I had it myself. She said with complete confidence that the Government undertake that every parent will have their choice of school and at the same time no class will comprise more than 30. Let us hope she is right. It will be interesting to see what emerges as regards the appeals procedure. As regards the aided and foundation schools, what will happen when a child is admitted in error, when perhaps the child's parents are not committed? It will be interesting to see how that develops in future.
I apologise to my noble friend Lady Carnegy if I misinterpret what she said. However, I should have thought that as a general rule in life when introducing a new policy it is a good idea to check whether it is already in operation and to ascertain how it works in practice. The Scottish experience indicates perfectly clearly that parental choice does not operate for many parents. I suspect that that will be the case with the measure we are discussing. Regrettably it can be seen that this Government say everything which they think people want to hear. They think that by saying it often enough they will be able to bring it off. I do not think they will be able to do so. I believe many parents will find that they may obtain 30 in a class but they will not obtain parental choice. This is a matter for the future—
Baroness Blackstone: I should make it absolutely clear that I did not say that every single parent will always obtain their preference. I said that under existing provisions a number of parents cannot obtain their first preference where a school is hugely oversubscribed. Nothing that we are doing under this legislation will alter that. I said that we will do everything we can, working with local education authorities and the Churches, to ensure that we maximise the degree of parental preference. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I made it clear that if there is a double reason why a child should attend a particular school—it may be a denominational school and the child's parents are members of the Church with which the school is associated and there is a sibling at the school—we should try to accommodate that, but I did not say that every single child or every single parent will always obtain their first preference. That has never been the case and it never could be in the case of oversubscribed schools.
Baroness Young: I accept what the noble Baroness has said but I believe she certainly gave the impression that that was what she meant. A year after the coming into office of this Labour Government we have come to understand that this is the case as regards almost every issue. Some people are taken in by their talk, but "old hands" see through it immediately. We have had a good debate. I said this was a probing amendment and that I would not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fireworks Bill
7.48 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introduction]:
Lord Kimballmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("it") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2. The aim of Amendment No. 1 is to prevent confusion over the possible use of other pyrotechnic devices whose primary use is not as fireworks for entertainment. Various safety and warning devices are used in firework displays. Items such as smoke flares, Very lights, exploding warning caps, alarm guns and gas fired bird scarers could all be incorporated with fireworks in a display. If this was the case and they came under this Bill that could cause confusion when they are required for their normal and primary use. As items of safety equipment their primary purpose must override any secondary purpose to which they are put.
I see a battery of learned QCs to my left and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, all of whom are much more skilled in dealing with the really important subject of the second amendment, which is designed to safeguard this important Bill from changes which might be made by a future Secretary of State and which, without being brought before this House, might inadvertently change the primary purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Amendment No. 2 gives power to the Secretary of State by secondary legislation to amend Clause 1(1), which is primary legislation. Under paragraph (a) of Clause 1(1) there is a definition of fireworks. Under paragraph (b) of Clause 1(1) there is a definition of would-be fireworks. My noble friend Lord Kimball has already spoken of the confusion in that context.
The definition is for the purposes of Clause 1(3) and governs the fireworks regulations under Clauses 2 and 3 and Clauses 5 to 10. This power to amend primary legislation by regulations under Clause 1(2) and to make regulations in implementation of virtually the whole of this Bill is in no way restricted by the Title, which is merely to make provision about fireworks and other

557
explosives. The only constraint upon this extraordinary exercise of power is in Clause 16 by statutory instrument subject to annulment by either House. If Clause 2(1) is to stand, then Clause 16 will require substantial amendment, such as is proposed in Amendment No. 13 of my noble friend Lord Kimball as to the laying of a draft before both Houses and an affirmative resolution.
Clause 1(2) should not stand as part of this Bill. The Select Committee at paragraph 7 said,
"The fact that the Bill sets no limits on what might be brought within the definition and so within the scope of the Bill caused the Committee particular concern".
Then the committee said that a ministerial undertaking might be given. In my book that is no good at all. This is a matter which has to be dealt with on the Bill as regards the structure of legislation.
As to the regulations, the Committee said at paragraph 9,
"Again, the Department indicated that the power would in practice be used in limited circumstances".
Then there is a ministerial undertaking. Again, that is wholly inappropriate.
At paragraph 16 of the report the Select Committee draws attention to the most disturbing aspects of the wide-ranging powers conferred. Indeed, it is a most unusual and disturbing feature, as the extensive devolution of power to the Executive as proposed by this Bill is, in my book, wholly unacceptable and, owing to constraints of parliamentary time, scrutiny of regulations when laid is all but perfunctory.
As regards your Lordships' House, as Members of the Committee well know, there is power to amend or to reject secondary legislation, but by custom such power is not exercised. In parentheses, perhaps I may express a personal view that this power and resort to this power may be enshrined when your Lordships' House is reformed and reconstituted. The prophetic warning of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham as to the dangers of an elective dictatorship has now all but been fulfilled. This Bill affords an unwelcome and distressing example in Clause 1(2), which should not stand part.
It is one of the functions of your Lordships' House to ensure that there is a curb upon misuse or abuse of executive power. The Government are not in favour of a total ban but, as yet, do not know to which devices the Bill is to apply. They do not know what provisions should be made. It is all left to the Secretary of State, a sort of proverbial firework tsar, subject to wholly inadequate parliamentary control. I support Amendment No. 2.
Viscount Astor: I should apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that I was not able to be present at the Second Reading debate on this Bill. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has very carefully and succinctly described some of the problems with this Bill on the legal front. I would like to take it one stage further and say what those problems mean, in effect, on the executive front or, indeed, the political front.
558
The powers in the Bill are very wide. Quite frankly, I am not disturbed so much by the powers in the Bill; what I am really disturbed about is the fact that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said that this House might be satisfied by assurances given in the House. That is not good enough.
An assurance is not worth very much. It describes the thinking of the Secretary of State of the day. We all know that reshuffles happen regularly in government, in any government. If a Bill is passed and becomes an Act an incoming Minister is not bound by any assurances; he is bound by the law. It is not a question of Pepper v. Hart; it is a question of what powers there are in this Bill under which a Secretary of State could say, "This is all very well; my predecessors looked at this, but I would like to go a whole lot further". There is nothing anybody could do. He could do that.
I do not know whether that is what the Government have in mind; I am sure it is not. It is certainly not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who has taken on this Bill from another place; but this Bill is very badly and dangerously drafted. It gives any government a power to change the Bill almost totally and do anything they wish with it. I believe that the Members of this Committee should not be satisfied by this. I am disappointed that the committee were not firmer with the Government. It seems to have been pressing for debate. I do not think that it is good enough.
A number of amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Kimball. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the Government will consider the proposal in the final amendment. It would make a difference to how we debate the preceding amendments.
8 p.m.
Lord Rees: I, too, apologise that I was unable to intervene in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. Having said that, I hope that I may not regard myself as disabled from making some perhaps rather stringent comments on the detail of the Bill.
Perhaps we may start on common ground: that there should be some statutory framework within which the sale, enjoyment and construction of fireworks should be confined. However, that should not disable us from a close and rigorous examination of the detail, in particular in the light of the Select Committee report. In my modest career in public life, I do not think that I have ever read a Select Committee's report which makes quite such damning criticisms of the drafting of a Bill. Indeed, in the final recommendation one notes that,
"The Committee draws the attention of the House to the more disturbing aspects of the wide ranging powers conferred by the Bill and invites the House to consider whether to seek Ministerial assurances about these. If Ministerial undertakings on all these points"—
all the points raised by the Select Committee—
"are not forthcoming, the House may wish to consider whether amendment of the Bill is called for".
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who is sponsoring the Bill is fully armed and prepared to deal with criticisms made by the Select Committee and those implicit in the numerous amendments set

559
down to the Bill. So perhaps one reserves one's fire a little until one has heard what the noble Lord has to say. But, in fairness, the noble Lord should be put on notice about our reservations on the Bill which amply justify the amendments put down for debate today. To demonstrate the quality of the amendments, it is interesting to note that every single amendment has been selected for debate.
I look all the time to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for elucidation and assistance in order to understand what the Bill is about and how we are presented with such an extraordinarily slapdash Bill for our consideration. When the noble Lord responds, perhaps he will explain Clause 1(1)(b). It seems to suggest that any device which is intended as a form of entertainment can be regarded as a firework for the purposes of the Bill. I can only conclude that my blurred eye has not fully appreciated the significance of that. In his usual charming and clear way, perhaps the noble Lord will be able to enlighten me. Other noble Lords may have got to the bottom of it. Can the provision really mean that any device which is intended as a form of entertainment can be regarded as a firework? I cannot believe that. There must be something implicit in it. If so, I hope that the noble Lord will set my mind at rest.
Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1)".
Others of my noble friends more expert in matters of draftsmanship than I am have pointed out the extraordinary width of that provision. Again I hope that the noble Lord will explain it to us. Does the provision really mean that there is no further restriction on the Secretary of State's right: that he proceeds by negative resolution, and beyond that anything that comes into his mind as having some bearing on the framework of the Bill may be dealt with by negative resolution procedure? Taken at face value, subsection (2) will permit the Secretary of State to amend by regulation the very substance of the Bill. These are not just questions of detail or peripheral points. That cannot be right. That is a matter upon which we have touched in many other pieces of legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will apply his talents in explaining whether there are some restrictions which would make such wide-ranging powers acceptable to the Committee.
Lord Renton: I, too, support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Indeed, what I have to say applies with, I hope, equal force to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 16. Perhaps that will save me from speaking to them later.
I am sure that we are all in favour of doing more in our legislation to protect people, animals and property from the damaging effect of fireworks. Over the years too many people have been injured. But I have to say that the Bill is a classic outstanding example of how not to legislate. Indeed, it is an unprecedented leap into the unknown—unprecedented in peacetime. When emergency legislation was needed in wartime at short notice, power used to be given to a Minister. But in peacetime we do not legislate like that.
560
I invite attention in particular to the effect of doing so. Under Clause 11 we find that courts are given power to punish people for offences which are to be defined by regulation. They are not defined in the Bill. Until those regulations have been approved by Parliament, we shall not know for what it is that people will be punished. We do not legislate like that. In effect, we shall be giving power to the courts to punish the unknown.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Rees drew attention to the valuable work undertaken by our Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I expect all noble Lords have read what the committee said. It has sometimes made exception in favour of a Henry VIII power where it is very limited. It has sometimes made exception in favour of giving power to Ministers to make regulations. But this Bill seems to me to be unprecedented, and not only in recent times. I have to confess to Members of the Committee—I am not ashamed to do so—that I have been at the Bar for 65 years and in Parliament for 53 years and I have never before seen a Bill quite like this.
Lord Henley: Like my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Kimball, I accept that there is need for a degree of control over fireworks. That is why the Bill is before us. That is why we made it clear at Second Reading that we did not intend to oppose such a Bill. As we all know, too many people are injured every year by fireworks. It is right that there should be regulations of one kind or another to ensure their safety. However, like many of my noble friends, I have considerable concerns about aspects of the Bill. Perhaps I may address my remarks in particular to Clause 1(2). It is a clause which—dare I say it?—is the purest Henry VIII clause that I have ever seen. It gives the Secretary of State power, as my noble friends have made clear, to amend primary legislation; namely, in subsection (1) of the Bill.
I daresay that I might myself be guilty of having tried to press Henry VIII clauses on this place in the past. I accept that there are occasions when what we term Henry VIII clauses are necessary in legislation. However, I have considerable doubts, as I expressed at Second Reading, as to whether a Henry VIII power of this kind is right and proper in this Bill.
I viewed with some sadness the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. My noble friend Lord Rees thought that it was one of the most damning reports that he had ever seen. I have to say that I do not think it was in any way damning enough in that, in its recommendations, it in effect suggested to the House that such Henry VIII powers as we see in Clause 1(2) should be permitted. I say this much more in sorrow than in anger: it is sad that the delegated powers scrutiny committee should have so decided, and should have thought that a mere ministerial undertaking, as my noble friend Lord Astor referred to it, would be enough to reassure this place. I am certainly not reassured, and I doubt whether I shall be reassured by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who sponsored the Bill. I shall be interested to hear his response. I shall also be interested to hear the response

561
of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for the Government. We have to accept that this Bill is, to use a colloquial term, a hand-out Bill from the Department of Trade and Industry. It is therefore important that we hear precisely what it is that the department is able to offer by way of ministerial assurances. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
I accept entirely the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in relation to Amendment No. 13. I accept that that amendment is not grouped with this one. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, or—dare I say it?—the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is not prepared to accept these amendments, at the very least they ought to be prepared to accept Amendment No. 13 which we shall discuss later. It might be useful, certainly in view of the time that will be taken on this Bill, if they could address that question when responding to this amendment.
Having said that, I offer my support to this amendment. I am sad that the delegated powers scrutiny committee was not prepared to take a stronger line. In parenthesis may I say that I am grateful that in relation to the education Bill that we discussed earlier the committee has taken a much stronger line. I hope that it will take a strong line on all such uses of powers in the future and will bring them to the attention of this place. On those occasions when the committee does not do so in quite so strong a manner as we believe necessary, it is right that this place should express its concern and should decide accordingly.
Lord Haskel: Before I speak to the detailed amendments, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation on their thorough consideration of the provisions in the Bill.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear.
Lord Haskel: Having set the right tone, let me say that the committee identified several issues to which it thought it right to draw the attention of the House. We agree with the committee. At the end of this debate I will respond to those issues. I hope that the assurances I shall give will be acceptable to the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, may find those assurances unacceptable. However, I think that noble Lords will find that the ministerial undertakings are couched in such a way as to satisfy the Select Committee.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that assurances are given by the Government and do not become void when the Minister changes.
Viscount Astor: What happens when there is a change of government? Surely they become void then.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: That is a long way away.
The Select Committee specifically looked at whether there should be wide powers. It concluded that, given the special problems posed by fireworks, it is
562
appropriate, subject to explanations as to how the powers were expected to be exercised. I shall give those explanations.
Some noble Lords have suggested that these powers are unprecedented. The fact is that when dealing with these technical issues it has been thought right to use wide secondary powers. The best example is the Consumer Protection Act 1987, introduced by the previous administration.
I now turn in a little more detail to the specific amendments. The amendments on Clause 1 concern the definition of "fireworks". The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot amend that definition. As noble Lords have pointed out, the powers in Clause 1(2) of the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of "fireworks" are also referred to in paragraph 7 of the Select Committee's report. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, asked for assurances. I am happy to confirm that this is indeed a power that we should expect to exercise only narrowly to make marginal adjustments to reflect the understanding at the time of what a firework is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not realise that that is so much—I was about to say waffle. It is meaningless. It has no legal protection or efficacy whatsoever.
Lord Haskel: I think assurances given by the Government carry a lot of protection.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Not at all.
Lord Haskel: As I said, I assure your Lordships that this power would be used only in the most restricted circumstances. Such circumstances would arise if it became clear that the definition of fireworks included in any future British standard was defective for UK legislative purposes, or new types of firework, perhaps with types of composition not catered for in the British standard, became available.
We need to ensure that the Bill can deal with new types of firework which may be developed in the future. Naturally, in exercising any such power we should be constrained by the need to stay within what the ordinary person would regard as a firework.
For the sake of clarity, let me tell the Committee what is the definition of "firework" in Clause 1. The definition, according to the current British standard, is:
"a device containing explosive composition which, upon functioning, will burn and/or explode to produce a visual or aural effect or a combination of such effects, intended as a form of entertainment".
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to give way. I note that the Bill quotes the date as 30th November 1988 when this British standard specification came in. I wonder whether, by way of illustration for the Committee, the noble Lord can say how many fireworks have been introduced in the 10-year period from then to now which would not have fitted into that definition. I think that most noble Lords would have a pretty good idea of what a firework was

563
if they saw one or heard it go bang, or whatever it may do. If we are unable to define a firework that simply, surely this definition will not fit the bill. If we can define a firework, then it is completely unnecessary.
Lord Haskel: I am unable to respond to the noble Lord's question. We shall have to do some research. I do not have that information in front of me.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, who raised the question of what is a firework, that it is also important that we can deal with devices such as birdscarers and marine flares, which can be misused if they fall into the wrong hands. A power is needed to adjust this aspect of the definition if it becomes apparent that there is loophole which can be exploited. It is this exploitation of loopholes which is the concern of the Government. I can assure the Committee again that the power will be used only in those circumstances.
It may also be helpful if I comment here on the similar powers to alter the definition of "explosives" in Clause 14(3), on which the Select Committee also commented. The Clause 14 powers arise because of our desire to be able to stay in step with the changes likely to be made to the Explosives Act 1875 under the powers given by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I believe that ultimately we should aim to replace the 1875 Act altogether. Explosives have changed somewhat in the past 120 years. Most of the provisions concern safety at work, but some involve issues of public safety which go beyond the 1974 Act. I can assure the Committee that the powers to amend that definition are there only to ensure that we have the same ability to respond to changes in the kind of explosives where we need such controls.
There is also a "technical" reason for the power. If the 1875 Act is replaced in due course by a single set of regulations with a single definition of "explosives" which re-enacts the definition in the 1875 Act, that definition will apply automatically for the purposes of the Bill. But if the single definition is a substantially modified one or, if there are several definitions, it may be unclear which definition applies to the Bill. As a result, we may need to amend the definition in the Bill to make sure that we have the right one for the Bill's limited purposes.
I hope that that explanation and the assurances I have given will he acceptable to Members of the Committee and that they will feel that these amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Rees: Before the Minister sits down, he has been courteous in referring to the points we have made, but he did not refer to the second point I made on the definition in and application of subsection (1)(b). I do not wish to weary the Committee, but it looks to me as though Clause 1(1) provides two alternative definitions, as devices which
"are fireworks for … the British Standard Specification … or",
in the alternative,
"would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment".
564
Perhaps I did not make the point with sufficient clarity. Perhaps the Minister could explain to me. It surely must be possible to have something closer than that. It cannot mean any device that is intended as a form of entertainment. Can the Minister reassure me and perhaps other Members of the Committee about the application of subsection (1)(b)?
Lord Haskel: I believe that the word "purposes" in subsection (1)(b) refers back to the purposes in subsection (1)(a), which says:
"for the purposes of the British Standard Specification relating to fireworks published on 30th November 1998 …"
Lord Rees: I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord the Minister. If the Minister reads the clause again slowly, he will see:
"(1) In this Act 'fireworks' means devices which—
"(a) are fireworks for the purposes of the British Standard Specification …"
That one can understand; "or", in the alternative,
"(b) would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment".
I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain what further limitation must be read into that to make certain that it does not apply to any device which is intended as a form of entertainment.
Lord Haskel: It is the same test as in the British Standard Specification. I read the definition contained in that specification to the noble Lord. The fireworks referred to in subsection (1)(b) have the same definition as those referred to in subsection (1)(a).
Viscount Astor: If subsection (1)(a) is the same as subsection (1)(b), why do we need both? Why can we not have just subsection (1)(a)?
Lord Gisborough: When I was young there used to be a little game where one would put a match into a matchbox and hold another match against it; you would light both and they stuck together. That was for entertainment. Would those be fireworks?
Lord Haskel: I am not an expert on these matters and I cannot respond to that question.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord the Minister be so good as to give us even a broad idea of what is included in the word "entertainment"? Should it not be defined in the Bill? In some kinds of legislation it is carefully defined. Here it is used in the broadest possible sense. I believe that there should be a definition.
Lord Haskel: I believe that the definition of entertainment is fairly well known and obvious.
Viscount Astor: I apologise for rising again. I believe that the Minister said that the definition in subsection (1)(b) is the same as that in subsection (1)(a). In that case, why do we need the two? The Minister would help

565
the Committee if he could explain the differences between subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) and what they refer to.
Lord Haskel: Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are not alternatives. "Fireworks" means devices within the definition in the British Standard and devices which would be fireworks if they were intended as a form of entertainment. Both of those things are fireworks as defined.
Lord Monkswell: It may be helpful if at this stage I intervene to try to wrap up this very interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, moved his amendment in an admirably brief way, and, bearing in mind the time constraints on the Committee stage, that was very good of him. We have had an interesting and useful debate. Members on the Opposition Benches have demonstrated the Committee at its best in raising issues of considerable public concern about the way in which we frame legislation. I shall try to offer some reassurances, as the promoter of the Bill in this place, as to the way it is envisaged the Bill will work.
I make particular reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who was very concerned about the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I would describe them in two ways. First, there are the Henry VIII provisions in Clauses 1 and 14. Secondly, the other regulation-making provisions are almost a straight copy from the Consumer Protection Act and are fairly usual and normal in the course of parliamentary procedure and deliberations on public Bills.
I believe that the reference to the Henry VIII provisions in Clauses 1 and 14 was appreciated by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and there was a recognition by that committee that fireworks are a special case. The very fact that we have the Bill in front of us is a testament to that. Previous legislation has not provided enough powers for Ministers to ensure absolute safety for the public in terms of the use of fireworks.
The provisions in Clauses 1 and 14 are tightly prescribed in terms of the Minister's ability, by regulation, to change the definition of "fireworks". For example, bird scarers may not be explosive in their make-up but they may make a loud bang. If they were used as forms of entertainment, they would come under Clause 1(b). Another factor is the ability to change the definition of "fireworks" if circumstances change. Bearing in mind that we are now part of the European Union, the British standard and subsequent amended versions of it will become a European standard. That definition of "fireworks" will become a European definition which may not be relevant for our specific UK situation. The provision gives the Government the power to amend the situation to cover that.
We received ministerial assurances which, as was pointed out, are government assurances. One hopes that they will satisfy the Committee. I am sure that they will satisfy the aspirations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
566
Perhaps I can make one final point. We have had an interesting debate in relation to these important issues. It is my intention, as the Committee stage progresses, to leave ministerial assurances, as requested by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, to the Minister. It is not in my power to give those assurances and there may be other amendments where I shall want to speak at greater length. Bearing in mind the assurances that were given and the explanation I attempted to give to Members of the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, will withdraw his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord sits down and my noble friend Lord Kimball responds, perhaps I can make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, talked of addressing the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I am not particularly interested in addressing those concerns. We need to address the concerns of the Committee itself.
We spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. But a number of Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to Amendment No. 13 as a second best if the noble Lord was not prepared to accept the proposal concerning subsection (2) which removes the first of the Henry VIII powers. Will the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, address the anxieties raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell and say whether he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 13. I say that in an attempt to expedite the business of the Committee bearing in mind the time constraints under which we are working.
Lord Monkswell: Amendment No. 13 was referred to, and there may seem to be a linkage. Bearing in mind that we have not debated that amendment specifically and that it has only been referred to in passing, I shall be arguing fairly strenuously against it and will give reasons for that. I had it in mind to wait until the debate on the amendment so that other Members of the Committee wishing to speak specifically to it could make a contribution. In that way, I would be able to respond more sensibly instead of having two separate debates. That would be more logical.
Lord Kimball: I do not want to be ungrateful or discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who attempted to wind up the debate. However, I must say clearly and categorically that he gave the Committee no proper form of assurance in response to the points raised by Members of the Committee on my left.
This is an extremely serious matter and one we shall have to pursue at Report stage. There was one moment when I thought that we were going to make some progress. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, used the words,
"amend the definition in the Bill".
I sincerely hope that that was a categorical undertaking and that when he returns at Report stage the definitions referred to in Amendment No. 1 will be clearly written into the Bill.

567
I am distressed by the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He comes here and says, "I shall be guided by the Government." This Bill has nothing to do with the Government; I do not know what he is talking about. This is a private Member's Bill that went through the other place. It was the idea of a private Member who was concerned about the dealings with fireworks. The noble Lord says that it is a government Bill; that is not true. The truth is that it is a private Member's Bill and it is up to the noble Lord to make up his own mind about it.
Lord Monkswell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for giving way. If I gave the impression that I was taking instructions from the Government, I utterly withdraw it. That is not the situation.
My point was that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had advised us to consider that in certain measure government assurances about the way the Bill would be implemented should be satisfactory. The point I made earlier was that, where it was applicable for the Minister to give those assurances, it would not be for me to speak at length on assurances that I could give as a sponsor of this private Member's measure and I shall probably speak briefly. It was not my intention to convey to the Committee that I am taking instructions from the Government on this or—dare I say?—on any other measure.
Lord Kimball: I accept the noble Lord's interpretation and we fully understand it. However, he gave the impression that it was a government Bill, which it certainly is not.
It is perfectly clear that we shall have to return to both these amendments on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but give notice that we shall see these matters again at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to make regulations about fireworks]:
Lord Kimballmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("any provision which") and insert ("such provision under this Act as").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will speed up the process by telling us that he is prepared to accept it. With that in mind, I shall speak to it briefly.
The amendment aims to keep any provisions closely tied to the spirit and intent of the Bill in order for it to continue to successfully secure its purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I must make clear that while the wording of the clause provides basic powers, there is no intention that those powers shall be used in trivial circumstances. The fact that the consultation process is a statutory one, that the Government are expected to publish four regulatory appraisals before making new regulations, and that regulations have to pass the
568
scrutiny committee's procedures and the possibility of a negative resolution debate, means that we simply will not be able to use these powers for trivial reasons.
I thank my noble friend Lord Monkswell for accepting the assurances of the Government. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite will also accept our assurances in which case the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Henley: This is a small amendment. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will say, but I cannot understand why the Government want to resist it.
The words "any provision which" are rather wide and, as my noble friend suggests, it may be more appropriate to limit it to,
"such provision under this Act as",
which appropriately limits what the Secretary of State can do.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may suggest a quite significant reason for the Committee rejecting this amendment. If it were passed, as I understand it, it would suggest that the only regulations that the Minister could promulgate were those that were directly related to firework safety. That would be the way in which it would be construed, I suspect, by the judiciary.
The concern I have is that there are what one might describe as ancillary provisions which might not be specifically to do with safety. I think in terms of the insurance provision to be found later on, where the fact that somebody has insurance does not make things any safer. That is the risk of amending the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has suggested. Therefore, I would strenuously ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rees: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has alarmed me hugely. It is only amendments to the Bill that relate in the broad sense and one would think that in the broad sense questions of fireworks safety would be permissible. It seems from the noble Lord's intervention, that, for example, matters of insurance law come into this. I agree there is a reference to insurance but it is insurance only in so far as it relates to providing some kind of, presumably, financial compensation for those who might be affected by a firework going off in their face, or something like that.
It is not enough to say, "That is not firework safety", but it is; and it should be; and it rightly should be. I have always understood, having looked at the Bill, that it is primarily directed at the safety of people exposed to fireworks. If the noble Lord, no doubt supported by his noble friend the Minister, says that there are other matters and that the department has to consider the broad spectrum, we ought to be told in a little more detail what kind of matters, although not directly concerned with fireworks safety, are likely to be covered by Clause 2 if not amended in the way in which my noble friend suggests.
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may go further than my noble friend Lord Rees. The noble Lord,

569
Lord Monkswell, used the example of insurance. My understanding is that that would be covered by the amendment. My noble friend Lord Kimball's amendment uses the words,
"such provision under this Act"
but insurance is a provision under this Bill so it would be covered.
The question is which provision outside this Bill might be used that we do not know about? The example of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has made my noble friend's point for him.
Lord Monkswell: I apologise if I have misled the Committee in referring to insurance. My understanding is that the amendment is not necessary in terms of the structure of the Bill. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Kimball: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has not satisfied the concerns which lie behind the amendment. At this stage in our proceedings I think the proper thing for me to do is to take the amendment away and consider the matter again but I must give the noble Lord notice that our concerns have not in any way been laid to rest and we shall wish to return to this amendment on Report. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kimballmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("no risk, or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a delicate subject, perhaps the most delicate area of the Bill. It seeks to remove the superfluous "no risk" which is at the moment written into the Bill. The words "no risk" conflict with the minimum risk in this case. Furthermore, it is not reasonable that any activity can be seen as completely free of risk, least of all when considering the safe use of fireworks.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: The effect of the amendment would be to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations only to reduce the risk from the use of fireworks, but not to eliminate it altogether. This would in turn arguably deprive the Secretary of State of the power to make regulations prohibiting completely the supply, purchase, possession or use of very dangerous fireworks. I do not believe that this is desirable. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lord. I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor: If one follows the logic of this argument one could say that on that basis the Secretary of State could claim that any firework was a risk. After all, a sparkler might be a risk if you do the wrong thing. Following that analogy, the power could be used to remove fireworks totally from this country.
Lord Haskel: Perhaps I may remind the noble Viscount of what I said previously. I must make it clear
570
that there is no intention that the power should be used in trivial circumstances. What the noble Viscount has described I would consider trivial circumstances.
Viscount Astor: What is "trivial"? "Trivial" is not in the Bill. We are attempting in this Committee to pass a Bill that might become an Act and could become law. I defer on the legal points to my noble friends on my left. I cannot believe that we can gallop through this in this extraordinary manner by the Minister saying, "Do not worry, we will decide what to do in the future". I do not think this is what Parliament or the Committee stage is for.
Lord Renton: If fireworks are used safely then there is only a minimal risk. There is no need to say also that they are used safely when there is no risk. It is a very small drafting point, but it seems to me that the words "no risk, or" are, from a purely drafting point of view, unnecessary.
Lord Gisborough: If the Secretary of State failed to ban, for example, sparklers, and a sparkler committed damage to somebody, would there not be a case against the Secretary of State for damages because there had been a risk and he was under an obligation to deal with it because he is not allowed to have any risk?
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene. It seems to me that a number of noble Lords are contributing who were not present for the Second Reading debate when it was made clear by me, as a sponsor of the Bill, repeating assurances given by the honourable Member who introduced this Private Member's Bill in the other place, that it was not part of our aim to restrict people's enjoyment of fireworks. Our primary concern relates to dangerous fireworks. One of the salient points about the Bill is that it seeks to ensure that we get some training provision in the use of particularly dangerous fireworks.
I hope that we shall hear no more about the Government planning to ban sparklers. This is not part of the agenda at all.
Lord Henley: The reason we are going through the Committee stage in this manner is that many noble Lords, whether or not they took part in the Second Reading debate—as noble Lords will be aware, I did take part in the Second Reading debate—have considerable concerns about the drafting of the Bill. That is why my noble friend is moving amendments of this kind. We are worried about the powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State. A Secretary of State who has a slightly different attitude to fireworks from that of the noble Lord could take things a lot further than the noble Lord or the Minister has suggested.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may make two points in response. Yes, it is important that we scrutinise the Bill carefully, but the assurances given by the sponsor of the Bill in the other place and by myself were reiterated by the Minister in the other place and by the Front Bench spokesman at Second Reading.

571
With regard to the amendment, I must repeat the point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench because I fear that the amendment would result in a lack of clarity. There is a risk of judicial review striking down some of the provisions which the Secretary of State might make which were specific rather than merely tending to reduce the risk. That is our concern. What may appear to be a simple drafting amendment may turn out to have unwarranted consequential effects.
Lord Mancroft: I was not present at Second Reading, but I have read the report of the Second Reading debate carefully, and particularly the noble Lord's speech. Indeed, it would have been wrong to speak today in Committee without having done so.
I should very much like to see the Bill on the statute book but, as we have gone through this Committee stage—it seems like a lifetime—it has become increasingly clear to me that the Bill is a frightful muddle. I believe that that is clear to the Committee as a whole. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said about this small amendment relating to the words "no risk" and why they should or should not be in the Bill. I also listened carefully to what the noble Lord on the Front Bench said but, from where I am sitting, the explanations do not make any sense at all. I am concerned because it is just not possible to use fireworks with "no risk" at all. Leaving the Bill as it stands puts the enjoyment of fireworks—the other side of the coin—itself at risk. It would be virtually impossible to have a firework party without any risk.
We need to try to strike a balance because, if we do not achieve a balance in the Bill, it cannot get onto the statute book. We must find that middle road. During the past few minutes, it has become increasingly clear that the Bill is not correctly drafted and that it cannot go forward onto the statute book in this state. I refer not so much to what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said—I could understand and see what he was getting at—but to the explanation for not accepting the amendment which came from his noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall read the noble Lord's words carefully tomorrow in Hansard, but to me they were absolutely illogical. I simply could not see what he was getting at. It seems to me that the amendment improves the Bill, which is what we are after.
Lord Kimball: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was kind enough to say that, in moving these amendments, we have done everything possible to facilitate the passage of the Bill. We have moved them all briskly. However, we are now running out of the time allocated to us and we have managed to cover only four amendments. That emphasises the genuine concern on this side of the Committee and the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to accept any of our amendments. We shall have to return to this but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Boardmanmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("or distress").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It deals with a small point, but I must remind the Committee that it comes against the background to the Bill that we debated earlier. The Secretary of State may make regulations and those regulations may impose almost any penalty for almost any conduct relating to anything which might be even remotely connected to fireworks or whatever other objects are referred to as "like fireworks". The penalties can amount to six months' imprisonment. Although my amendment is small, it must be viewed against the larger implications of the Bill.
The amendment seeks to leave out the words "or distress" from Clause 2. It relates to distress caused to animals. I accept, of course, that anything that causes the death of, or injury to, an animal, is to be deplored. It is right that the Secretary of State should make regulations about that. However, distress is a different matter. "Distress" cannot easily be defined. Many animals suffer distress when fireworks go off or, indeed, when there are bangs from whatever cause. Anyone who has any care for animals ensures that on those occasions when they know that fireworks will be let off, such as 5th November, animals are brought indoors. I have a dog that goes under the table and I make sure that the curtains are drawn. I agree that the animals are not entirely happy at the time although they are fine afterwards. However, it would be wrong to make holding a firework party a criminal offence. It would enable animal rights campaigners to require prosecutions to be brought against anyone with a dog in such circumstances.
In the village where I live, the Bill, if unamended, would mean that it would be impossible to have any fireworks parties at any time, including on 5th November, because of the danger that some dogs, including one of mine, could be said to have suffered "distress". The passing of this provision would mean that firework displays would be banned and that a dog owner would suffer the possibility of severe penalties which, although ill defined in this Bill and left to regulations, could include six months' imprisonment. I hope that the words "or distress" can be struck from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I rise briefly to offer my support to the amendment. The words "or distress" go too far. Indeed, it is not clear what the phrase might mean. It might be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who has been offering a degree of legal advice to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, might be able to offer some advice either directly to the Committee or indirectly through the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about what the words "or distress" mean and whether there have been any previous court decisions, either in this country or north of the Border, which can guide us about how the courts might interpret those words. I did not like them when

573
I read them in the Bill because I believe that they go too far. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will be prepared to accept at least this amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I can address this amendment briefly. One of the flaws, if I may put it like that, of current consumer safety legislation is that the distress caused to animals, or the issue of their welfare, cannot be taken into account. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will recognise that that flaw needs to be rectified.
Perhaps I may give the Committee one example of "distress" which falls short of death or injury to an animal. I refer to spontaneous abortions by sheep as a result of the antisocial use of fireworks. Although that may not cause injury to the sheep, I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that spontaneous abortions result from distress suffered by the animal and that that should be prevented wherever possible. I remind the Committee that the aim of this Bill is not to constrain the legitimate and sensible use of fireworks; it is to prevent their antisocial and wrong use.
Lord Annaly: I was not present for the Second Reading, but I feel bound to say something now in support of this amendment. Perhaps I may quote an example from my village. A firework party is held on 5th November just behind the yard in which I keep some ponies. I tend to move the ponies into the stable when I am tipped the wink that there will be a firework party because, inevitably, they are on edge. But should I not be there, are the people holding the firework party at fault if my ponies move around the yard, become nervous and get up a sweat? Would it be classed that the animals are "in distress"? Some people might argue that they would be. Perhaps I may refer to the example which the noble Lord used about abortions in sheep. Because his sheep abort somewhere around 5th November when fireworks are going off, a farmer may blame it on the people holding the firework party. I do not see how one can prove that unless the fireworks are being let off in the field where the sheep are. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that any lawyer would say that these words should not be in the Bill. The noble Lord ought to take that on board and agree to the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Lord makes my case. Responsible people will let their neighbours know when firework displays are to take place so that the animals can be looked after.
Lord Boardman: Can the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, say what would happen to the sheep which are due to lamb and are in danger? Will one have to take them in doors and shut them up?
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord did not accept this amendment, which is very small, reasonable and essential, particularly as so many of the penalties in the Bill are so onerous and unfair. I take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, as regards an earlier amendment. I am sure that we shall have to come back to this matter again on Report. That being noted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: Clearly, this is a matter to which the House will have to return in Committee. I am still confused about the ewe which is tupped in the third week of October and there is a spontaneous abortion on 5th November. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

School Standards and Framework Bill
9.2 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and shall he subject to approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a second opportunity that the Government will have to respond positively to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It refers now to the procedure which will be used for placing the regulations on the statute book. It is my view that this is a very important recommendation and that, given the Government's attitude to the first recommendation, they will accept it.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness how important it has been to have the draft regulations for these measures before the House as we discuss these items tonight. We have had not only the draft regulations but also the guidance. We have been able to pick over the small print of what the Government intend. It would be very nice if that could be replicated in other parts of the Bill, particularly as regards the areas I referred to in my letter to the noble Baroness on 9th April.
Nevertheless, even with the draft regulations one or two questions arise. In the debate that we had before dinner not only the noble Baroness, but her colleagues, in answer to questions, referred to the 31st child being a child with special educational needs. I referred to one without those needs who may come in during the course of the year and outside the admissions arrangement. The reference both in the guidance and in the draft regulations suggests that such a child will be accepted as an exception. The noble Baroness answered the question as though it would not be accepted as an exception. That referred to SEN children, but not to those without such needs. I want confirmation that that is the case and that such children will be deemed as an exception. The only reason they are exceptions is the class size pledge.
In other words, the reason they become exceptional in any situation is the imposition of the class size pledge. Do they benefit from costs incurred even though, as the noble Baroness explained, it will be only for the remainder of the academic year when the

575
children have to be taken into the LEA's plan? These are children who could not be planned for. Will they be taken into the legitimate area of expenditure which is incurred directly as a result of the imposition of the class size pledge? I cannot see any answer other than that they must be as regards the three exceptions referred to in the regulations. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness can confirm that.
I was interested in reading again the committee's report. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting it. It suggests that the figure of 30 children maximum for a class should be on the face of the Bill because of the unequivocal nature of the pledge itself and because almost everything else flows from it. But the committee says that it is not an either/or situation because it adds also that the committee should think about making sure that these regulations come before the Bill using the affirmative resolution procedure. I not only hope but rather expect the noble Baroness to respond positively to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: This amendment, like Amendments Nos. 2 and 247, which we discussed earlier, reflects the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which reported on the Bill at the end of last week. As I indicated in the debate on those amendments, the Government have noted the committee's report. We are in discussion with our legal advisers about the necessary amendments to the Bill. We accept the principle behind the committee's recommendations and we want to respond as positively as we can with government amendments at Report stage. We need to reflect on some of the practical issues that might affect the implementation of this key policy on class size. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will understand that, having only recently received the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, we have not yet had time to look at these matters in detail and discuss them with our legal advisers. We will take this away and think very carefully about it, as we said when discussing two earlier amendments. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness asked particularly about SEN pupils. There is a difference between exceptional situations where the class may exceed 31 for a short period, which we believe is possible for pupils with special educational needs, and the situation in rural schools—of which the noble Baroness makes quite a lot—where the 31st child will trigger the funding for an extra teacher and situations where the class size limit will not be exceeded. I believe that that is a rather different situation from one where there is the temporary addition of a 31st child as a result of an allocation for a child with special educational needs. That situation would not be allowed to go beyond the school year in which the allocation had been made.
Baroness Blatch: I find that an extraordinarily disappointing answer. The 31st child will in many situations be there only for that academic year. I have said time and again that in rural schools very often the class size is broken simply for the purposes of one
576
academic year. The next year one family moves out and another family moves in. The answer provided by the Minister in relation to children of military families was breathtaking. I spent most of my earlier life as a military wife. At this moment my daughter is a military officer in the Royal Air Force. If like me the noble Baroness had been governor of a school that took in a very large number of children from military families she would know that the number of movements in and movements out, to use the educational jargon, was phenomenally higher than at any other school. Those schools always try to make the case to their local education authorities for extra funding to meet the requirement to take children mid-term and mid-academic year. There is difficulty in taking children in at different ages without the follow-through material and information from previous schools; or it may arrive too late and therefore a much longer period of assessment is required. There are many children who do not see through the whole of their academic lives in any one school. There are many military establishments around the country where the movement of children in and out exceeds the normal movement of children in and out. It is not true that they can be set aside as not being material to this debate or because the noble Baroness believes that all of them neatly come in at the beginning and neatly move out at the end of an academic year. Some families go to great lengths to ensure that the children see through the term, and wives do not follow their husbands. They do so at great cost to themselves and their families. If they are moving into a village where the children are to attend a local school at home the chances are that they will come in mid-term. It is extraordinary that a child with special educational needs or a child who comes in mid-academic year does not trigger the money pledged on the basis of class-size, but that a child who busts the number because of denominational preference or parental preference, or where the distance between two schools is too great, does so. Why should the local education authority pay for a policy that is to be imposed upon it by the Government? Are these children to be taught in classes of 31 without an extra teacher while a school next door that takes in the 31st child gets an extra teacher? It does not make any sense.
I am extremely disappointed by the answer to my second question. I am also very distressed by the answer to my first question. I do not believe that it takes more than a few minutes to determine whether or not this is an important set of regulations. Given the way that this House considers such matters, I believe that this is a very important set of regulations, particularly as any breach of them when they are on the statute book will mean that a local education authority can be taken to court by an aggrieved parent or that the Secretary of State for Education can issue a direction to an authority and/or school, or both. Therefore, the consequences of the imposition of this policy can be very serious indeed. It is not for officials or councils but for Ministers to decide whether or not they believe the affirmative resolution procedure to be acceptable and appropriate.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has reported. Its view is that consideration should be given to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe

577
that we should do that. When we on these Benches sat on the opposite side of the Chamber we accepted every single recommendation—sometimes under pressure from noble Lords on the opposite side—of the scrutiny committee from its inception right up until leaving office. On a number of occasions, the Leader of the House has reminded us that we should have respect for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its work and that the House should regard it as an obligation to accede to its recommendations.
I am disappointed with the Minister's answer and I shall return with the amendments at the next stage of the Bill unless the Government bring them forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Plans by LEAs for reducing infant class sizes]:
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 18, after ("information") insert ("in such form").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I shall move Amendment No. 12 and speak to Amendment No. 13. The proposal is his phraseology, not mine. He considers the words to be inelegant and hopes that the Government agree that his suggestions are an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, came to see officials in the department, I understand that he is offering the amendments as a constructive proposal. I am happy to consider them in that spirit. We do not believe that they make a great deal of difference to the effect of the clause. The wording may be an improvement, but we must ensure consistency with similar references elsewhere.
I should be happy to take advice on the amendments and introduce them or similar government amendments on Report, or write to the noble Lord, with a copy to the noble Baroness, explaining why we do not believe them to be necessary to achieve the purpose set out. In that case, he can decide to return to them on Report. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw them.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the agreement that my noble friend Lord Lucas can return to them at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not approve any statement prepared by a local education authority under this section which envisages an increase in the average size of classes in junior schools or secondary schools in that authority's area over the level prevailing in the same area in 1997.").
578
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. As noble Lords opposite realise, we agree with their noble intentions. But there is an old Irish story that you never say in confession that you stole a rope, forgetting to say that there was a horse on the end of it. The consequences of this Bill are not always realised.
I do not know which of the trio of heads will answer—is it a gorgon?—but I am not frightened. It is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who was most generous. I wish to pin him down about the way in which Her Majesty's Government will support all the consequences of taking the rope and not mentioning the horse. We have isolated certain issues because governments can be not dishonest but careless and at times the Treasury can be over-powerful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have assured us that there will be no problem in relation to the subject of Amendment No. 14. Since Ministers' words are now in law absolute in this House, I hope that the noble Lord will assure us that there will be no increase in the average size of classes in junior or secondary schools. Although I admire the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in many ways, he has not run schools. They do not run as neatly as he says. The fact is that if classes are reduced in one section there is no guarantee that they can be reduced in another. The first amendment builds on the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for which I admire him—they are written on my heart and on those of many other people—that there will be no danger of increasing the size of classes in junior schools.
Now we have a problem. The noble Baroness wishes to enhance travelling. I agree that she entered a greater note of caution than did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I wish to have on the record whether there will be any problem in respect of travelling. The right reverend Prelate pointed out that some people who go to Church schools are not Christian. It is up to the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues to sort that out. However, it might be that a devout Catholic and a devout Anglican must travel 20 miles to find a Church school, as is the case in my part of the country. I am assuming that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would not require that of a devout person who wished to attend a school of his parents' faith. Again, I ask for assurances.
The third matter relates to accommodation provided. At times, Her Majesty's Treasury is careful with its money. Members of the Committee opposite will know that some temporary classrooms have lasted for 20 years. I gather from assurances given that this will not be a cheap Bill. The Government are putting in £40 million and they are prepared to put in resources to ensure that their pledges are met. Therefore, it is not wrong for us to ask for those assurances which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, almost gave before. However, I should like just to see the commas marked and the full stops.
These are exploring amendments. I do not like this clause, which I shall speak against. However, my main purpose in tabling these amendments is to seek an

579
assurance from the Government, which would stand up in court, that their heart is where their money is or more particularly, that their money is where their heart is. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will give me every satisfaction. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made reference to Church schools, perhaps I may comment on what he said. The Church of England is in the education system in order to share in the total provision of education rather than in order to make provision for particular denominational members. Therefore, the basis on which we participate is quite different from that of the Roman Catholic Church. That is perhaps not always understood. In the light of the noble Lord's comment on my reference to those who may not be Christians but who nevertheless wish to attend a Church school, that needs to be made clear.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may ask the right reverend Prelate a question because although I am a priest of the Church of England, I was speaking for the nation in general. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church shares the view which the right reverend Prelate put forward. I believe that it holds a stronger view. I ask the right reverend Prelate that because no Roman Catholic Bishop is present. I believe that the right reverend Prelate has joined in discussions with that Church.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Roman Catholic Church holds a different view because it believes that it is making denominational provision for Roman Catholic Church members. Many Church of England schools are rural schools in tiny communities which serve the whole community. Therefore, they do not have a basis of denominational membership for attendance.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I recognise the position of the Roman Catholic Church in that situation. In the absence of anyone speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, its position should be borne in mind. The right reverend Prelate is speaking in a different sense. My noble friends have spoken of the problems of denomination and that should be borne in mind on the Government Front Bench.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should start by warning the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, against a trap into which I have fallen too often, although not today; that is, irony. It does not work very well in this Chamber. It reads quite differently in Hansard. What he meant ironically will undoubtedly appear as wholehearted support for the position of this Government and remarks that I have made in particular. I do not say ironically that I find these amendments not so extraordinary in themselves but I find their provenance extraordinary.
I find it extraordinary that a Front Bench who were in government for 18 years, in the course of only the past 10 years of which the average primary class size rose from 25.4 to 27.5 and the average secondary class size rose from 20.3 to 21.7, should now put on that guise
580
of concern for primary school class sizes. I find it extraordinary that a government who, over a period of 18 years, did nothing effectively—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: The amendment that we are discussing is not about primary school class sizes; it is about the effect that these proposals will have upon them. I admire the noble Lord's picture of the record of the past and its history. However, I do wish that he would speak to the amendment about the effect of the proposals on future class sizes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall of course speak to the amendment and do so directly. However, I am allowed to make a few comments on the provenance of the amendment which I find suspect.
As regards Amendment No. 16, I find it extraordinary that a government who held office for 18 years and left temporary accommodation, mobile classrooms, outside toilets and a grotesque deterioration in the physical condition of our schools, both primary and secondary, should now be expressing such concern for the physical condition of schools as a result of the improvements in standards that we propose.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 would all require the Secretary of State to deny approval to LEA statements in specific circumstances. I believe that the amendments are unnecessary, but I will deal with each of them in turn. The first is Amendment No. 14. I want to make it clear, as did my noble friend Lord Whitty, that we do not intend to fund reductions in infant class sizes by allowing class sizes to rise in other key stages. We make specific reference to key stage 2 classes in the draft regulations and guidance that we have issued for consultation. In guidance, we state that,
"plans will not be approved that show reductions in infant class sizes being achieved at the cost of increases in Key Stage 2 class sizes"—
to an old fashioned person like me, that is junior—
"arising from a transfer of funding from junior to infant classes".
To put an amendment such as that proposed on the face of the Bill would stop the implementation of plans to reduce infant class sizes if there were unconnected developments in junior or secondary classes that might lead to small increases in those later key stages.
Perhaps I may stress that we do not envisage class sizes rising from January 1998 levels—and I am deliberately saying 1998 rather than 1997, as class sizes in January 1998 will have been the result of the spending plans of the previous administration. We are providing extra funding for schools (£835 million extra for schools in England this year) which should bring down, or at the least keep down, class sizes at all key stages.
The amendment would impose unnecessary restrictions upon the Secretary of State's consideration of LEAs' plans. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will feel able to withdraw it.
We support the principle behind Amendment No. 15. We are aware that children in rural areas may only have one school within reasonable distance. It is important that they should therefore be able to attend that school. Indeed, Mr. Stephen Byers, the Minister for School

581
Standards, has made it clear that children should not have to travel an unreasonable distance to school as a result of our pledge to reduce infant class sizes.
However, I am unable to support the amendment, in part, because I consider it unnecessary but, more importantly, because I do not think that it could be effective. The statements that LEAs have to produce will be quite detailed documents. I feel that LEAs would consider it more than a little unreasonable were we to ask them, as the amendment would require, to set out the travel arrangements of every infant pupil. I therefore do not think that the amendment could achieve what it is intended to deliver. I believe that we can, without such an amendment, ensure that children will not have to travel an unreasonable distance to school. Funds will be provided for an extra teacher—and, where necessary, for an extra classroom—when a child has only one school within reasonable distance and could not otherwise be admitted without an infant class exceeding the limit of 30. Our draft regulations make it clear that LEAs will have to provide information on how they will be handling such instances.
It is upon this broad level of the approach that an LEA intends to take that we should focus our attention. We can ensure that each LEA is adopting an approach that is suited to the demands of that particular area—and can pay particular attention to those areas where rural schools play an important role.
As regards Amendment No. 16, I shall explain why we do not require this amendment, but I must express some disappointment that the Opposition have raised this issue. As I said, under the previous government, schools suffered badly from under-investment in schools capital. This has led to mobile classrooms being used for extended periods, as well as many other unacceptable aspects of recent school life, such as leaking roofs and outside toilets.
Through the New Deal for schools, we are investing extra money in schools capital. A significant part of the first tranche of New Deal funding was directed at replacing old mobile classrooms with permanent structures. The Chancellor's Budget Statement provided an extra £90 million of capital to update boilers, to replace outside toilets and to provide extra classrooms for more, smaller infant classes. Our letter to LEAs wishing to apply for the class size capital funds makes it clear that their plans will have to be for permanent classrooms not mobile classrooms. The guidance we sent out states that,
"Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted."
We are putting additional money into allowing schools to undertake real improvements, expansions or adaptations to allow them to accommodate more, smaller infant classes. We can control the use of mobile classrooms more effectively—
Baroness Byford: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister when he is in full flow. He condemned the previous government's history—if you like—as regards temporary accommodation. I assume therefore that any
582
new provision that will be made for these extra places which we have discussed today will definitely not be in temporary accommodation but will be in permanent buildings built of bricks and mortar.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have just said that our letter to local education authorities wishing to apply for the class size capital funds makes it clear that their plans will have to be for permanent classrooms, not mobile classrooms. As I have already quoted, the guidance we sent out states that,
"Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted".
I hope that that answers the point the noble Baroness has just made.
Baroness Byford: The Minister must forgive me, but it is obvious that over the years some schools have found it useful to erect temporary accommodation. However, now the Government are saying that it will not be possible to do that in the future. That is the point I am trying to make.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must be precise about this. We are saying that applications for funding for the purpose of reducing infant class sizes which rely on the use of mobile classrooms will not be accepted. As regards all the amendments we are discussing, it is more effective to control the funding than to introduce such amendments on the face of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that point and will wish to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Young: I wish to press the noble Lord further on the point about not having temporary buildings. I have no doubt that, when he says that so confidently, that is precisely what he means. However, I wonder about the reality of that in practice. If a class size is to rise by three, is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that a local authority will build permanent accommodation for three extra children in a class? I do not have the relevant figures in front of me but anyone who knows anything about school buildings knows that to build a permanent classroom is an expensive proposition. It would be exceptionally expensive if the three children were to leave the school the following year because they were temporary pupils.
I do not wish to cast doubt on what the noble Lord says, but I wonder whether it constitutes a sensible use of government and local authority expenditure. Like the noble Lord I am not a particular supporter of temporary accommodation as I have seen too much of it in my life. If I may say so, his remarks about what the Conservative government provided were in many cases quite unjust. I remember quite clearly in 1979, when I was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, we inherited a situation which everyone has, of course, now forgotten. The IMF had intervened and told the government they had to cut down on expenditure. Public buildings, in particular schools and hospitals, suffered from those cuts. We inherited a situation in which little had been done for years. In fact, we poured money into

583
schools to make them better. It may not have been perfect. Noble Lords may take an intake of breath, but the figures speak for themselves every year.
All that I am saying now is that I have been chairman of an education committee. I agree that it was some time ago and things may be quite different now, but to say that you will always have a permanent building when there are perhaps two or three extra children in the class is something I find very surprising. It is something which needs to be considered very carefully.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose it is my fault. I referred back to the record of the previous government, and I can quite understand why noble Lords opposite are very sensitive about it. However, if we were to go into the matter the record would show that the shortfall, the deficit, in the necessary provision for school buildings which the previous government left in 1997 vastly outweighs any shortfall which the previous government found in 1979.
For the third time, therefore, perhaps I may repeat what I said about the particular issue which we are debating at the moment. It is the issue of how to reduce infant class sizes to 30. What I said was,
"Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted".
Of course, it is not the case that we can remove mobile classrooms from all of our schools immediately. Nobody said that. I did not say that, and nobody in government has said that. We recognise that it may be the economical and sensible thing to do when there are changes up and down in school populations in individual schools or, indeed, in local education authorities. Anyone who has been concerned with education locally knows that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right about that.
Our undertaking related to applications concerned with the reduction in infant class sizes. It relates specifically to those applications.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend responds to the amendment, will the noble Lord not agree that in 1979 there were actually classes of over 40 and many, many classes of over 35? Would the noble Lord also not agree—and the information bears it out—that more money was spent per pupil when we left office than when we arrived in office?
Indeed, if one looks across the country as a whole and compares, for example, the Inner London Education Authority, with which the noble Lord is very familiar, with my own shire county, which is Cambridgeshire, with which I am very familiar, we have a very good rolling programme of capital spending. It was managed very well and our school stock is in pretty good order. That goes for many well-managed local education authorities. There are other poorly-managed local education authorities where the stock is pretty awful. Therefore, it is not just about money; it is actually about the management of the authority and the degree to which priorities are considered year on year.
584
What the noble Lord said about the previous government does not raise any sensitivities with us. We are rather proud of what we achieved in many of our local education authorities with money provided for by government and by the local taxpayer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear it. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will now return to the amendments.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: The noble Lord interprets kindness as ironies. It is rather sad. I was impressed that with a policy which has many ramifications a Minister on the Front Bench was prepared to guarantee more than I had expected. My noble friend said that the noble Lord was making a ministerial statement with the authority of the Government behind it. He stated that the problems which could occur from class sizes could be resolved. There was no irony in my remarks. I hoped that the Minister was right. I hope that he can resolve the problems. I thought that his ministerial colleague, the Minister of State, was a little more cautious. I shall read Hansard tomorrow.
I think that there will be problems about class sizes. That is why I put down the amendments. I think that there will be problems about Roman Catholic schools. There is strong passion for attending denominational schools. There will be problems about travelling, as I know from my home county of Somerset. I have experienced that in an anecdotal way. There will be problems about buildings. I believe also that there will be problems about the slight overlap. The Government have made promises which they may find hard to fulfil.
I shall withdraw the amendment. But there was no irony in my approach. The smile belied the tiger, I think. However, we shall return to the issue. The Government have promised more than they can give. On this side of the Chamber, we shall hold them to every dot and tittle of the promises they have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I oppose the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. At the outset let me make it clear that we have sought to do some mental arithmetic on how much the policy will cost. We now have an additional aspect to what I call the McIntosh formula: that even the buildings that will be built will be permanent.
I wish to echo a point made by my noble friend. I believe that the Government may rue the day. I remember when there was a policy to move large numbers of people out of the cities, in particular out of London, into greenfield sites in Middle England. The temptation was to build large numbers of primary and secondary schools in order to accommodate a large

585
influx of families with children. But about 15 years later it was discovered that, as the population settled down, there were too many schools. Therefore one had to take out those schools. With hindsight, one would say that we overbuilt those schools at that time in many of the shire counties with that movement of people from the cities into the countryside.
Something similar will happen in this situation. But this is a more fluid policy. It is a policy in perpetuity. Every year local authorities will have to present minutiae of detail to the Government. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say, "We don't want to be involved with little Johnnie X who has to travel an unreasonable distance to an alternative school". The truth is that if the Government are to carry out that policy, that is precisely what they will have to do. If that work is taken away from the local authorities which should be undertaking it, the Government will have to get involved in the minutiae. In order for the local authorities to trigger the money which will come from heaven (if I may so describe the Treasury in this case) they will have to make out the case that X-number of children are travelling unreasonable distances; X-number of children are making denominational preferences which cannot be met; and X-number of parents are losing their preferences. According to the guidance and the regulations, there is a responsibility to the local authorities to enhance parental choice, not simply to sustain it. There is also a movement of SEN children.
This is a very fluid policy indeed. If all of that is to be rigidly met by 2001, it will be necessary to erect buildings for very small numbers of children. If, for the 31st, 32nd, 33rd or 34th child, the alternative to a particular school is an unreasonable distance, or there is no denominational alternative, then that child will go to that school. If there is not another classroom for such children, then one will need to be provided. I suggest that some of the mobile classrooms in today's world are excellent; they have changed out of all recognition. A sensible local authority would have a quota of high-quality, very mobile classrooms which it could move into place to resolve the issues of the day, and to prevent a challenge in the courts, in order to meet its obligations under this policy.
My first point is this. If money is to be made available to provide an extra teacher for one child, to provide brick buildings for a small overflow of children, to provide for keeping class sizes down wherever and whenever it is necessary, to meet all the capital and revenue costs, and to cover the bureaucracy—as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this information will need to be planned, recorded and submitted to the Government for them to crawl all over and approve or disapprove, as is their wont—that will be a considerable sum of money. My plea is for that money to be made available directly to local authorities and to the schools themselves. They would make good use of it. I still trust them, in that their priority, particularly in primary schools, would be to make sure that that money was applied to the education of the youngest children. I would trust them to use it in that way. Instead, we
586
have a bureaucratic proposition and a very cumbersome system in which the DfEE would run everything from London.
For that reason, the proposal is fraught with practical problems. It pre-empts the budgets for schools and local education authorities. As I said, though measures are desirable, so far as I and my colleagues are concerned, teacher quality is the key to good teaching. A less than adequate teacher teaching 20 children will do more damage than a highly competent teacher teaching 31. That is the issue that we should be examining. I can promise that, over a very short space of time, when the one-off payment of windfall money has run out, this money will be top-sliced from education budgets, and there will be less money for other priorities.
The Government have given no definition of "reasonable distance". I therefore ask the Minister to do so in replying. No definition has been supplied for "poor schools". I asked a question earlier which has not been answered; namely, do we mean "poor schools"—and, if so, what is the definition? Or do we mean where a parent makes a choice and, for one reason or another, that choice is denied and the child is sent to a school down the road, if the school down the road is poorer than that school, rather than being a "poor school"—in other words, its achievements are not as high and it is not as popular—is that parent given the right under the law to challenge the local education authority or to challenge the Secretary of State? It seems to me important to have the Government's response on the record.
The Government have committed themselves to a blank cheque policy. There is no question of that. Whatever this policy costs, the revenue and/or capital costs will be met by specific grant. It is to be by specific grant into the foreseeable future, because the amendment asking that this money be fed into the revenue support grant was rejected earlier on the grounds that the Government wish to retain the specific grant.
I noted in either the guidance note or the regulations a reference to the money being paid through the LMS formula. Again, I am not absolutely certain what that means. My understanding is that if a specific school triggers a specific need for a teacher under this policy, that school will receive that money. It will not receive it through some LMS formula, but it will receive the cost of a teacher in that school for the children who break the 30 barrier. There is an inconsistency and confusion in relation to the application of that policy, either through the LMS system or by specific grant to the local authority to meet the specific needs of each local education authority school.
If the local authorities are to enhance parental choice; if they are not to send children an unreasonable distance to school; if they are not to fill up surplus places at poor or poorer schools—depending on what the answer is from the Government; if they have responsibility, as they do under the guidance, to expand popular schools that are achieving high standards, according to Ofsted; if they are to protect denominational preference—and that is to be protected; and if the 31st child under those

587
circumstances is to trigger a teacher, I believe that the Government will be in difficulties in realising this policy.
In his response to a previous set of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to irony. There is no irony. In the course of their first year, so far the Government have got away with very warm words about a lot of policies. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking said earlier, they are a government of adjectives. Because this policy was so clear, because the clarity was as crystal, because we have unequivocal responses that costs, revenue and/or capital, whatever they are, whatever it takes, will be met, we believe that the safeguards that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have been offering all day should be on the face of the Bill. If that is what they mean, there should be no problem about putting them on the face of the Bill. It is not what we would do. I oppose this clause because I believe it is bureaucratic and fraught with difficulty and because I believe fervently that, if this money is in the system, these decisions could be taken at a local level more economically and efficiently and in a more educationally effective way. For that reason, I do not believe that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I am disappointed and sorry that the noble Baroness does not feel able to support Clause 2 of the Bill, which is central to the Government's delivering smaller class sizes for young children. Without a clause placing a duty upon LEAs to produce statements setting out how they will introduce the limit on infant class sizes in their area, the whole policy would be jeopardised. The target is clear, but the way that limits are introduced in an area will rightly depend on local circumstances and the differing starting points of different LEAs. It is therefore right that LEAs should determine the approach that best suits local needs.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: May I ask the Minister a question? Why is it that in this clause all the schemes have to go to the Secretary of State? As I said at Second Reading, it seems to me very dirigiste. An enormous problem will be landed on the department. As I have said before, I am sure that under the noble Baroness it will become a much quicker department, but it has not been famous for its speed in the past. These schemes for class sizes all have to go up to Whitehall and come back. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he trusted local government. Why is it that you are so mistrustful that the Secretary of State has to be like an ombudsman, an intendant or a prefect?
Baroness Blackstone: I believe it is perfectly reasonable, in asking LEAs to consider what their approach should be and allowing them to look at local needs and to take into account the particular circumstances of their authority, to ask them then to submit their proposals to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, have made a great deal of the costs of the scheme. Taxpayers' money will, of course, be involved, although
588
I think that most parents, and indeed many taxpayers who are not parents, will welcome money being spent in this way. It is only right that Ministers should take the responsibility of ensuring that the schemes that are introduced are acceptable and meet the Government's objectives, since money will be put behind those objectives.
The required contents of the statement will be set out in regulations, as will the dates by which they have to be submitted. We are presently consulting on the regulations and copies of the consultation papers are in the Library of this House, as noble Lords opposite are aware. We want to keep to a minimum the work required by LEAs. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said in that regard. Of course it makes no sense to impose ridiculous demands on local education authorities that deflect them from all their other work. However, for the most part LEAs accept that this is a reasonable request, particularly given our assurance that we will try to keep to a minimum the work that is needed. At the same time, we need to ensure that we have collected sufficient information to have a clear picture of how class sizes will be reduced by each authority.
In preparing their statements, LEAs will be asked to consult with schools and with other interested parties, in particular the representatives of the Church and parents. That will ensure that the LEA statements represent a clear consensus of the right way forward for each area. That again is extremely important.
The clause places a duty upon LEAs to consult and regulations will state whom they must consult. Other bodies or persons may be called upon to provide LEAs with information or assistance and the clause will allow us to set out in regulations who must assist the LEA in that way. Grant-maintained schools would be an example of those who may have to provide information to LEAs. We are clear that pupils in existing grant-maintained schools must also be able to look forward to smaller infant class sizes and those schools must therefore be part of the planning process. I am sure again that Members opposite will think it right and proper that that should be so.
Statements will have to be submitted for the Secretary of State's approval. If he does not approve a statement—I hope that there will be few cases where that occurs—the LEA will be notified and given the opportunity of providing a revised statement. Only when the revised statement has been approved will grant be payable.
The noble Baroness mentioned the importance of teacher quality. I absolutely agree with her on that. There is nothing more important than having teachers of the highest possible quality, not just teaching five, six and seven year-olds, but throughout the educational system. It is vital—this is one of the points of which the noble Baroness will be aware—that the great majority of teachers feel as strongly as do the Government that class sizes for these very young children should be lower than they are and certainly not more than 30, if we are to be absolutely clear that we are doing our best for these small children and ensuring that they do not in any way fall behind, particularly in the key areas of early learning of literacy and numeracy.

589
The noble Baroness asked what was a "reasonable distance". It would be quite wrong to quote a specific distance in miles. A reasonable distance will depend on local circumstances; for example, what the transport links are like. In some cases it may be easier for a child to travel quite a long distance because there is a good train service. There may well be a situation where the parents can take a child by train quickly or there may be, as is more likely in rural areas, a good bus service as opposed to a train service. It is important that we take into account what the services are like rather than having a rather arbitrary figure for a reasonable distance.
The noble Baroness mentioned that populations can change and that therefore investment in capital is undesirable. She went back to new town policies or policies of population movement that took place much earlier. It is, of course, true that there are shifts in population and there have been ever since compulsory schooling was introduced in the 1870s. In some cases we have empty places in our schools and there are other cases when there are big influxes of population. I know from my period in the ILEA that Tower Hamlets, for example, had a big influx of people from Bangladesh which caused pressures on schools. We had to expend capital in order to meet those needs. Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to expend capital in respect of keeping class sizes down for very small children.
Clause 2 is absolutely central to our approach to reducing class sizes, in close co-operation and in partnership with LEAs. This is not a top-down matter. It is a dialogue—and a constructive one—and a partnership. We are well aware that we have to work through LEAs who are much better placed to consult on plans and propose how best to deal with the statutory obligations they have. If reductions in class size are to be achieved it is vital that they make these plans. The statements that they will submit to the Secretary of State will illustrate and demonstrate how the plans meet the objectives of smaller infant classes. For those reasons Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
10 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: From these Benches we support that the clause stand part of the Bill, mostly because we support the aims of the Government. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier. I would have more sympathy if I had not been involved in schools during the time when space standards were changed by government which meant that flexibility and the problems of dealing with smaller class sizes were made infinitely worse.
I say to the Government that it will not be easy to carry out the proposal. There will be problems. The message I would like to give is that consistency over a number of years in policies will pay off.
I was chairman of governors at a first school during the period of the last government. I was not a governor of the school when it was a joint middle/first school. The middle school was closed and we had a wonderful modernisation of the Victorian building, which was a sort of sop to the community. All the things that we said
590
would happen happened. Parents were not prepared to go to split sites with their children at middle schools and first schools and so we were a school that was not full. That was very nice in many ways but when schools' space standards changed and the policy changed so that it became an all-through school, we were back to an even worse situation than before. Consistency of policy is extremely important if we are to go down this road.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may make two points. The noble Baroness said that this was not an edict of the Government on local authorities. It certainly reads like that and I am bound to say that that was the impression given.
The great thing about having been interested in education for a long time is that the wheel turns full circle. I well recall that when I first went into local government there was a direct grant to education authorities, of which Oxford was one, which had to be spent specifically on education. Then, of course, things moved on. We were told that this was quite wrong and that it was much better for local authorities to have freedom to spend the money they were given in the way they thought best. So the direct grant was removed. There was then a general grant, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred earlier. We are now coming back to saying that that is not perhaps such a good idea, that local authorities, on the contrary, cannot be trusted to deal with the policy of reducing class sizes, and we must therefore give them a specific grant which will tell them precisely what to do. If I were a cynic on this matter—of course, I am not—I would say that perhaps the policy will work. Indeed, perhaps it is necessary because some of the worst education authorities, sadly, are Labour-controlled. I leave out those where the Labour Party is conducting an investigation on matters of fraud and so on but, nevertheless, clearly Labour feels that local authorities are not to be trusted and must be told precisely what to do. Perhaps that is the state we have reached.
As an old local government hand, I welcomed the freedom that local authorities were given to make their own determination of their priorities as they thought right, but so much has subsequently gone unhappily awry in education that many things have changed. It seems to me that this is a Bill in which the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, will be able to say, "I know what is going on in every school in the country because I have looked at the plans and I have determined them". That is what we are getting under Clause 2.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister left two questions unanswered and I should be grateful if she could respond to them before I respond to her answer. I refer, first, to the feeding of the money through the local management of schools formula and, secondly, to the definition of "poor" and "poorer" schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond, first, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said and then return to the questions about LMS and the definition of "poor" and "poorer".

591
There is no edict, but there is a new duty on local education authorities. Indeed, much education legislation imposes new duties on LEAs. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, and she will have been involved in such legislation. Given that the Bill places a new duty on LEAs, it seems reasonable that a specific grant should be provided in order to support local authorities in fulfilling that duty. It would be wrong not to provide that additional funding.
The noble Baroness also said that she thought that the Bill would lead to the Secretary of State knowing what is happening in every single school. That is something of an overstatement. I do not believe that the Secretary of State wants to know what is going on in every single school at every single minute of the day, as used to be said happened in the French system, where the French Minister of Education could look at the clock and say, "It is now 10 past 10"—not at night, but in the morning!—"and I now know that throughout the land pupils will be looking at their Latin primer". That is not what is intended here. We are trying to ensure that every child of five, six and seven should be in a class with no more than 30 children.
Perhaps I may return to the question about LMS. We shall shortly be consulting on the new LMS arrangements which will include the necessary arrangements to fund schools for this class-size policy. A process of consultation on LMS needs to be gone through to ensure that we have a sensible scheme available.
As regards the definition of poorer schools, again it is impossible to be precise. I do not believe that the noble Baroness can expect me to be precise. We all have a good idea what is meant by that. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may take the last point first. Either we have to believe the words on the page or we do not. Paragraph 13 of the guidance says:
"While it is not possible to guarantee all parents that their child will gain a place in the school of their choice, LEAs' class size plans must however not lead to a reduction in parental preference, but to an enhancement of it. LEAs should plan on the basis of enhancing the exercise of parental preference, wherever possible, which would mean: (a) no child should have to travel an unreasonable distance to school: (b) surplus places in poor schools should not be tilled by keeping children out of schools that offer higher standards and a better quality of education".
This is a legal obligation on local authorities and on schools. If it has to be interpreted, then I as a parent would want to know what it means. I have a view of what is meant by a poorer school being other than the one where I would prefer to send my child. Where do I stand under the law? At the end of the day someone has to make a judgment and who is going to do it? Will it be the Secretary of State in approving the plans? In that case, is the local education authority expected to say that it refers to each school to which a child may be sent if there is no place in the school of choice? I do not know. It is important because, if these are the words on the page and they are to be the guidance to schools,
592
LEAs and parents, we need to know what they mean. I hope that by the next stage of the Bill we will have had some definition.
I take some of the points which the noble Baroness made about distance. Those of us who live in the country were mildly surprised. If one wanted to send the 31st or 32nd child from my village to another school, there would be no bus to take that child at school times to another primary school. There would be transport to the secondary school, but the distances and the directions are different. But if a primary school child has to be sent, there would be no way whereby that child could leave at 9 o'clock in the morning and return at 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. Therefore, there would be dislocation of the family. The suggestion has been made that the child can get on a train to go to school. In many communities they cannot even get on a bus unless there is a recognised school run. Even then, all the children are being bussed anyway. Children have grown up accustomed to going to their local village school and the little overflow of one, two or three children does not fit into that situation if they have to be sent on to other villages.
From my village it is easier to get into the local town which is 10 miles away than to get to the next village which is only a mile away. One has to walk there. We also have a dual carriageway to negotiate. It is a very difficult issue. The Government are going to have very real problems. They deal in broad-brush plans, which all sound wonderful, but when it comes to actual policy on the ground where a single child can breach the magic figure of 30, there will be all kinds of practical problems. The answer to some of them has not been given by the noble Baroness.
As regards LMS, I am quite perplexed. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as regards LMS and the revenue support grant, that this money would be specific grant. If it is to be paid through LEAs by a formula, that is not specific grant, but something different. If it is formula, then each local authority will receive just its allocation which will come through under the normal formula. That would be expected to meet all the costs of the pledge and flies in the face of the unequivocal promise we were given earlier in some detail by the noble Lord.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Young, the Minister said that it was not an edict. I had a quick look in the dictionary to check the definition. The definition is: "Order proclaimed by authority". This is an order proclaimed by authority to local authorities and schools. It is a statute by which they will be obliged to conform and it cannot be anything other than an edict, so my noble friend was right.
I end with the statement with which I began. We do not argue with the policy intention of the Government but we are seriously worried about its rigidity and the practical implementation of that policy on the ground and the difficulty of sending—I hope that the noble Baroness did not mean it—five year-olds to school on a train. We are talking here about infants and not grown-up children.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: This discussion about the travel arrangements of small children has perhaps gone a bit far. I said that it was impossible to specify a precise distance which might be regarded as reasonable. It will vary according to the transport arrangements in different parts of the country. I made reference to trains and went on to say straight away that in most rural areas trains did not exist. I have a small cottage in a village in the country which has trains. That is very unusual. For the most part one is considering buses. Nothing I said suggested that small children of that age should be put on trains or indeed buses. Their parents would have to take them where such facilities existed. For the most part, we hope that children will be able to go to schools in their own villages where these facilities exist. I believe that we are making rather a meal of this.
While on my feet perhaps I may make one point absolutely clear. The noble Baroness said that she was confused about LMS. As I understand it, funding would not go to LEAs by formula but by a specific grant, as has been said on a number of occasions. However, they may pay schools through LMS arrangements to ensure that there is fair funding for all schools. Therefore the grant will go to the LEAs. There is to be consultation on this matter so that in the longer term there is a fair funding system.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not wish to burden the Minister with the "country" point but I live in the country. One of the problems of broad-brush government Bills is that people are actually affected. There are people in the country who do not own motorcars. In the area of the country where I live there is no bus or train and I do not drive. I am very well aware of this. The noble Baroness must not dismiss this. The 31st, 32nd, 33rd and 34th child present a problem which the Government must face. The fact that the noble Baroness's village has trains is not a common feature in the country. This is not a frivolous or political point; it is a real point of concern. When one imposes classes of 30 and sends some children away the Government must give thought to it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness exhorted me not to make a meal of this. This is the policy of the Government. When I was a serving county councillor I was always taught that whatever I did, and whatever policy I made, thought should be given to what it would mean on the ground. Before my time there was a rather good chief education officer, George Edwards, who was well known in the educational world. The noble Baroness may even have heard of him. He often stopped education committees to ask what would happen to little children. I do not believe that we are making a meal of this. We are considering the Government's well-intentioned policy aims. They have taken a view that there should not be flexibility. It is envisaged that children will be moved from schools which would have taken them had there been some flexibility. I have even asked the noble Baroness that where in any small village in the country the parents, governors and staff of a
594
school have agreed that the education of the children will not be compromised by accepting the 31st or 32nd child, they should be free to make that decision but that that should be underwritten by the consensus view of all of those bodies, rather than that a child should be put on a country bus or even a country train.
Baroness Blackstone: I want to move on while trying to be helpful. I have said twice—perhaps three times—in the course of either Second Reading or this afternoon that the Minister for School Standards has made it absolutely clear that a child in an isolated rural village that is some distance from the next one or another school will be able to remain at that school but that we will provide extra resources so that there is an additional teacher to ensure that children in rural areas are not taught in over-large classes any more than children in urban areas.
In many village schools, classes are much smaller because the population does not sustain large class sizes. We are talking about a rare and unusual situation. I know that in some villages the class size might be about 30 and could go to 31, but in most cases the reverse applies. Classes are smaller than classes for the same age group in urban schools.
I repeat that where there are more than 30 children in infant school classes in rural areas the resources will be made available to provide additional teachers in order to ensure that that does not happen and that children are not sent some distance to a school in another village or town.
Baroness Blatch: We welcome everything that the noble Baroness said, but I believe that she is under-estimating the number of areas in which classes will be bigger. To my knowledge, during the past 20 years many small schools have been taken out. I was responsible for taking out a school with fewer than 10 children. I was part of a group which as an experiment set up a federation of three schools whose total number was less than 40. Many experiments have been tried but a large number of small schools have been taken out. Village schools have been amalgamated and therefore three, four, five or more villages feed into the school.
Will it be possible to brick build between now and 2001? My local authority bid this year but has received nothing from the Government. Its bid to address class sizes of 30 was rejected. I do not know whether we will be lucky next year or the year after. I do not know what will happen in 2001 when it has not received its money. However, by 2001 every education authority in the country will need to receive money in order to ensure that they can conform to the proposals. On occasions, children will be moved to another school. Therefore, the definition of poor schools is important. There must be a realistic expectation of building brick extensions for small numbers of children, which is the only way some rural schools will be able to cope.
The whole purpose of opposing the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill was to elicit more information. I still believe that we will need yet more information and no doubt I shall return to the matter on Report.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Payment of grant in connection with reductions in infant class sizes]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 8, after ("grants") insert ("for the purposes specified in subsection (1)").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Government will respond in detail to this amendment. From the outset of the policy, and well before the election, the Government made a firm promise to phase out assisted places—almost to remove them overnight—making available the money saved to meet the pledge. It was not long after the election before the Government realised that capital was separate, whatever they say. No doubt, there will he capital costs which we have heard today will be realised in the form of solid brick buildings. Therefore, the costs will be considerable.
On a previous occasion, the noble Baroness made it clear that money from the assisted places scheme was not meant to fund the capital scheme. I accept that that is a separate issue. However, I wish to know that the money which is being made available this year, the extra money which was made available for education and the money which was made available for all kinds of pet schemes that have been announced during the year are coming from a one-off source. When that one-off source of money dries up, perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me whether the Treasury is standing by to pick up the deficit which will appear. Something must replace that money or the education world must learn to live without it. What forward promise will the Minister give that the one-off money which has been used for many of those schemes will be reimbursed, substituted or made up to education?
In the case of the assisted places scheme, we have some concern as to whether the moneys being saved will completely meet the revenue costs of the pledge. Secondly, I am not absolutely certain that the Government have given us the net figure which must account for all the young people who will be fed back into the system. We must remember that this is mainly secondary education money. There was some in the primary sector but it mainly affects the secondary sector. Therefore, some of that money must pay for returning children back into the state system whose places will be removed from the independent schools.
Furthermore, it is not right to say that those children will go back in and be absorbed by the education authorities, because we now live in a world where money follows the pupil. Therefore, if a school has 1,000 pupils in one year, it will receive the aid-weighted pupil unit money and 1,000 times whatever that amount of money is, according to the age of the child. If the following year, the school has 1,010 pupils, it will receive 1,010 times whatever that unit of money is from the education authority. Therefore, there is a cost for each child returning to the state education system from the independent sector under the assisted places scheme. It would be helpful to know what the Government believe that net figure to be.
The point of my amendments is to make it clear, and abundantly clear to Parliament, that where the amount of money is exceeded—in other words, when and if there is
596
a deficit from the money used from the assisted places scheme to provide revenue and it needs to be topped-up—first, the additional costs will be met by government and, secondly, that the specific grant will be dealt with by way of regulations so that we in Parliament can be aware of the costs of meeting the pledge. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness asked me to respond in some detail. I find that difficult because the amendments as drafted do not make very good sense. However, I hope that I can reply in sufficient detail to convince the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 17 sets out to do something which the present wording of the clause already achieves. The amendment relates to the grants that the Secretary of State may withhold when he has not approved an LEA's class size implementation plan. It is to ensure that he may withhold no grants other than those that would be paid for the purpose of reducing infant class sizes.
The amendment is not necessary. Clause 3(2)(a) refers to grants "under the regulations". The Bill states:
"Regulations under this section shall provide for the Secretary of State … to withhold grants … where no proposed arrangements by that authority have been approved by him under section 2"
The regulations to which it refers are those in subsection (2) which relate to "this section"—that is, Clause 3—the clause covering the payment of grants to reduce infant class sizes. The power given to the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) would not enable him to withhold any other grants. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that her amendment adds nothing to the drafting of Clause 3.
Again, I am afraid that we found Amendment No. 18 rather confusing. I understand from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the specific grant must cover all the costs that the LEAs will incur, but the drafting does not actually say so. We have said that we will provide the funding that LEAs require to enable them to reduce infant class sizes. We will base the funding, in the initial years at least, upon their plans. However, we will have to be careful how we assess the costs.
If an LEA has under-invested in infant classes so that its problems appear worse than those of comparable LEAs, we should not reward it for past under-investment. That would be a perverse incentive; but we will provide, through specific grant, the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. We said as early as last June that the assisted places savings would be for revenue expenditure. The Minister for School Standards, Stephen Byers, said then in another place:
"The assisted places scheme is releasing revenue money which we shall use for the benefit of teachers' salaries … capital is dealt with differently in terms of public expenditure".
We have already released the first £22 million of savings from assisted places to pay for extra infant teachers from this September, and we have made £40 million of new capital available in 1998–99. The noble Baroness sought a categorical assurance that we

597
will provide, through specific grant, the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. The answer to her question is that we do give that assurance.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I did not make myself clear on the first point, but I am enlightened by his answer. I wanted to be absolutely certain in that respect. I am still haunted by shades of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill in which the Government have taken a power to withhold grant—the grant being general grant—in order to punish a university or college for charging top-up fees for a course. These regulations apply where a local authority does not conform, or does not live up to its duty to uphold this particular policy and where grant will be withheld. In other words, my understanding, from what the noble Lord said, is not that it will be withheld; the LEA simply will not get it. The grant is not being withheld because, if the LEA does not apply for it and is not doing its duty, it will not receive the grant. If an LEA is not conforming and is then directed to do so, I understand that the money will follow the direction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I was not entirely clear in my reply. The noble Baroness is right to say that the power to withhold grants applies under the regulations. The regulations relate to plans to reduce class sizes, where necessary, in infant schools. The grant will be withheld where no proposed arrangements by the authority have been approved; in other words, not when no application has been submitted but when it is not satisfactory.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand the policy, there is no long-term proposition that a local authority can continue not to have a policy. If its plans are unsatisfactory and not approved by the Secretary of State—or worse, if the local authority does not provide the Secretary of State with such plans—then, as I understand the noble Lord and the Minister this evening, he will issue a direction to the LEA and that direction will be accompanied by the funding to produce and pay for whatever the direction is; for example, teachers, the building of premises, and so on. I understand that that direction will be accompanied by the resources to meet it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. I repeat the assurance that my noble friend Lady Blackstone and I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour; namely, that a direction would be sought under Section 497 of the 1996 Act. Of course, a direction which required expenditure would be accompanied by funding.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that because now I understand that the withholding of grant is a technicality. It is withheld because plans are unsatisfactory, or for other reasons. On a direction of the Secretary of State the funds would flow. Eventually the children in that authority would still receive the benefit of the application of this policy.
598
The noble Lord missed completely my further point in his answer. I said right at the outset that I understood that the revenue and capital were separate. The noble Baroness has said that on previous occasions, and I have read every word that the Minister for School Standards in another place has uttered there on this Bill. However, the promise has always been that the savings from the assisted places scheme will meet the revenue costs of this pledge. We have reservations about that. Where in any year the costs that are needed to meet the pledge exceed the money saved from the assisted places scheme, there should be a specific grant and a regulation should come before Parliament so that the issue is exposed for Parliament to consider.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can repeat only what I have already said. We shall provide through specific grant the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. That undertaking is not limited by savings from the assisted places scheme.
Baroness Blatch: I press the Minister further. Is he giving a further pledge that if the assisted places moneys are not adequate they will be topped up by the Treasury? That question has to be posed because this is an open policy; whatever the costs may be, they will be met. If the revenue costs exceed the savings from the assisted places scheme, will they be met by the Treasury? If, and when, that is the case, is there some mechanism the Minister can offer that Parliament would be informed or that regulations would be drawn up? Or, is the noble Lord not giving the guarantee that if the assisted places scheme savings do not meet the revenue costs the Treasury will meet the additional costs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The undertaking that I gave was quite clearly not related to receipts from the assisted places scheme. I said that we shall provide through specific grant the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. If the noble Baroness wants me to say that we expect the receipts from the assisted places scheme to meet those costs, we do indeed expect that. However, the undertaking I have given is independent of that expectation.
Baroness Blatch: I accept that. I am grateful that I have obtained that undertaking from the Minister. It may be that I am asking about a hypothetical, theoretical, stratospheric occurrence. If, and when, the costs exceed the savings from the assisted places scheme, could we as parliamentarians be informed of that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The reason we are not able to calculate now the exact costs local education authority by local education authority and in aggregate is because local authorities have to submit applications for their solutions to solve the problem that we have set them of reducing class sizes. We do not know what solutions they will find; we hope that they will find economical as well as satisfactory solutions but we are dependent on them—subject to the guidance we give them about the submission of those applications—to produce the solutions which are most appropriate to their local areas.

599
Therefore it is not, and never has been, possible for us to give the total sum that will be required for this purpose over the period of this programme until September 2001. However, we have said that we will meet these costs.
Baroness Blatch: When we reach the next stage of the Bill I shall not have this opportunity to keep pressing the Minister for detailed answers. I understand and agree with everything that the noble Lord has just said in that I accept he cannot say at this moment what next year's costs will be, or those for the year after that. That is not the point of my amendment. What the noble Lord can quantify are the savings that come on stream in any given financial year from the assisted places scheme. That will be a definitive sum of money that is made available to the department. Is the Treasury prepared to make provision that where the costs cannot be met from savings from the assisted places scheme—which was the pledge made by the Government—the Treasury will undertake to top up these sums? As the noble Lord has said with great confidence, he does not even envisage this happening. I am simply saying that if and when it does happen, can Parliament be informed? I shall leave the noble Lord to answer another time, unless he particularly wants to come back now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It now seems to me that the noble Baroness is asking for something for which I had hoped she would not need to ask. The amounts which will be spent on fulfilling this pledge and fulfilling the programme under this part of the Bill will be transparent. In other words, they can be known to Parliament. When we allocate specific grants we will advise the allocations to the local education authorities and that information will be available to this House.
Similarly, as was made quite clear during the passage of the Act which introduced assisted places, the savings which will arise from the abolition of the assisted places scheme are not secret; they are available and they will be available to this House as necessary.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord and his colleagues opposite made an explicit statement that this would be an assisted places scheme revenue paid policy. We will extrapolate the information ourselves if the Government are not prepared to present it in the form that I have asked for in this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 23:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
("CHAPTER IA
GENERAL DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE
—(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that his functions relating to the provision of education in schools under sections 10 and 11 of the Education Act 1996 are exercised with a view to promoting high standards of attainment.
(2) The Secretary of State, in fulfilling his duty under subsection (1), shall not require any school to alter its status if it is performing within the top third of schools or is consistently improving its performance in national performance tables for National Curriculum tests or GCSE examination results.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 23 requires that it shall be a general duty of the Secretary of State to ensure,
"that his functions relating to the provision of education in schools under sections 10 and 11 of the Education Act … are exercised with a view to promoting high standards of attainment".
I put emphasis on the word "attainment" because I believe that is a rather clear way of making a judgement about schools. There are all kinds of other things that can be measured but, for the purposes of my amendments, I wish "attainment" to be added to the words "high standards".
The second part of my amendment asks that:
"The Secretary of State, in fulfilling his duty under subsection (1), shall not require any school to alter its status if it is performing within the top third of schools or is consistently improving its performance in national performance tables for National Curriculum tests or GCSE examination results".
I feel particularly strongly about this amendment. I was about to say, "If the Government are genuine"; I shall rephrase that. I do believe that the Government are genuine in wanting to see high standards. I think it would be wrong of me to doubt that when the Prime Minister, even before the election, said that "Education, education, education" is a priority he actually meant it, that the Ministers in the department mean it and that the Ministers in government mean it and are supported by Cabinet colleagues, members of the party and members of the Government. I do not wish to call that into question.
I simply wish to call into question the ways of achieving it. It does seem to me particularly pernicious—I do not use the word lightly—when one looks across the piece at education to see what is working out there and to see where good education resides out there in the community. We know that our grammar schools are performing well. One has only to look at the performance tables produced each year. We also know that the majority of our grant-maintained schools are performing very well.
I have some colourful memories of a particular grant-maintained school. It was going through a traumatic time when overcoming the hurdles to become a grant-maintained school. I was visited by the chief education officer of the relevant local education authority who pleaded with the department not to allow the school to become a grant-maintained school. I was fascinated by the case put by the representatives. They said they wanted just a little more time because they felt that the school was not quite ready; its performance was

601
not all that it should be. They had real doubts about whether the school could manage its own affairs. I was rather sucked into the case being made until I considered that that local education authority had had that school for decades, probably a century, and it was still underperforming in its eyes. Given that a good case had been put, I took the view that if the school were to be grant maintained it would be responsible for its own future, its performance, and the way in which the school was run within the family of state-funded education. I was not wrong. The school almost flew when it became free and independent but within the state sector.
There is something rather distasteful about insisting that these schools should have their status taken away in the way prescribed in the Bill. With grant-maintained schools, the parents themselves voted to take that road. Many went through a great deal of difficulty in doing so—opposed by the local education authority, opposed by the LSI (which I understand has now become an organisation called TEN), opposed by the Labour Opposition at the time, opposed by Labour councillors up and down the country, and, I admit, opposed by some Conservative councillors who have since realised how successful the policy was. It was because local authorities saw it as somehow losing their fiefdom.
As someone who came up through a local authority, I always took the view that the situation is rather like that of one's own children. When one grows up one has one's children; one is very attached to them, worries about them and nurtures them. One is concerned about their future. There is that dreadful moment when they start to seek their independence and to move away. Parents become nervous about that. But the joy of seeing one's children standing on their own two feet, being independent and taking their own decisions, is something to be grateful for. The fact that they can stand on their own two feet is to be celebrated. I see that as a simple analogy with schools. I used to say to colleagues on local education authorities, "Why don't you see it like this? Where schools become independent within the family of state education, reflect on and celebrate the fact that they are able to shine as schools." And shine they have.
It seems particularly pernicious not to give those parents an opportunity to vote the other way. At a stroke of the pen, when the Bill becomes law, with the massive majority in another place, it will see the end of grant-maintained schools and probably the end of grammar schools—all that works out there.
Another aspect of the same picture of good education is this. Given the opportunity, those schools on day one would like the opportunity to become foundation schools. It is the same argument. The Government began with a policy that they could become grant-maintained schools when the policy was implemented. Because the teacher unions—or some body—have now persuaded the Government otherwise, they have now put a hold on the time during which those schools could exercise their choice to change their status. I and my colleagues feel strongly about this. I do not doubt the intentions or the policy aims; I support them most strongly. But I think
602
that it would be quite wrong to take away the status of grant-maintained schools and to return them to local authorities.
I have read these documents very well. Irrespective of LEA relationships and the code of practice, there are so many clauses in this Bill which give local authorities a window of opportunity to intervene in relation to grant-maintained schools. Indeed, the Secretary of State also has powers to intervene.
I therefore plead with the Government to think again on this policy. These are good schools. The amendment provides enough flexibility even for schools which are not achieving highly in the performance tables but are nevertheless making seriously impressive improvements year on year, starting from a very low base, and doing all that the Government want them to do and are exhorting schools up and down the land to do. Why not give them this opportunity? It is possible that some of them will, overnight, want to become foundation schools. I should be the first to say: give them that opportunity too. Where they have democratically voted for that status, it is only fair that they should be given a democratic opportunity to determine their own future. In the meantime, if schools do not wish to change their status, they should be left alone—particularly when they are performing so well and when some, while they may not be very high in the performance league tables, are making impressive improvements year on year. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This amendment goes very much to the heart of the matter, affecting the whole approach to the new framework. It is true that the first part of Amendment No. 23 is fairly straightforward. However, it is unnecessary. The proposal in the first subsection is that the Secretary of State should be placed under a duty to promote high standards similar to that which we are placing on education authorities and governing bodies.
We strongly support the assumption that the Secretary of State should promote high standards of attainment, but this provision is unnecessary. Section 11(2) of the Education Act 1996, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar, already places the Secretary of State under a duty to,
"exercise his powers with a view to",
among other things,
"improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice".
We believe that that duty is sufficient. The wording is not quite the same as that of the amendment, but it achieves the same purpose.
However, it is the second subsection of the proposed new clause which strikes at the very heart of the Bill. The intention appears to be to allow up to one-third of the highest-achieving maintained schools the option of retaining their present status. In the case of GM schools, that would mean remaining outside the new school framework.
I hesitate to use the term "wrecking amendment", but in effect this amendment challenges the whole basis of bringing the GM schools into the new framework. Moreover, the amendment seems to be based on the

603
false assumption that the Secretary of State will have power to require any school to change its status. He does not and will not. Changes of status brought about by the introduction of the new school framework will be the result of the relevant clauses of this Bill being approved by Parliament.
If, as the noble Baroness implied, the main intention is to protect successful schools from unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion by local authorities, then that is also our intention in the new framework. We made it clear in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, that intervention by local education authorities should be in inverse proportion to success. It is one of the key principles behind the code of practice referred to by the noble Baroness which we shall introduce under Clause 119 of the Bill and which we shall no doubt discuss later. The code of practice will ensure that local education authorities use a very light touch in their relationship with successful schools. But that is very different from excluding a large section of schools from the new framework. We have no sympathy for the retention of any system of school organisation which is divisive and which would leave some schools outside the new framework and beyond any influence on the part of the local authority.
We shall have opportunities later in the course of the Bill's progress to discuss grant-maintained status and the new framework. However, there are three points which are particularly significant to the present discussion.
First, what the noble Baroness proposes is not what the grant-maintained movement itself wants. In the Second Reading debate my noble friend quoted from a letter from the Grant-Maintained Joint Monitoring Group, which represents the main grant-maintained organisations. It said:
"We join the Government in looking forward to the new framework, not backwards to old divisions".
That is exactly the point.
"We believe, like the Government, that self-managed schools will play an important part in driving up school standards and securing financial prudence".
Secondly, it is our approach that all schools, including our most successful schools, do not operate in isolation from others. Success breeds success.
Thirdly, we believe that all schools, no matter how successful, should be considering how they can improve further. We have made clear on many occasions that all schools should regard themselves as primarily responsible for their own improvement. But we also see an important role for the local education authority in this area. That, it seems to me, is the main cause of the noble Baroness's opposition to these proposals. We regard the local education authority as key to supporting such improvements generally,
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was referring also to Amendment No. 24, which is grouped with Amendment No. 23. I understand the objectives behind Amendment No. 24, but it is our view that, if it were carried, it could lead to a narrower interpretation of the duties of local education authorities than we intend. The word "attainment" in relation to pupils is sometimes used rather narrowly as attainment in relation to assessment in the national curriculum. We believe that the
604
duties on standards should be interpreted more widely in that local education authorities have other duties in which they need to promote high standards and that that is reflected in the current wording of the clause.
I hope I have made it clear that I regard Amendment No. 23 as a serious inhibition on the intention of the Bill and Amendment No. 24 as unnecessary and possibly counter-productive to the intention behind the Bill. I hope, therefore, that, although we shall debate the issue of the framework and the definition of the new status of schools at a later stage, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord takes some satisfaction in reading and re-reading the letter that apparently speaks for grant-maintained schools. I do not argue with that. I know the lady who signed the letter, or who had it signed for her, and I know the organisations for whom she speaks. However, I have to say to the noble Lord that many grant-maintained schools feel very strongly about this issue. There are also some, even among the organisations which are part of the trilogy behind the letter, which have taken the view that this Government was elected on 1st May with a very large majority and that they intend to carry out these proposals. Those schools have therefore fought for the best of a bad lot. They have been working with the Government, visiting Ministers and securing as many concessions as they can in order to make the Bill slightly more palatable than it was. I have checked their preferred position with them, and the noble Lord can check himself. Indeed I understand that they prefaced their comments by saying that they would rather there was no change from the present status at all. Given that they believe that that change will happen, they have taken a realistic view.
I thought that the Government could be more mature about this policy, offer the framework and give all these schools an opportunity to stay where they are. They are within the family of state education; they are not outside it. Many of our grant-maintained schools are working well with their neighbouring schools and have very good relationships with their local authorities. They are not out there as alien beings. There are a number within my own local authority, and their relationship with the authority is a very good one.
The noble Lord rightly said that the Secretary of State would not personally take away their status; it is a matter for Parliament. That is what we are here for today, unless we are rubber-stampers. I do not intend ever in my life to be someone who simply rubber-stamps policy, whether it is for my government or the party opposite. The proper job of Parliament, and particularly of this Chamber, is to look for ways of achieving policy objectives. The policy objective as I see it is that within our state system we should have the highest possible standards of education that are achievable. I strongly support that policy. I simply say that there are at least two categories of schools that are achieving very well; many of them are beacons in their own right. Certainly any performance tables that we have seen since their inception more than bear out how well those schools have been performing. And we have a Bill which is going to wreck them. It is a wrecking policy and will wreck them, particularly the grammar schools, to which we will come at some time in the future.

605
I am simply exercising my right, as a Member of this Chamber, to say to the Government that they could achieve their policies of seeking, promoting, encouraging and, where necessary, cajoling local authorities and schools to improve their standards from whatever base they are now at. They would receive a good deal of support from us for doing so. But I cannot think, for the life of me, why we should see the changing of the status of these schools and the demise of the grammar schools.
It may be new Labour, but this is "old" Labour with a vengeance. There are people in the Labour Party—who I understand in the future are to be expunged from it—who have been looking for a long time to get rid of the grammar schools and anything that they regard as elitist. I do not regard them as elitist; I regard them as rungs in the ladder for young people. Some young people are more suited to a highly academic curriculum than they are to a vocational curriculum or a mixture of the two. I thought diversity was now something that was common parlance between us as parties. In this great educational system of ours, choice and diversity—which I believe are now more commonly used by both parties—had room for these schools. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord gave an old Labour answer from a new Labour Government.
This is the politics of envy back with a vengeance. We saw it over the down on Oxford and Cambridge; we saw it over assisted places; we are now seeing it on grammar schools; and we are certainly seeing it on grant-maintained schools. While there is breath in my body I shall fight for them. I hope that the noble Lord will at least use the time between now and the next stage of the Bill to register with his colleagues in another place that we are very concerned about these schools. We are not saying that they should not become foundation schools; we are not saying that they should not be brought into the framework. But they are owed democratic process. They voted for their present status. Why not give them an opportunity to vote openly and democratically for the opportunity to become foundation schools or even community schools if that is what they wish? I would trust them to make that choice. Some would, and some would not. I believe that we should encourage them and, where we see those lights burning, we should encourage them to shine even brighter.
This is a policy backed by the politics of envy. It is a sad day for education in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Duty of LEAs to promote high standards in primary and secondary education]:
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("of attainment").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the words "of attainment". Perhaps he would like to think of all the other standards and place those other aspects on the face of the Bill. However, there is a coyness about "attainment" on the part of the Government opposite. I believe that "attainment" is an extremely important word. It is missing from the Bill. It should be in the Bill. It was missing from the 1996 Act
606
and ought to be included. If it cannot be included in this Bill, then perhaps through the Bill the 1996 Act could be amended to include the word "attainment".
Perhaps the noble Lord can think of ways of making sure that attainment, quite specifically, is covered. I would be grateful if he could do that between now and the next stage. Meanwhile I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 8. at end insert ("and "high standards" applies inter alia to education, learning, teaching, governance and behaviour, and to the local education authority's own activities'"').
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This whole section deals with a duty to promote high standards. Clearly the amendment seeks to clarify that further. I should like to ask what the Government mean exactly by "high standards"? How do they propose to enforce that view unless there is some direct definition of it in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The specification here runs up against the same difficulties as the specification of attainment, and nothing else, in the previous discussion. Local education authorities have a duty to carry out many functions in relation to education at school level: provision of services to schools, transport, personnel, health and safety, leadership, co-ordination, supply of school places, communication and other functions too numerous to mention. Those are not included in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but each of them in its own way contributes directly or indirectly to the quality of education provided and, therefore, to high standards. We think that local education authorities should be striving for excellence in all aspects of what they do.
To accept the amendment as it stands would risk diluting the commitment to standards in all of those fields. As currently worded, the reference to high standards is all-embracing, and includes all of these areas. If we start to specify it in this clause the opposite of the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would be the result. We would dilute the effect and limit the way in which high standards were interpreted in the functions of local authorities. I, therefore, ask the noble Baroness, to withdraw the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Minister for his response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He will be disappointed that the Government are not prepared to include it as a definition in the Bill. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.