Lords Sitting of 19 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 Bristol.

Deportees: Re-entry Detection Measures
Lord Dean of Beswickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What defensive measures they are taking to prevent deportees re-entering the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, those who are the subject of a deportation order may not return to the United Kingdom while the order remains extant. To assist in the identification of those who may seek to re-enter in breach of such an order, the Immigration Service has immediate access to the records of all those deported. In addition, the Immigration Service employs a range of measures to detect those who may subsequently seek to gain entry using false identities or by clandestine means.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. However, is he aware of a report that appeared in the press three or four weeks ago concerning a man from Nigeria who, having come to this country, entered into large-scale fraudulent activities with the DSS? The man received a custodial sentence of two to three years, with deportation at the end of it. However, he had already gone through that process once and had been able to re-enter this country. How often is that happening? Is it possible that the restrictions could be tighter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have only a general knowledge of that case. However, I recognise that this is a problem. Accordingly, the Immigration Service has now at its disposal a Suspect Index Computer System. It has been in operation at all ports and offices since December 1996. From June of this year, all visa issuing posts abroad will have access to it. That ought therefore to meet, at least in substantial part, my noble friend's concerns.

Government Car Service
2.38 p.m.
Lord Campbellof Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many road vehicles which are regarded as specially friendly to the environment are being used in the Government Car Service, or have been ordered, including those for the use of Ministers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government Car Service currently operates five vehicles in its fleet which run on gas as well as petrol. A further four vehicles are in the process of being replaced with alternative fuel cars. It is the policy of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, which runs the Government Car Service, to replace its vehicles with alternative fuel cars as they come to the end of their working life, normally after three years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. While the Government provided much publicity for these benign road vehicles at the end of last month, are not cars which produce very little pollution expensive and beyond the aspirations of most of the motoring public? As regards government cars, will the safety of Ministers be borne in mind if they drive the cars themselves, in view of the misadventure experienced on that occasion by the Deputy Prime Minister?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the cost of a conversion to gas from petrol is between £750 and £3,000 according to the type of car concerned. It is therefore worthwhile commercially only if the conversion is carried out when the car is new, before it is added to the fleet. As the noble Lord knows, it is not normal for Ministers to drive cars from the Government Car Service.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the non-gas fired cars that are regularly in the House of Lords' car park and Chancellor's Court spend a great deal of time with their engines running at a time when the Government have issued pollution warnings? Will he issue instructions to government drivers and others who visit this House to switch off car engines, and even to leave the air-conditioning off when the very important person inside does not happen to be there?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, presumably when that happens, the driver is in the car; and who is to say that the driver is not a very important person? The question of whether cars should be left with their engines running in the House of Lords' car park is a matter for the House authorities rather than the department. As regards pollution, I remind my noble friend that all government cars are fitted with catalytic converters, which work effectively only when the engine is hot. So perhaps the balance is not quite as clear as my noble friend thinks.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the President of the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, a non-paid position. I also welcome the Government's conversion of some of the ministerial fleet to gas-powered cars. Does the Minister agree that, until the duty on gas as a fuel is reduced, it is unlikely that the market as a whole will convert to environmentally friendly vehicles?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question is about the Government Car Service. We propose to convert all the vehicles in the Government Car Service as they are replaced. That is the economical action to take. The question which the noble Lord raised about vehicle duties is a separate issue which I shall be glad to answer if he puts down a Question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a reasonable proposition might be for Labour Ministers to use their cars rather less, thus indicating that we hope that in due course the use of cars in our cities will be greatly reduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have some sympathy with that view. Paragraph 80 of the ministerial code, which was issued last year, states that:
"In using official cars and travelling by rail or air, Ministers must always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements".
Lord Ironside: My Lords, will the Government consider the use of more electric vehicles in the Government Car Service, as plenty of charging sockets are readily available in London? Of course, if Ministers are using those cars, they need not worry about the batteries running flat, because if their meetings go on long enough, the batteries will be able to be recharged.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government Car and Dispatch Agency has already been working with Ford in testing an electric van called the Ecostar. But the conclusion that we have reached so far is that electric vehicle technology has not gone far enough to make it a viable alternative.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I seek clarification, because I may have completely misheard the noble Lord's initial answer to the first supplementary question. Did he say that five cars in the pool were converted to use "gas as well as petrol"? Alternatively, did he say "gas instead of petrol"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said "as well as". The normal procedure is to convert the car immediately after manufacture so that it can run on both. However, there are not enough LPG stations around the country to enable a car which is not required for such heavy use as government cars to be converted entirely.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, will the Government do anything to encourage the installation of LPG tanks at petrol stations so that cars may fill up? If there are only very few places where they can be filled, people will not be encouraged to switch over. That includes government cars.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that we do not have as many LPG outlets as some European countries. But I am afraid that that is a matter for the market. It refers back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.

Domestic Violence Victims: Financial Help
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to fund organisations which help victims of domestic violence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, central Government provide core funding through a number of departments to the Women's Aid Federation in England and its sister organisations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In 1997-98, the Department of Health is providing that organisation with £217,385. Other provision includes funding through the Urban Programme for projects in Scotland, Welsh Office funding in Wales and funding for local projects in England through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. Housing Corporation capital and revenue resources can contribute to building and housing management costs, where local authorities identify as a priority the development of refuges for those escaping domestic violence; for example, the Housing Corporation currently provides a revenue grant to support 3,500 refuge bed spaces in England.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend
aware that the considerable amount of money spent by this Government on the victims of domestic violence is
very helpful and very much appreciated? Will the Minister bear in mind that the vital links between many of the victims and the organisations—the help lines which offer skilled advice—are often under-funded? The crisis line of Refuge, for example. is now offering tremendously skilled advice to many women and access to 200 sanctuaries, but that is now on the brink of closure because of lack of funds. Is it possible for the Government to help?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course, Refuge does extremely good work and its funding came from the National Lottery Charities Board, which was not a government source. The decision was not a government decision. However, we provide to WAF(E) the support I mentioned. It runs an extremely effective domestic violence helpline, fielding about 15,000 calls per year. It is true that Refuge is having to limit its service from four lines to one. The service has not been discontinued, but it is matter of regret that it has limited its operation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we recognise the valuable work the Government are doing in providing support for refuges in England and Wales. Can the noble Lord explain why the funding arrangements are so different between England and Wales? Why is it that in England the Housing Corporation would provide revenue for a five-bed space amounting to about £12,500 a year, while, if I pronounce it correctly, Tai Cymru—"Tai Coomry"—in Wales would provide £32,000 for the same five-bed space?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is pronounced "Tai Cumry"—Tai Cymru. They do things

1437
differently in Wales. I beg your pardon, my Lords, we do things differently in Wales! There are different circumstances obtaining in Wales which may have greater specific needs in the area. One of the reasons Wales does things differently is that at present devolved functions are admirably carried out by the Secretary of State for Wales. Subsequently, I dare say, the assembly will be able to assist.
The noble Lord makes a reasonable point that there is a fragmentation. That is one of the reasons my right honourable friend Ms Harman and my honourable friend Ms Ruddock are currently developing an overall national strategy to deal with violence against women. A consultation paper will be published this autumn, we hope, which ought to address some of the questions raised by the noble Lord.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, sadly, victims of domestic violence are often children? They suffer either directly or indirectly and much domestic violence is alcohol related. Is the Minister satisfied that the level of funding targeted at that area is enough to meet this sad situation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right that children are often the innocent casualties of domestic violence, in the same way as large number of women are and a lesser proportion of men. Equally, it is generally accepted that alcohol can contribute to those problems. I cannot imagine any Minister ever being able to say with all honesty that there will ever he sufficient funds for these purposes. We need to be alert that the money available is properly directed and properly spent.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many refuges are facing considerable financial difficulty? For example, is he aware that following a High Court ruling last July it was said that housing benefit:
"is not there to make any general social provision for the protection of disadvantaged people in their homes"?
Many local authorities referred refuge rents to the rent officer with the result that many of the benefits have been cut by as much as £20 per person per week. That has meant that a refuge with six families is losing up to £120 a week as a consequence of that judgment and is therefore in great financial difficulty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which my noble friend refers. That is one aspect which will be considered by the review I mentioned earlier. The consultation document will be out in the autumn. We hope there will be a final document in February 1999 and that again relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley; that there are differences and variations which need to be looked at in the general context.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the funding system used by Tai Cymru avoided many of the difficulties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood? Bearing that in mind, will he promote
1438
consultation between his department and the Department of Social Security to ensure that in the current review of housing benefit, decisions about the specialist needs of women's refuges will he taken into account before general decisions are made and not afterwards?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's question. I can assure the House that the position of women's refuges will be considered in the context of any future review of housing benefit.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, with the greatest respect, is my noble friend aware that my information differs from his? I am told by the people who run the refuge that the helpline will close if the money is not forthcoming. Whether it closes or whether it is substantially reduced, as he says it will be, the result will be disastrous for thousands of women living in brutal circumstances. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that that is not allowed to happen and that is why we call for action.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can only repeat that my information varies slightly from that put before the House by my noble friend. I will re-research it in case I have been misinformed. I repeat that we provide significant sources of support; for instance, for WAF(E) which has its own helpline and is extremely effective. The funding provided to the refuge in question was not government funding. When the original grant was awarded, it was made plain that there would be no continuing funding and that the refuge should plan accordingly.

British Industry: Productivity
2.54 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeauxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to improve the productivity of British industry in relation to other member states in the European Union.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Competitiveness UK initiative launched by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade last summer, is central to the Government's drive to work with business to bridge the gap in productivity between Britain and its main competitor countries in Europe and beyond. Under this initiative, business people and other partners are working directly with Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to identify barriers to improve competitiveness and develop practical proposals to overcome them. The conclusions of this process will help shape the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that UK productivity is extremely bad? If the UK could only

1439
perform as well as our leading EU competitors, our gross domestic product would increase by £60 billion a year, according to the CBI.
Are your Lordships as baffled as I am by the reports which indicate that the Government and their advisers do not even know the factors which make UK productivity so bad? What have they been doing all these years? Will the Government demonstrate to Parliament their firm commitment to understanding UK productivity problems as well as coming up with a policy that will work and will win the confidence of the British public?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are aware of the importance of increasing productivity. This Government have a sense of urgency about the need to tackle the problem. On 4th June last year my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett—only one month after taking office—launched the Competitiveness UK initiative. By November of last year the Competitiveness UK paper indicated where British businesses were compared with the best in the world. Six key areas of weakness in the UK's competitiveness performance were identified and a working party was set up to address each area. Those working parties reported their conclusions to the President of the Board of Trade in April this year. The Government are now working with the working party members and holding seminars at 11 Downing Street to see how their ideas can be developed in practice. We will then spell out our policy proposals to address this productivity gap.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, will the Minister briefly outline what the Government are doing to aid the productivity of the British beef industry?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that that is a question I ought to answer.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, that the most significant problem faced by the British economy at the moment is the lack of productivity in our industry? That is a view shared by the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will the Minister agree that, as our economy slows down, the most significant step that the Government could take to ensure that the problem is resolved is early entry into the European monetary union?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that early entry into monetary union is the solution to the problem. The fact that the euro will be used more frequently will expose British companies to their lower productivity as compared with other European countries.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a simple way of improving productivity in this country would be diminished productivity on the part of the bureaucrats in Brussels? If there were fewer regulations, British productivity would undoubtedly improve.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it depends what is meant by regulations. The purpose of some regulations is to produce barriers in the way of business. But other regulations give people more confidence in the product; for instance, regulations in relation to aircraft and pharmaceuticals. The whole matter is extremely complex.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord's failure to answer the question of my noble friend indicative of the Government's belief that agriculture is not an industry? Is he aware that there is a huge imbalance between imports and exports in relation to British agricultural products? Most of the products produced in the United Kingdom are of excellent quality and observe all the welfare and hygiene standards required as opposed to what often happens on the Continent. Can he say what Her Majesty's Government are doing about agricultural products in Europe?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government have put forward restructuring proposals for the beef industry and those proposals are now being discussed. So the Government are working on the problem.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, when small and medium-sized companies are installing high-tech machinery in order to increase productivity, the most valuable thing for them would be fiscal incentives over the following few years? Both the companies and the Inland Revenue would benefit from the future profitability arising from such incentives.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, 1 entirely agree with the noble Baroness. Indeed, the Government have taken steps in that direction. The corporation tax rate for small companies will be cut by 1 per cent. to 20 per cent. from 1st April 1999, following a 2 per cent. cut last July. The capital gains tax taper system to promote and reward long-term investment has an effective top rate of 10 per cent. for gains on business assets held over 10 years. The Government are giving fiscal incentives to these companies in order to invest.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, where British companies have achieved high records of productivity and can easily be seen as the most successful within the EU, will the Government be vigilant in ensuring that our partner states do not involve themselves in practices which deny Britain the advantages of that achievement?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are very vigilant in this matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the measurement of increases or decreases in productivity is a matter of some difficulty, together with an agreed method of statistical representation? Will the Government therefore take into account that there still remains the largely unmeasurable factor of plain common sense and that one knows,

1441
factory by factory but certainly not in its generality, what underproductivity or overproductivity actually means?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are trying to apply common sense in that they are consulting the actual practitioners. Many of the people involved in the schemes to improve productivity are the businessmen themselves.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend Lord Randall could have asked this Question or its equivalent at any time during the past 70 years and that it is highly likely that my noble friend on the Front Bench or his equivalent would have answered in terms of working parties? As the problem has existed for at least 70 years, would it not be sensible not to introduce working parties or their equivalent but to try to find another way to deal with this problem? Ever since the Labour Government of 1945 we have been setting up these bodies. We have constantly talked about productivity problems but our relative position has remained not entirely unchanged, but certainly not very changed. The answer is that working parties are not what is needed.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that this time it will be different. The working parties have reported and last week the first seminar took place to discuss the reports. The Government are determined that the practical proposals will be disseminated to all companies throughout industry and we shall start to benefit from that in a very short while.
The Earl of Home: My Lords, the Minister said that he was trying to identify barriers in order to improve competitiveness. Will the noble Lord tell us whether in discussing this issue the DTI has addressed the question of the aid-to-trade provision in conjunction with the Export Credits Guarantee Department or are the Government sticking to their dogmatic view of abolishing the aid-to-trade provision, which has been a great boon to this country in the past?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the policy on the aid-to-trade provision has been clearly laid out by the Government. It is not a matter of productivity; it is a matter of doing business deals.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following up the valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that what we least need is yet another working party, perhaps I may say that what we actually need is action based on what is well known over the years. Does the noble Lord agree that one of the major problems that has bedevilled British industry has been a relative lack of investment in new products and new procedures to match those of continental competitors? Is this high on the list of the studies now being conducted?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, not only is it high on the list but the Government have already taken action, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The
1442
Government have already given fiscal incentives to invest and, as a result of some of the studies being carried out, there may be further ones; I do not know. But certainly it is very high on the list of priorities.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, far from this issue being complex, does my noble friend agree that the two essential ingredients for increasing productivity are investment in technology and the training of the workforce? Unfortunately, for a number of decades a large part of British industry has failed to do either.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that investment in technology and investment in skills are important. The Government are addressing themselves to both those matters.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, how will productivity be helped by the introduction of the minimum wage?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, many of us do not need an expert to tell us that fairness at work leads to greater productivity. Many noble Lords, particularly noble Lords on this side of the House, know from their own experience that fairness at work increases productivity. As the minimum wage will increase fairness at work, it will increase productivity.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the situation in Indonesia. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on the Statement 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Preparation of education development plans]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 11, after ("area.") insert ("specifying the targets for attainment for individual schools at key stage I, key stage 2, key stage 3, and key stage 4,").

1443
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 27. These amendments are deliberately designed to make more specific and more precise the exact manner in which the education development plans prepared by each school and each local authority will—and I refer to a later phrase in the clause—"raise the standards of education".
The Bill is entirely about raising the standards of British education throughout the system. The Government and those on these Benches share the same aim. We realise that things have not always been as right as they should have been in British education and we have all tried to make improvements. Our wish is that the children in our schools are taught in such a way that they leave literate and numerate as well as extended by the whole business of their teaching; and this from whatever area or background they come.
While I accept the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in previous debates that regard ought to be paid to value added in assessing a school, I am sure that he will agree that value added is often hard to define although we both share the view that in part education development plans should pay some attention to that. But that is not in contradiction to what I propose in these amendments which deal with absolute facts that are at present available. The amendments suggest that any education development plan, both from the individual school and from the area plan as it is developed, should pay attention to existing facts and to the evidence available from existing national tests. That would actually help a judgment of performance.
I cannot imagine any other organisation in the country making a decision to improve standards which would not at least start from the existing achievement of the institution or organisation. This is very important. Both sides agree that the problem in areas of the same social mix, be it rich or poor, is that different schools are producing widely different results and therefore, in assessing their future performance in the education development plan, if we are to help the good ones to do even better and the worst to improve it would be worthwhile to look at what they have or have not achieved in the past.
As Members of the Committee opposite know, the education development plan suggests that by the summer of the year 2000 pupils in year six in primary, junior and middle schools should judge what they are going to achieve in their key stage 2 English and maths tests and so on; and similarly for GCSE and other results in secondary schools. Can there be any harm in asking that in deciding these targets we look at achievements in key stage 2 and more in previous years? We can then say whether they have set the right target and whether they have achieved it. In no sense are we hindering their performance.
The amendments propose a more specific and realistic approach to improving educational standards. It is unfortunate that Form 7, prepared by the local authorities, refers to people who receive free schools meals; it does not say what academic results the schools are achieving. These are practical amendments. There is
1444
no ideology in them. I would have thought that the Minister could say, "Thank you Lord Pilkington for your wisdom in suggesting these amendments to me. I am delighted to accept them." I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Thank you, Lord Pilkington, for explaining your amendments so clearly. The noble Lord says that his proposals are more specific and realistic than the existing provision in the guidelines for education development plans. I certainly agree that they are more specific. They require local education authorities to include in their education development plans specific targets for individual schools at each of key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 and that the targets so specified—I am referring to Amendment No. 27—should be based on the prior attainment of individual schools.
We intend to have a small, manageable but challenging number of targets in the first three-yearly cycle of education development plans. The noble Lord rightly described the contents of the table of targets which is in Annex 1 of the consultation document. These will cover some but not all of all key stages. In other words, they will cover key stage 2 for English and maths and for schools with secondary pupils they cover results for pupils on the roll aged 15 at the start of the various years.
However, we do not want to overburden local education authorities or schools with a target-setting process as complex as that which the amendments provide. They would increase the amount of bureaucracy and decrease the amount of flexibility. Of course, if LEAs and schools want to provide further information and agree additional targets than those required under the education development programme, they can do so. There is provision for an optional annex to the education development programme. But the important point is that they should have choice to add to a limited but reasonable set of prescribed targets. I believe that many schools would find it a serious burden to meet as many targets as those implied by the amendments. To put them on the face of the Bill would make it impossible to change the targets that LEAs and schools should agree without further primary legislation. We are proposing that the Secretary of State should issue regulations on target setting under Section 19 of the Education Act 1997 which will enable him to specify appropriate targets, taking into account changing circumstances over the years. The amendments would impose targets which, even though perhaps appropriate at the outset, might very well be overtaken by education developments later on.
We are sympathetic to the idea of such important contextual information as pupils' prior attainment, and schools and LEAs will take that into account. It is only if we do take into account prior attainment that tracking and evaluating performance and rates of improvement are possible. So what is proposed in Amendment No. 27 is what will inevitably happen as part of the process of schools and LEAs agreeing, and subsequently monitoring, targets for pupils on the school side and targets for schools on the side of the LEA. What is

1445
necessary will be done: it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may say that in the very first briefing produced by the National Commission on Education, written very persuasively by Professor Andrew McPherson from Edinburgh, the crucial importance of value added was stressed and a great deal of factual information was provided to indicate the reasons why crude league tables relating to levels of attainment by pupils in individual schools were misleading. It was necessary to take full account of the educational attainment of the parents of the pupils, their social and ethnic background and many other factors before one was able to see in what way targets for educational attainment had been achieved.
I very well understand the point made by the noble Lord, in reply to these amendments, about not imposing a greater level of bureaucracy on local education authorities and the schools. But it would be a great reassurance to the educational establishment, if I may call it such, if there were somewhere within this very important clause on educational provision by schools and educational plans a comment to the effect that the important principle of value added will be borne in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was fully prepared to make exactly the points which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has made in response to what I hoped would be a more comprehensive group of amendments covering questions of ethnicity, gender and so on. But noble Lords who propose these amendments have exercised their undoubted right to have them debated separately. So it is true that we have had half a debate and not the whole of it. The noble Lord is entirely right in saying that these other issues are enormously important in assessing added value and we should not go on prior attainment alone.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may raise a point with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I listened with care to what he said and I understood that the Government expect that every school will have targets such as those proposed in these two amendments and that the Government are looking for targets which relate to value added. If that is so, surely targets of attainment in relation particularly to value added are so important that, above all other matters that should appear on the face of the Bill, they come first.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is looking puzzled. I do not know whether he is really puzzled or whether he thinks that I do not know what I am talking about. It seems to me that it is crucial that every school should know what it is trying to achieve and that it should be able to measure whether it has done so in relation to the matters covered by these amendments. If that is so, and if the Government agree, why can they not put this particular matter on the face of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that I expected that all schools and LEAs would provide all of the information required in the amendments. I said that the guidance for LEAs on education development plans includes, in annex 1, a table which provides for information at key stages 2 and 4. That information will be required. It is up to the local education authorities and the schools to decide whether they want to specify further targets. That is an option for them; it is not a requirement. We are anxious to ensure that education authorities and schools put forward targets which are meaningful to them rather than simply imposing the full range of central targets.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: So the Government do not expect that every school will set such targets. I am not talking about the education authorities. I do not see why a school's targets should not be known to the education authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They will not necessarily; they can do so if they want to. There are already differences between middle schools and secondary schools. We must be a little flexible in terms of what we require from schools.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. It seems to me that his answers to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, are right. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested another problem which has troubled me as I have read and tried to understand the Bill. I am not sure whether I have been successful. The point of having plans is to achieve something, and after implementing every plan the question is, "Did you achieve what you were attempting?". My difficulty when reading the Bill—I am sure that my noble friend knows the Bill much better than I do—is that I cannot find anything in it to cover that question. Before we leave this matter, could my noble friend direct me to the part of the Bill dealing with that? I had meant to raise this point later but, as my noble friend is dealing with the matter now, I must confess to him that I am a bit lost. I cannot see the point of having plans—I totally support them—unless at some point, say, every year, one says, "This is what I set out to do and this is what I have achieved". I cannot find the provision in the Bill that says that that must happen.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord will find it under Amendment No. 31, which I hope that the Government will feel able to accept.
Baroness Blatch: I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, cannot find that provision. One of the difficulties with this Bill is that it is not possible to find such provisions in it. Having read the background papers, my understanding is that each school will negotiate its targets with the LEA.
However, because of the answers that we have been given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I now do not understand precisely what will be expected of each school. Perhaps I may link that with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.

1447
He referred to understanding children's backgrounds and the difficulties that they may face in their families if, say, they are not supported at home or if their homework is not supervised. Any such information is critical to the teacher's understanding of a child and of how to get the best from him or her, building on the strengths and addressing the weaknesses.
I must advise the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord McIntosh, that ultimately one wants to know that people have achieved the level of ability needed to do their job. I refer, for example, to surgeons who operate on people, to accountants who look after people's accounts and to lawyers who deal with complex matters. Whatever value is added and whatever extraneous information is provided by the school and/or the local education authority in the course of providing information to the Secretary of State (who will either approve or disapprove of it), it is important to know what a child is achieving, whatever his or her background. It is important to know what a child is achieving, what he or she is able to achieve and what it is possible (in the form of a target) for the child to achieve in the coming academic year. The answers that we have received so far from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, do not make it absolutely clear that we are looking for achievement targets and, based on previous achievement, that we are looking for reasonable, stretching targets for the following year in terms of a child's ability and curriculum outcomes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had thought that not only had I made that clear, but that the Bill makes it entirely clear. My noble friend Lord Peston is right: there is no point in having education development plans unless one is going to do something about achieving the targets. If my noble friend will look at Clause 7(5), he will see that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to keep under review the authority's proposals and their implementation. It is clear that implementation of an education development plan is an essential requirement of the process. I should add that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her colleagues, propose that Clause 7 as a whole should be removed from the Bill, thus removing also the requirement for implementation.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but perhaps he will clarify one point. Does "implementation" mean "outcomes" rather than, "trying to meet the plan"? My understanding of the word "implementation" is that it means, "We are trying to undertake our plan". It does not mean, "Having set the target that 98 per cent. of children will be able to read, we now tell you that 95 per cent. can read, which is less than our target, but more than was achieved last year". If we are to follow this line, that is the sort of information that we want. I am certain that my noble friend is right about what will be done. I am simply asking a rather technical question because I cannot see any provision in the Bill which requires that that must be done. I was hoping that there would be a simple non-political answer to my question, saying, "This bit
1448
of the Bill says that you have to state whether, and the extent to which, you have achieved your objectives". That was all that I wanted. It was a very simple question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not take it as a technical question. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend about the construction of the Bill. The intention is that the achievement of the targets set out in the education development plans will be a matter of public report. One would not have education development plans unless that is what one intended.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may return to something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier and ask him to clarify it. I hope that I was not correct in understanding him to say that a lower level of value added would be acceptable from pupils who might come from difficult home backgrounds or difficult economic circumstances. Surely the education system should be about enabling pupils to achieve their potential, whatever the background from which they come. That may require greater effort when dealing with pupils who come from difficult backgrounds, but surely one should not modify one's targets and expectations of value added just because pupils may come from difficult backgrounds. One should put in greater effort. The noble Lord seemed to imply that matters such as social class and ethnicity should be taken into account when assessing a school's target for value added. Surely that is not right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I gave the impression that the noble Lord has drawn, I gave the wrong impression. I am not saying that there should be lower expectations of value added because children may come from different backgrounds. It is simply that the value added is measured in a different way if they come from different backgrounds. We still have to have added value. That is what raising standards is all about. It is not a question of relaxation; it is a question of the way in which we realistically measure what can be achieved. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that is a matter not only of prior attainment, but also of the various other social factors to which the noble Lord rightly referred.
Lord Peston: In support of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, the point that he makes is one of which both he and I have experience. Let us take the case of Haringey. When there was a large influx of people from Cyprus whose first language was not English those schools made prodigious achievements in teaching those children to read and write, although I am sure that their performance was less good in terms of the ghastly league tables that I detest than that of children from leafier suburbs. The whole point about value added is that perhaps only half the children can read, but half is a good deal more than nought compared with another school that has moved from 70 per cent. to 71 per cent. I hope that my noble friend does not remotely accept the notion that to take value added into account is to make the teachers' or school's life easier; if anything, it is to make it very much harder.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is barking up the wrong tree. Quite rightly, one starts from prior attainment in measuring value added. If children enter a school less well educated or able the attainment of that school at the end of the day will be less but there will be value added and it is on that basis that the school should be praised. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that if two children coming into a school have equal prior attainment but one of them is poor and black and the other is rich and white the latter should be expected to do better. I do not believe that that is an acceptable policy for any government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that my noble friend Lord Peston had made the issue entirely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appears to be attempting to cloud it. I am glad that the lobby of the Haringey Association for the Advancement of State Education has reasserted itself. The examples that he gives are entirely right. If pupils whose first language is not English come into a school in the middle of their school career one must adjust one's targets accordingly. That does not mean that one sets lower standards for value added, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, appears to insist upon. There is still value added although the targets are different.
Lord Lucas: I entirely agree, but that is what prior-attainment is about. One starts with the attainment, abilities and measured competence of the pupils. If they come in with no English half-way through their schooling that is taken into account, but that has nothing to do with ethnicity or social background. They are totally irrelevant to value added. If one introduces those factors one merely accepts the idea that people who are poor should be less well educated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. I return to the point rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. There are all kinds of other factors that affect prior attainment. If one takes prior attainment which is the result of all these other factors as the only measure then one will not understand what it is the schools have to do and are trying to do. One must understand that, and that is why one needs the other measures of value added.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I welcome the Minister's dislike of too much bureaucracy. I am delighted that he wants to reduce it, and I am sure that he will give me his support when later in the Bill I table amendments to that end. My heart is touched by his dislike of bureaucracy in face of this Bill.
Since this matter has attracted everyone's attention, I turn to the issue of value added and prior attainment. I remind the Committee—some Members appear to have forgotten the point that I made—that there may be two different schools in the same area. I can think of two schools in a deprived area of east London both with high ethnic pupil ratios. They achieve widely different results. Those schools are less than one quarter of a mile from each other. They achieve widely different results
1450
because one demands more and is better run than the other. Therefore, prior attainment is a very important element. I regret that the Government have paid no more than lip service to Amendment No. 27.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to tests. There are other tests to show that prior attainment is more closely related to subsequent attainment than any other factor. The factors listed in the studies were class, parents' education, ethnicity, social disadvantage and free school meals. Tests have shown that if one can get prior attainment right regardless of race and social background one will get subsequent performance. I do not want to harp on something that I have referred to many times, but the experience of the United States proves that. Its educational system in the first 30 or 40 years of this century ignored ethnic and social background and awarded citizenship on achievement in the educational system and achieved it. We need not be in contradiction. I regret that in the first part of this debate these old social arguments are coming up. There is no contradiction. We on this side of the Chamber suggest that attention be paid to prior attainment and that schools be demanded to show it. That is the most effective way of judging a school. By all means work out value added, but I endorse the views of my noble friend Lord Lucas that it must never become, as it has in the past, an excuse for the fact that some people from different ethnic backgrounds are less well educated. There is no necessity for that. I taught pupils in Africa for three years for whom English was a third language. They spoke two others: their tribal language and Swahili. They were as clever as many of the people I taught later in highly selective schools. It is enormously important that we judge that in the state system.
Although I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I ask the Committee to pay attention to Amendment No. 27 because it may come back again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 15, after second ("for") insert ("all").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 28 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Amendment No. 28 seeks to add the word "all" to the first sentence of Clause 6. The effect is to insert on the face of the Bill the Government's stated commitment to improve the education provision for and the educational achievements of all children, including those with special needs in the broadest sense of those words.
I raised this matter at Second Reading. On 5th May I received a letter from the noble Baroness the Minister reassuring me that the definition of "children" in this sentence specifically included children with special needs. That provides some hut not sufficient comfort. But at Second Reading the noble Baroness also recommended that we study the draft guidance, as it then was, on educational development plans. I have

1451
done so. It is true that there are many places in which the requirements placed on LEAs in constructing these plans cover or refer to pupils with special needs and/or pupils in special schools.
However, the phrase "all children" is used only once in the outline of the legal position in appendix 4 of the draft guidance. That makes no mention of special needs. We wish to see a commitment in education development plans to the development of education provision for all pupils including those who are sometimes left on the margins of LEAs' interests, concern and expenditure. I include among them sometimes marginal groups and the full range of children with special educational needs, including those with behavioural problems, pupils with special gifts, the physically disabled, who are sometimes indefensibly separated from mainstream education, and pupils in referral units. The draft guidance goes some way towards satisfying that imperative. It is possible that, following the end of the consultation period on the draft guidance, increased emphasis may be placed on the spectrum of special needs within it. Meanwhile, we should like to see the Government's stated commitment to SEN pupils reflected on the face of the Bill.
I turn next to Amendment No. 39 which provides that when the authority prepares its education development plan it shall have regard to the curriculum statement under the Education Act 1996. This is a probing amendment. We want to ensure that the education plan is linked to the curriculum statement rather than that the duty to draw up such a statement is abolished. The LEA would then need to have regard to the curriculum statement when it draws up the EDP. The purpose of that amendment is quite clear.
Finally, on Amendment No. 40 we are asking that:
"In the course of preparing an education development plan the authority shall agree targets with a school, to which the school shall have regard".
Those proposals were in the White Paper and we wish to reintroduce them into the Bill. We need an explanation from Ministers as to why the requirement to agree targets with schools has been dropped although it was proposed in the White Paper. It is possible that the effectiveness of EDPs will be reduced if schools can ignore them. Equally, it is more likely that schools will ignore them if there has not been a reasonable discussion and agreement following that discussion. I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: The question of special needs has been raised and it is always very moving in this House when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other noble Lords refer to special needs. However, I am particularly concerned about a group of children which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, referred to, but more or less in passing rather than in emphasis; that is, very gifted children. We always think of children with special needs as those who do not have the talents which many others have. But in this Bill, there is very little about gifted children who are, after all, the high fliers of the future. That is something that we should always keep before us.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, Amendment No. 28 would define the children in relation to whom LEA education development plans are to apply as "all children" in an authority's area. I have seen the letter which my noble friend Lady Blackstone sent to the noble Baroness on 30th April. The second paragraph of that letter states:
"You asked whether the definition of "children" in Clause 6 of the Bill concerning education development plans specifically included children with special educational needs. I can confirm that it does".
We cannot be any clearer than that. We take on board the noble Baroness's concern that no child should be overlooked under an education development plan. In fact, Clause 6(3) sets out the definition. For the purpose of outlining the scope of an education development plan, that part of the Bill defines children as "persons of compulsory school age", that is five to 15 inclusive. "(whether at school or otherwise)", which includes those being taught at home, for example, and,
"persons of any age above or below that age who are registered as pupils at schools maintained by the authority".
In other words, it is all those children that the amendment is concerned to include.
There is one practical effect of the noble Baroness's amendment. It would make local education authorities, through their plans, responsible for privately-educated children in the areas. That is certainly not what we intend because clearly, local education authorities could not meaningfully discharge that responsibility although we envisage that, where information is available, LEAs will take account of the performance of local independent schools in drawing up their targets and school improvement programmes. We welcome and fully endorse any voluntary co-operation between the state and private sectors in promoting educational attainment.
Amendment No. 39 would require LEAs, in drawing up their EDPs, to have regard to the written statement of policy on the secular curriculum that every LEA is presently required by law to have and to keep up to date. Our intention in the Bill is to repeal the requirement for LEAs to produce a curriculum statement. That requirement predates the introduction of the national curriculum and was intended as a tool to promote consistency in the school curriculum across the country. With the establishment of the national curriculum the requirement is now redundant and it would not be right to include it in an education development plan. Leaving it in would create a duplication and an unnecessary burden. Of course, if individual authorities wish to have a curriculum statement, there is nothing to stop them doing so.
Amendment No. 40 is a rather important amendment because it would work only on the assumption that LEAs will be able to impose targets on schools. We have made it clear that individual school targets are the responsibility of the school. We believe that the target-setting exercise between LEAs and schools should be a co-operative effort, involving a full exchange of views in agreeing appropriate performance targets. Local education authorities are responsible for encouraging schools to raise their standards and setting

1453
out in their EDPs how they will help schools to do so. But the schools must have the lead responsibility for their own improvements and should be accountable for their own performance. LEAs are responsible for their part of the bargain: how well they support the schools. Where it is not possible for schools and LEAs to agree targets, the EDP should record the disagreement.
I believe that the noble Baroness will agree, on reflection, that that is better than taking responsibility from schools for their performance while giving LEAs an important role in challenging school targets. Our proposal strikes a proper balance between the rights and responsibilities of LEAs and schools. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend for some slight clarification of his answer. He says—and it seems to be clear from the Bill—that children means children. In other words, we do not need the word "all" and, indeed, the word "all" may be unhelpful. He then said that included in that is a sub-set of children; namely, those with special educational needs.
Does it then follow that, without writing the words "special educational needs" into this part of the Bill, the plan must clearly provide targets and there must be a plan to encompass those children with special educational needs? In other words, it seems to follow logically from my noble friend saying that we do not need the amendment that if, the plan did not include what was required for children with those needs, it would not be acceptable. Am I right to interpret his answer in those terms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would not be a proper plan for all children in the area unless it provided for those children with special educational needs.
Baroness Blatch: I understood the noble Lord to say that Sections 370 and 374 of the Education Act 1996 are to be repealed or will not have effect as and when this Bill receives Royal Assent. In that event, what curriculum is to be regarded in the drawing up of those plans? It seems to me important that if there is not to be regard to the national curriculum, it should be made clear what is to be in its place.
Secondly, education action zones are to be a great factor in many parts of the country if the Government carry through their policy on education action zones. They will have the power to disapply the national curriculum and can therefore put another curriculum in place. At this stage, none of us has any idea what that may be because it will be a matter for the Secretary of State and the action zones to determine what will be the substitute curriculum.
Are the action zones exempt from that process of drawing up education development plans? I understand that they are not. In that case, how on earth will an LEA take into account the relaxing of the national curriculum as we have all come to understand it, which means a possibility of different things in different schools? Moreover, how do the LEAs take into account the action zone's curriculum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two parts to the noble Baroness's question. I can confirm that it is our intention to remove the curriculum statement requirement from the 1996 Act. I hope that that is entirely clear.
The noble Baroness's second question was about education action zones. She talked about them. It may be better for us to discuss those when we reach Clause 10.
Baroness Blatch: I reject the answers to both those points. First, in the event of the repealing of those parts of the 1996 Act, I asked what curriculum LEAs would have to have regard to in drawing up the EDPs. They must have regard to something going on in those schools. Secondly, as regards education action zones, I shall be happy to discuss these when we reach that point in the proceedings. However, at this stage, there is a read-across between the preparation of EDPs and the existence of EAZs in those authorities. That does not form part of the four clauses which appear later in the Bill. Therefore, in the context of EDPs, it is important to know whether they are exempt from that process. If they are not exempt, we need to know how the EDP clauses in the Bill will work in relation to education action zones.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the requirement for a curriculum statement will indeed be replaced by the national curriculum. There is legislation, both primary and secondary, on the national curriculum. On the question of education action zones, the answer is no. The schools in the EAZs will not be exempt from the requirement to produce an education development plan.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, had to say about the particular attention that should be paid to the needs of people with exceptional gifts. Indeed, it is a theme which I have often pursued, though in different chambers from this one. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for teasing out some of the detail of the Minister's reply on the question of gifted children.
Having listened to the interchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Minister, I must say that I am now rather confused as to the situation with regard to curriculum status. I did not think that the Education Act 1996 came into being before the national curriculum; indeed, I rather thought that it happened considerably after the national curriculum was introduced. Therefore, I did not understand the Minister's original reply. Moreover, I did not manage to achieve a better understanding of the situation from following the interchange between the two speakers. In the circumstances, I believe that we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage, when I have had the opportunity to read the Hansard report of that interchange and been able to reconsider the matter at greater length.
As regards Amendment No. 28, I believe that here, too, we shall need to reconsider the question. I do not believe that we shall manage to have the word "all"

1455
introduced into the Bill, because I have referred to the matter twice now in debate and have twice been turned down. Indeed, the letter from the Minister was pretty firm in that respect. However, there may be another more suitable way of ensuring that concern for pupils with special educational needs is expressed on the face of the Bill. If so, we may well return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Indonesia
3.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on unrest in Indonesia which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the current situation in Indonesia.
"Our top priority remains to ensure the safety of British citizens in Indonesia. Throughout the recent unrest the embassy has kept in close touch with the British community through the warden system and regularly updated travel advice. This advice has also been broadcast by the BBC World Service. Emergency telephone lines have been set up in Jakarta to provide up-to-date information 24 hours a day.
"Advice to resident British nationals caught up in the unrest has been kept under constant review. From Friday, 15th May, Britons were advised to consider leaving. Early this morning, in view of the latest political developments and the demonstrations expected on 20th May, we issued advice that British citizens should leave Indonesia, preferably avoiding travel on 20th May. At our ambassador's request, an additional British Airways 747 flight has been arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, leaving Jakarta later today for Kuala Lumpur. There are also other scheduled flights available.
"British citizens with safe access to the airport were advised to make their own way there, where an embassy team will be available at the British Airways office to give advice. The embassy also chartered a fleet of buses to transport British citizens from central Jakarta. As an extra precaution, a police escort was requested and provided.
"We have been greatly saddened by the tragic death of a British citizen in Jakarta on 14th May. Our deepest sympathy goes out to his family. The motive
1456
appears to have been robbery, as the evidence suggests that the death was unrelated to the mob violence. We have asked the Indonesian police for investigation reports as a matter of urgency. We have heard rumours of the possible death of a second British national but our embassy in Jakarta has established that these rumours are unfounded.
"I should like to thank the staff of our embassy in Jakarta for their hard work in the face of enormous difficulties and a very unpredictable political situation. They, and many of their spouses, have been working tirelessly around the clock since 14th May to help the local British community. Many of them also have dependants in Indonesia to worry about. Although their work is not yet over, I should like to take this opportunity to thank them now for their continuing efforts.
"We are also very grateful to British Airways, and especially to Clare Hatton and her staff in Jakarta, for their great efforts to help many Britons leaving Indonesia.
"The situation in Indonesia is changing very rapidly. President Suharto has told the Indonesian people in a television address today that there will be a general election as soon as possible and that he will not stand again himself. We call on the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the new elections are free and fair. Political reforms are needed that will do justice to the aspirations of the people of Indonesia. The tragic violence that we have seen over the past week must be stopped, before more innocent lives are claimed. We urge Indonesia to introduce the necessary changes quickly so that calm and stability can be restored.
"The British Government have been following developments in Indonesia very closely over recent months. Ministers have made our concerns very clear to the Indonesian authorities. I visited Jakarta in March and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also in Indonesia at the beginning of this month. He took the opportunity to underline the importance of political and economic reform. Together with our European partners, we issued a statement on 13th May calling on the authorities to exercise maximum restraint and to respect individual rights. This message has been conveyed to the Indonesian authorities through our embassy in Jakarta and I personally summoned the Indonesian Ambassador on 13th May.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also took the opportunity of the G8 Summit to discuss the situation in Indonesia. As the House will know, leaders called on the Government of Indonesia to refrain from using lethal force and to initiate political reform.
"We have stressed the importance of political and economic reform. The two are now essential to recovery in Indonesia. I am sure that the House will want to support the Government in calling for peaceful transition in Indonesia".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement being made in another place. We are grateful for the opportunity to hear the Government's concern about the situation in Indonesia, which, in recent days, has been teetering on the edge of anarchy. We share the Government's sorrow at the rioting, looting and burning witnessed in Jakarta. This is the worst violence in the city since President Suharto took power in 1965 and has resulted in a rising death toll approaching some 500.
From these Benches we join the Minister in conveying our condolences to the family of the Briton murdered during the riots and to the families of all the innocent Indonesians who have died. Likewise, we also pay tribute to the work carried out by our embassy officials and would like to associate ourselves with the Minister's recognition of the bravery of Miss Clare Hatton who has kept the British Airways office open in Jakarta and enabled more than 2,000 people to leave the country.
I join the Minister in condemning the rioting and the unprovoked racist attacks, particularly on the ethnic Chinese community. There is a fundamental difference between those who take to the streets in peaceful political protest and the mob rule of violence and death seen in Jakarta in recent days. What reports have the Government had of the situation outside the capital, particularly in East Timor and in Irian Jaya? We welcome the Government's decision to urge the Indonesian authorities to use maximum restraint in dealing with crowd situations in order to avoid any further escalation of violence.
I wish to ask the Minister a few questions about the arms used in the recent disorder. Can the Minister confirm whether the Scorpion armoured reconnaissance vehicles which have been used to suppress protests in Indonesia were exported from Britain under this Government? Can the Minister further confirm whether Hawk aircraft have been used at any time during these disturbances? Is it the Government's intention to revoke export licences to Indonesia, as the Member for Cynon Valley has suggested? President Suharto has made a live address on national television promising to implement reforms and to hold parliamentary elections as soon as the Indonesian constitution allows. Does the Minister believe that a change of government can be achieved under the present Indonesian constitution? Does the Minister support President Suharto's decision not to resign immediately? If so, what timescale would be appropriate and practical for new elections to be held in Indonesia? Will the Government offer to send British experts in elections to provide advice to the Indonesian authorities on the drafting of new laws?
Finally, does the Minister agree that the recent agreement between Indonesia and the international financial institutions, including the IMF, must be adhered to if growth and confidence in the country are to be restored? What consultations have the Government had with Indonesia's regional neighbours and with our European partners on the situation in that country? We
1458
join the Minister today in wanting to help Indonesians see the potential of their country fully restored. It is a country with great economic potential. We welcome the initiatives that have been taken, as described in the Statement which the Minister has repeated.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House. I also thank the staff of the British Embassy and British Airways in Jakarta for the help they have given to our citizens. Will every British citizen who wants to leave be enabled to do so in the reasonably near future? When the Government say in the Statement that they call on the Government of Indonesia to ensure that the new elections are free and fair, does the Minister recognise—as the Opposition spokesman has mentioned—that that is rather a difficult objective under the present constitution? Will the Minister make it clear to the present Government of Indonesia that to be successful such elections would have to be administered genuinely independently, and possibly with some external assistance?
In recent days British television viewers have watched democratic demonstrations in Jakarta being put down by British made water cannon firing British supplied nerve gas. My colleagues and I have tried to find the difference between the policy of the previous administration and the ethical foreign policy of the present Administration on the question of supplies to Indonesia. We have found an interesting difference. On 26th November 1996 the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, stated in a Written Answer,
"We do not license for export, to Indonesia or to any other country, any UK defence equipment likely to he used for internal repression".—[Official Report, 26/11/96; col. WA5.]
On 24th July last year the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, said:
"We will not sell arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or external aggression".—[Official Report, 24/7/97; col. 1513.]
In the light of that subtle difference, will the Minister explain or confirm that 22 licences were granted to Indonesia between May 1997 and December 1997 for toxicological agents, riot control agents, body armour, and so on, and that between 1st January and 3rd April this year a further 28 individual arms licences were granted to Indonesia, some of them even after the troubles and violence began? What licences have been refused to Indonesia?
When I visited Jakarta a couple of years ago one of the people who impressed me most was the Speaker of the Parliament who seemed keen to improve the role of that parliament. Therefore is not his call for the resignation of President Suharto of particular significance and importance? In a meeting I attended with newspaper editors it became clear that the press operate under a strict system where, if they write something inimical to the regime, their licence to publish can be suspended. The conclusion we have to come to in this unhappy tragedy is that an ethical foreign policy must begin by denying weapons of security to unethical regimes.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Steel, for their kind tributes to the British Embassy staff which I shall do my best to ensure are conveyed to the staff and to the spouses of staff in the embassy who have made such enormous efforts over the past weekend. I acknowledge again the bravery of Miss Clare Hatton from the British Airways office.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the position outside Jakarta. As I understand it, there are demonstrations outside Jakarta at the moment although I do not have precise information. The warnings and advice that the British Government are issuing apply across Indonesia except for Bali. I hope that that answers the point; namely, that we are concerned about the situation elsewhere in Indonesia because there is sufficient unrest to warrant that concern.
The noble Lord asked various questions—as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Steel—about the equipment being used in the repression on the streets of Jakarta. I shall do my best to answer specific points put by both noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, went into specific detail which I may have to answer by letter. As regards the Scorpion tanks and the water cannon of British origin seen by television viewers being used recently, the licences were approved under the previous administration. It is not realistic or practical to revoke licences which were valid and in force under the previous government. We have issued no new licences for any equipment where we have judged that there is a clearly identifiable risk that it might be used for internal repression or external aggression. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about Hawk aircraft. We have studied all the information available as regards Hawks being used in East Timor. We are confident that UK supplied Hawk aircraft have not been used there, or in any counter-insurgency role in Indonesia. That is the information that I have as of today's date.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, asked about refusals of licences. Since 2nd May we have refused a number of standard individual licences for Indonesia. We believe that this clearly demonstrates that the new criteria are having an impact. We are not in a position to give details on individual contracts as the information is confidential to the companies concerned and to their customers but if there are questions which the noble Lord has posed which I can answer without compromising that confidentiality, I shall be happy to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about President Suharto's position. I think it is still too early to anticipate when the elections he referred to in his broadcast yesterday are likely to take place. The noble Lord will know that there has been a certain amount of speculation about that in the press. As regards answering that question at the moment, I do not have any additional information. The noble Lord also asked t4thether it might be possible for British experts to help in those elections. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned that any elections should be clearly seen to be independent and to have received external assistance.
1460
I take the point that there has to be confidence in any election procedures in Indonesia. I shall convey the point that the noble Lords have put to me on this to my right honourable friend and my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett for their consideration in order to see whether there is any practical way that we might offer assistance. I cannot say whether such assistance will be welcome, but I shall ask my right honourable friend and my honourable friend. I think the two points that the noble Lords made were reasonably adjacent on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, then went on to ask about the IMF and the economic situation. We have contributed greatly to tackling the current financial problems in Indonesia. We have given full support to the IMF's role in seeking to restore confidence to markets in the region with its various rescue packages. Our aid effort in Indonesia is largely channelled through multi-lateral organisations such as the World Bank. We have also responded to the ICRC's appeal for help in Irian Jaya and East Timor. I hope that answers the points on the IMF.
I have already indicated that I shall try to see whether I can obtain more detail on some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Steel.
Perhaps I may make one further point. I made an error in beginning my Statement this afternoon. I indicated that the Statement was being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. It is 'n fact being made by my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett. I apologise to your Lordships for that mistake.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for repeating the Statement and for adding to it, may I ask her whether there is any estimate of the number of British citizens still in Jakarta and if it is known whether all of them are wishing to leave or whether there is a substantial number who are intending, against the advice tendered to them, to stay in Indonesia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we do not have precise figures. We are doing our best to obtain them, as the noble Lord would expect. The British Embassy staff are trying actively to establish how many Britons remain to offer them advice and assistance. But the task is complicated because a number of the wardens that were used, to whom I referred in the Statement, have already departed. It is through the wardens that such information is normally communicated to the embassy.
I believe that the numbers are falling. Without being absolutely precise, we are hopeful that those who wart to leave will be able to leave on the additional BA flights which are going in. As I indicated to you Lordships, there were a number of vacant places on the BA flights that came out over the weekend, but it may be that individuals will now feel they want to go. They may feel that because the advice has hardened and because the situation is so unstable they now want to

1461
leave. Of course, we are doing our best, with all the other agencies, like BA, to ensure that those who want to leave can.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, would the noble Baroness join with me in paying a tribute to the staff of the British Council in Indonesia? Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that I am a member of the British Council Board. They have traditionally, in the British Council way, worked extremely closely with the Indonesian population over recent years, not only in terms of English language teaching and training potential English language teachers, but also in trying to arrange for Indonesian students to come to this country. I know that some members of the British Council staff left Jakarta at the end of last week. I am not yet certain about the position of the others today.
Does the noble Baroness agree with me that there is a rather deeper problem for long-term consideration? For more than 25 years, this country and other western countries have worked extraordinarily hard to try to put stability into the Indonesian financial system. After all, was it not true that under President Sukarno Indonesia was in an almost permanent financial crisis? Is it not extremely sad to see one of the south-east Asian Tigers, for whom we had hoped a great deal, collapsing so quickly like a pack of cards? Does that not call for a sober assessment in due course of the success of World Bank loans, of IMF money and, indeed, of the role of the Department for International Development? To what extent can we affect such huge events in as distant and as huge a country as Indonesia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the work of British Council staff on this occasion. Indeed, I am always happy to find opportunities to praise the work of the British Council. Whenever I travel abroad I always try to make a point of seeing representatives of the British Council and to acknowledge the important work that they do in relation to ensuring that the work of Britons at home and the cultural aspects of life in Britain are understood by our friends abroad.
The noble Lord then went on to raise questions about perhaps the longer term assessment in relation to the IMF. s per Majesty's Government are confident that with the IMF and World Bank programmes, which I mentioned in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and with a strong adjustment effort from the Asian countries concerned, financial stability will be restored to the region.
Like everyone else, I am not able to say when, but ire believe that those are the reasonable mechanisms to use in order to try to re-establish that stability.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, appreciating what the Minister has said, it has been widely reported that what triggered the disorders was the raising of the price of important commodities at the behest of the International
1462
Monetary Fund. Is it not important that we should lock at the kind of advice that is given to such countries if this is the result of its acceptance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think it is sensible for us to look at all the differing reasons which may have triggered the unrest in Indonesia. The noble Lord cites one of those reasons. There are other reasons, too, not least what is seen by many people to have been a regime which has not respected human rights. The fact that so many young people and students have been out demonstrating against the regime may be an indication of their desire for those greater human rights.
I by no means dismiss what the noble Lord is saying. At the moment, we are in the midst of a very difficult situation. There are British lives which I hope are not at risk but are certainly in an unhappy and uncomfortably- position, which is why we are trying to bring them out.
We now need to concentrate on ensuring the safety of British nationals. That is our foremost task and that is our foremost duty. Once we are sure that this immediate danger has been put on one side—the noble Lord is quite right, as are other noble Lords who have made this point—it is of course our duty to examine why this situation has arisen, to try to analyse the reasons and to do what we can to address them.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister hinted in one of her comments that this is an area which is notoriously sensitive to anything that smacks of interference by the former colonial powers. The people who are being butchered are not Europeans, they are Asians and overwhelmingly Chinese. There is nothing new in this situation; it has happened before. Do we have any indication of the action of other countries in the region At the end of the day, they will be the people who wil7 apply power, other than the IMF. It will not be this House.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I would not wish that anything I said should be implied to mean that the British Government can come metaphorically parachuting into a situation and find all the answers. That is as self-evidently wrong-minded as the noble Lord has indicated.
The noble Lord asked what else is going on in the, region at the moment. I am not sure whether he relates that to what other people are doing about evacuations around the region. I know that the Australians are involved in such measures at present. If the noble Lord means what are the other countries in the region looking at in relation to Indonesia and Indonesian stability, I gave an answer in relation to the IMF and the measures that are being taken to secure economic stability in the region as a whole. Indonesia may be in particular difficulties at present. But many of the financial problems it is experiencing are, if not exact mirror images, at least similar to those arising in other countries in the area. We—I hope that the noble Lord will not misunderstand me—shall wish to look not only at Indonesia but at the problems of the region as a whole, as we did at the Asia Meets Europe Conference last month in London.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks rightly of the need for us to concentrate on saving the lives

1463
of British citizens. Would she consider reintroduction of the system that used to operate whereby British citizens resident abroad register their names at the nearest British consulate? In the event of an upset such as this the authorities would have some idea who our nationals are and where they are so that they could be assisted. The system was abolished by the previous government. I suggest that the position might be reviewed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. As the Minister responsible for consular matters, I undertake to consider his suggestion which I think is interesting. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we are not just looking at British citizens who are resident. There may well be a number of British people and others in Indonesia. We warned people who did not have essential business from, I think, Friday 14th May, or it may have been 15th May. I shall check the date. We believed that those who did not have any specific reason to stay in Indonesia should consider leaving. It is important to consider that it is not just residents. British nationals may also be in Indonesia at present.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does the Minister agree that the Indonesian people have a great history of consensus in the way they are governed? Is it not appropriate to send a message to the Speaker of the Parliament from our Parliament to give those in parliament the encouragement needed? Is the Minister impressed by the restraint that has been shown by the students interviewed on television, and by some members of the army?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should have to take further advice before responding to the noble Lord's point about sending messages. As I am sure noble Lords will understand, this is a very sensitive time. I believe that we must not lose sight of our immediate objective: to get British nationals out of Indonesia. Anything we do which cuts across that objective will not serve their interests. I believe that it would cut across our central duty, which is to the British nationals.

School Standards and Framework Bill
4.23 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert (", judged by such measures as may be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: The Minister may be able to reassure me that the Government have the necessary powers to specify what is meant by "performance". It is important that the Government do specify what it means so that what is done by local education authorities and schools nationwide is consistent. When specific actions are shown to generate levels or types of improvement, it is important to be able to demonstrate that to local
1464
authorities by information which will be measured by and judged against standards agreed nationally. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am entirely sympathetic to the motives of the noble Lord in moving the amendment. He is right to say that it is important that an education development plan should set out what an LEA will do to improve the performance of its schools. He is right to say that we all want to see school performance improved. That is the whole purpose of the exercise. LEAs have an important role to play in supporting and challenging schools to drive up standards and through their education development plans they will be held accountable for their success in carrying this out.
Amendment No. 29 would require an LEA's proposal for improving its school performance to be assessed by measures to be prescribed in regulation. We need to be clear what an improvement to schools' performance means, and the measures by which it should be assessed. We are not at the starting blocks here. There are already well-established means of assessing improvement in schools' performance and information about how well schools are doing is widely available in the public domain. Ofsted inspections of schools provide a clear means of judging schools' performance and improvement and provide a wealth of information which—perhaps I may add, knowing the Lord's expertise in these matters—is available on the Internet. The performance tables which are published annually set out each school's performance and this can be tracked on a year by year basis. Ofsted has recently made available to all schools and LEAs wide-ranging details of schools' performance in performance and assessment reports and LEA profiles which—perhaps I may add, and LEAs to consider what more needs to be done on the basis of firm evidence of their own and similar schools' performance.
In addition, for the first time, Government will make available national value added analyses. This will enable schools to compare the progress made by a pupil between one stage of assessment and another with the progress made by all pupils nationally with similar starting attainments. Value added relates purely to the prior attainment of pupils and does not take into account other contextual factors which research suggests are of less significance in respect of pupil performance. This information will help schools and LEAs to raise standards by evaluating performance and identifying and encouraging good teaching practice.
The draft EDP guidance, on which consultation has recently finished, proposes that LEAs should carry out an audit of pupil performance and other aspects of performance taking account of available data such as Ofsted schools and LEA inspection reports, performance and assessment reports and LEA profiles. It also sets out draft criteria for how the LEA's school improvement programme will be assessed. Advisers from the standards and effectiveness unit in the department will also be working with LEAs to help them prepare and strengthen their plans.

1465
There are therefore a number of mechanisms already in place for judging the improvement of schools' performance and we do not see the need to add to bureaucracy further by specifying measures in regulations which is what the amendment proposes. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Before the Minister sits down, I am concerned about value added. I understand what the noble Lord says. Can he put a little more flesh on these bare bones and tell me the kind of issues he regards as value added? The noble Lord may remember that I mentioned that certain surveys indicated that such issues cannot be judged on the basis of ethnicity, deprivation and so on. The national value added scheme is important for those of us concerned with the Bill. I hope that the Minister can say more about the issues that the Government will consider.
There have been studies in the past. The Government have undertaken extensive consultation. It would help us considerably on this side of the Chamber if the noble Lord could share some of the insights with us.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think there are any insights which have not already been published either by this Government or by the previous government. A great deal of work has been done on this subject. I attempted, when we discussed earlier amendments, to give some idea of what, other than the measure of prior attainment, could be taken into account in value added. The noble Lord was quite right in saying that earlier reports show that prior attainment is the most important single factor in predicting future attainment, but of course it is also true that ethnicity, gender, language skills and social background are other elements. They are not elements in replacement of prior attainment; they are things which go to make up prior attainment, and prior attainment is the evident measure which encapsulates them. Our value added measures take that into account.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We really do need to get this absolutely clear because it is important that schools themselves know against what they are being measured. Let us take two children. Both have achieved exactly the same at the age of 7: there is no difference between them in terms of attainment and they are level pegging. One child is having free school meals and the other child is not. In a year's time, the child who is having free school meals is attaining rather better than the child who is not. Where is the added value? How is it measured? What factors are taken into account in making a judgment as to how the children themselves have achieved and how the school has achieved? The noble Lord has mentioned gender, ethnicity and free school meals. If this sort of information is going to be added to pure academic
1466
achievement, then it is important that he tells this Committee exactly how that information is going to be weighted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was not talking about them at all. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to say what might be included. The noble Baroness is talking about individual children as if these reports were going to be about individual children. What we are looking at is the performance of schools in aggregate, and of course when we see changes in terms of under-performance or over-performance against targets, we look for explanations. Some of the explanations may be in terms of social background, ethnicity, gender or whatever it may be. It is important that we should understand them but we do not have to say, for example, that gender accounts for 0.35 per cent. of the perceived deviation from the norm.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: These schools will be judged. The noble Lord opposite knows as well as I do that the business of value added has been studied by many bodies and has been the subject of considerable controversy—I repeat, considerable controversy. The noble Lord has been involved in it; I have been involved in it; and the noble Lord knows something about it. What he is proposing in this Bill is to make judgments on the schools on the basis, yes, of prior attainment and value added. But I fear I still must say—I am sorry to have to come back to this—that the noble Lord in his answers has not taken us into the disputes that have arisen and told us what his noble friend's department is considering, because it is going to have to make judgments on a subject that has been in great dispute among people who are supposedly experts. But executive decisions will be taken and I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has not helped us, beyond talking about generalities, as to what line will be taken on the issues which have been put to him. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is sitting behind the noble Lord and he has spent many hours, I should think, and many nights, studying just this subject. But the noble Lord has not taken into account all the pages that have been printed. Even just giving us a clue—a candle in the darkness—would help; a mere candle.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment is concerned with whether the conditions should be prescribed in regulations. I have described why it is unnecessary and might even be damaging for this amendment to be added to the Bill.
Lord Dearing: I recall some time ago I was chairman of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and it occurred to me that the purpose of education was to raise levels of achievement from what they had been. I invited the very clever people in higher education to help us develop a measure of value added. They applied their brilliant minds to this and added to the problem a degree of complexity which meant that we made no progress whatsoever. The great danger of value added is sophistication and the inclusion of so many variables that the outcome is not understood by parents or anyone else. It is the case that I offered some advice to the

1467
previous government on measures of performance and recommended in 1993 that we should introduce value added. I also recommended the setting up of a working party. The chairman is not a Member of this House but is in the Chamber; he led an excellent committee which produced a report amid many other reports.
I am inclined to say that, yes, we do want value added measures. It is important that if they are to be used schools know the criteria which are being brought to bear; otherwise it is an invalid process. However, I think it would be injudicious for your Lordships to prescribe what measures those should be. It is a matter for experts and for consultation, but before the measures are introduced they must be clear and known to all concerned.
Baroness Blatch: Having been involved in the early formulation of the ten-level scale, I have to say, "Save me from experts!". Having made that rather flippant remark, however, I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that whatever judgment is come to should be on the basis of proper consultation and taking into account professional advice. I still believe—this is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was saying—that in order for the schools to understand what it is they are going to be judged upon and in order for them to make sure that there is consistency throughout the country—because it would be very unfair to have an ad hoc system built up, with one LEA measured against one set of criteria and another LEA measured against another set of criteria. Whatever the Government may intend, it should take the form of regulations and be introduced only after a great deal of consultation.
I agree with my noble friend when he says that the criteria should be set out in regulations. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who said a moment ago that this is not about the attainment of an individual child, if it is not about that then it is about nothing. The performance of a school must inevitably be based on the attainment of the children within it and so, if the attainment of those children does not count, then how on earth can a school's performance be judged? It has to be judged on what the school achieves on behalf of the children within that school. Of course it is an aggregate and an amalgam, but the basis of that amalgam is the attainment of the children within a school, which adds up to what that school can achieve, through its teachers, head teacher and the governors and what they add in terms of value to the education of the children.
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may, as someone who has done a lot of work in this field, say a few words. The questions back and forth tell us why it is very complicated even for experts to give a simple answer. It is not an easy problem to which to give a simple answer. The noble Baroness is quite correct in saying that the performance of a school is an aggregation of individual performances, but it is not a simple aggregation: you cannot just add it up. One problem, both at the individual pupil level and at school level, is to be able not only to measure value added to initial achievement
1468
and the progress made, but also to be able to attribute some part of the value added to the school's or the pupils' activity and how much to attribute to other factors. I have spent about 35 years as a professional econometrician and this is not a simple problem. It would be very difficult to put anything on the face of the Bill, but what we can say is that in implementing this provision, when the notes are given to schools, and so on, perhaps the Government will try to make the matter understandable and uniform. But let us not think that this is going to be an easy problem.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I wholly agree that it would be totally unsatisfactory to attempt to put any definition or specific criteria related to value added on the face of the Bill. It would be a sheer impossibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, and there are experts who have examined this matter and developed formulae of tremendous complexity.
At the risk of repeating myself, perhaps I may return to the briefing by the National Commission on Education published by Andrew McPherson in 1993. On reading that briefing, a Member of this place said that it alone would have justified the existence of the National Commission on Education. It set out a number of clear, simple, specific statistical criteria upon which this whole issue could be judged.
This is a circumstance where it is not necessary to have the criteria on the face of the Bill, but where one would hope that ultimately the Department for Education and Employment would be prepared to publish recommendations that would be implemented nationwide for the application of such simple criteria.
Perhaps I may pose a question to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It relates not merely to this amendment, but to the next two tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is a well-hallowed principle of education that one defines what we may wish to call targets or, as some would prefer, goals and objectives. Once those are defined, one must be able to implement mechanisms to determine whether or not those targets, goals or objectives have been achieved. That requires specific techniques of assessment. Will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tell us in relation to this clause on education development plans—which in general terms I greatly welcome—in what way it is clear that the objective of assessing whether or not targets have been achieved will be fulfilled under the provisions of the Bill?
Lord Peston: I am totally mystified by much of this debate. I take it that we are still discussing Clauses 6 and 7 dealing with education development plans. Most of the remarks from noble Lords opposite do not seem to bear any resemblance to the Bill as I read it. Perhaps they have not noticed the subsection stating that the authority shall consult, or the subsection stating that toe documents will be submitted to the Secretary of State. I assume that all the documents will be in the public domain. The notion that this will be some kind of esoteric or closed area, ad hoc and lacking in consistency, seems to me to be about as far from the Bill I as written as one could possibly imagine. The problem is

1469
the usual one: noble Lords opposite do not seem to have read or understood the Bill that we are debating—to put it as tartly as I possibly can.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords, as my noble friend Lord Desai prompts me to do, that value added is not a concept in education; it was a concept invented in economics before the Second World War following on the economics of Lord Keynes. Essentially, it had to do with how we measured national income and what firms achieved in terms of output relative to the inputs that they had. It was taken over by people in education, often because they lacked any notion of educational theory. But the concept is still much the same. One is comparing what goes in with what comes out—the difference being the value that the organisations have added. It is essentially a concept to do with the organisation, not to do with what happens to a specific individual child. Noble Lords opposite ought to understand that, if I may go into professorial mode.
While in such mode, perhaps I may deal with one other matter. A great deal of educational research has been and will continue to be undertaken to examine the performance of schools and ask questions such as: why does this school achieve that and another school achieve something different? One examines a number of variables and, to use the word used by my noble friend, one comes up with an explanation. But certainly none of us on this side of the Chamber would misunderstand "explanation" to mean "justification", which is what troubles the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. So one might find one or two variables—ethnicity is one which has been established as correlating with, I am afraid, lack of educational performance. But that is an explanation; it is not remotely a justification. There are those of us who are saying that we must determine the causes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not then go on to say that because we want to determine the causes we are trying to justify poor performance. I, for one, am certainly not, and I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench has no intention of doing so. We are not advancing the subject of education by pursuing this argument in this form at this time.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I approach a professor with great trepidation. What we are talking about is subsection (2)(a)(ii)—
"improving the performance of such schools".
We have to judge how we improve performance. Value added is one idea.
I was pointing out to the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that in this debate we might even be able to contribute something to the part that value added could play in contributing to improvement in performance. That is what this debate is about: how we judge a school.
Now the professor may not think that we should debate these matters. The professor may doubt our brain. But the fact is, we are going to debate these matters, and we are going to carp on, because two years from now when this Government are in a much weaker situation, we shall be asking them why the performance
1470
of schools has not improved. So we make our point in this debate. The professor may not like it, and I am sure that in his college he would not allow it. But naughty schoolboys do what they want, particularly in this Chamber. So he has got to take it, I am afraid.
Lord Lucas: It may be helpful if I retaliate now so that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has the advantage of dealing with all his opponents at once. I find myself greatly enlightened by the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Walton of Detchant.
The discussion has fallen into two parts. the first on value added. I was heartened by the opening reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; namely, that the measure of value added published by the Government would not include any biases in relation to underlying factors such as economic or ethnic circumstances. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that these are explanations, not justifications. If one takes, for instance, my daughter's school, the boys there do as well as the girls. That is not common. If one were to examine value added nationally, one would apply a discount to schools with more girls because they would be expected to do better. It is right to examine the matter on an even basis and then say, looking at the matter nationally, that boys do worse and we must find some way of dealing with that and improving matters. Let us examine the schools where that does not happen and learn from them. So we examine the explanations and try to work out from them what has been going right in those schools and transfer that to other schools.
In order to undertake that wholly admirable process, systems of measurement are needed which are common to the nation as a whole. As the Bill presently stands—and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes it to be—one LEA can state that it will use one measure of value added; another may say that its measure of improvement in school performance is whether or not the children are happy, how many are excluded, or whether or not they are fighting. But we hear a whole variety of disparate measures in relation to school performance. The matter could be treated on an ad hoc basis within individual LEAs, with the Government saying, "Oh, that looks all right", and Ofsted waving its hand over the matter and saying, "Yes, we accept that that LEA's programme is an interesting one and at the end of the day it will produce some sort of measure of its own as to whether or not it has succeeded", and the Government again saying, "Well, that looks all right".
However, what I hope we shall arrive at is what the noble Lord, Lord Detchant, asked for; namely, some kind of nationally measurable, consistent system. I see nothing in the Bill, nor in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which enables the Government to say, "You will measure performance in a way that is consistent; you will produce your figures—targets against which you can be judged—in a way which is consistent across the country and can be judged by common measures". It is very important that the Government should do that. Even if they do not want to do so, it is important that this Bill should contain sufficient powers to enable a future, better-informed government to do it. I hope the noble Lord will reassure

1471
me that his initial reply was not sufficiently precise and that the Government have powers and intend to use them to make sure that the information and measures employed by LEAs nationwide are consistent and can be used to transfer information from areas of good performance to those where improvement is needed.
Lord Dearing: I wish to offer a further thought. Schools are little places. Four thousand schools have five or fewer teachers; they are not sophisticated analysts. They need objectives that are clear and simple which primary school teachers can understand. If the objectives are complex, they will be meaningless and useless.
The reality is that the teacher can understand the absolute level of performance and the increment from A to B, stage 1 to stage 2. That is it. Anything beyond that is an explanation or contribution to the understanding of what is happening. But one cannot set targets which are complex and where teachers must anticipate, such as how many schools meals will the school offer in X years' time? How many parents will be unemployed? That is meaningless. The targets must be simple and the rest should be explanation and interpretation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, kindly offered me the opportunity to reply to all my opponents at once. That was the way he described it. I do not see the debate in that way at all. It has been a helpful debate. I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part.
I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that of course there is no such thing as an aggregate assessment of a school's achievement or underachievement in relation to targets except that which is built up on the basis of individual pupils. That seems to me self-evident and it is helpful to set it out. However, the use of that information is not related to individual pupils. As I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise, the use of it is related to the school as a whole. That is what the review mechanism referred to in Clause 7(5) means. When we talk about implementation, we are talking about it at the school level.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in the course of two interesting and helpful speeches, made the valid point, first, that whatever the measure used it must be simple and understandable to individual schools. As I understand it, he also made the point that any measures must be comparable and that the same message must go to all schools. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, confirmed that point.
In the light of the correct observation by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that it would be impossible to put such a measure on the face of the Bill, I suggest that I write to him or that Ministers in the department write to him, with copies to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. The letter will set out the Government's thinking on what elucidation will go to local education authorities and individual schools.
I am quite clear in my mind, and I hope that the Committee will he clear, that we have planned adequate means of checking against targets. We have regular
1472
monitoring by the standards and efficiency unit of the DfEE, as set out in the draft EDP guidance. We have the annual review of the EDP performance by the standards and efficiency unit and the periodic inspection of the LEA by Ofsted. So I am in no doubt whatever that there are adequate provisions in place, without further regulation as proposed by the amendment.
However, we have enough time between now and Report stage for further explanation to be given for which Members of the Committee on all sides have called. I suggest that I do so in the form of a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will not press his amendment.
Lord Lucas: That was an enormously gracious and helpful reply by the noble Lord. I am delighted to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert ("or
(iii) improving or enlarging school premises (particularly in successful schools),").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was kind enough to say that she thought that additional cash going to schools to deal with the necessary expansion to reduce class sizes in early years should be biased towards successful schools and those which were popular and in demand. The guidance or regulation sent out by government would reflect that.
In the amendment I ask whether the Government agree that that principle should be applied also to later years where again additional capital expenditure should be biased towards schools which are successful and in demand. If so, how is that to be reflected in guidance or regulation? Anyone who has visited the enormously successful state schools in the north of London will be astonished at the state of dilapidation and decay in some of them. Over many years they have been neglected by the local authorities. The attitude seems in many cases to be that the money should go in other directions and towards schools which are less popular rather than more popular. One has the extraordinary situation of some of the most famous schools in the land existing in portacabins, with buckets strung out along corridors and no hope or prospect of improvement, let alone rebuilding, which is what should happen.
I hope that it is not too much to ask that the Government give a gentle push in the direction of suggesting to local education authorities that success should be supported and celebrated and that such schools deserve good premises, not just those schools which find themselves failing. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord asks what we plan to do in the future about improving or enlarging school premises, particularly in the case of

1473
successful schools. Perhaps he will allow me to start by saying what we are doing now and what we have done in the past 12 months. I think it is relevant.
In 1997-98 we provided £83 million extra for school building work through phase 1 of the new deal for schools. That was an increase of 12 per cent. over the existing plans. We expect the new deal for schools to result in £2 billion being spent on repairing, renewing and improving school buildings, security and information technology facilities by the end of this Parliament.
Central government allocations for capital work at grant-maintained, voluntary aided and LEA schools in 1998-99 will be £1.012 billion. That is a 50 per cent. increase on previous plans. So I hope it is on record that we are attacking the problem extremely seriously. Of course, we want to encourage popular and successful schools to expand. Parents naturally want to send their children to schools that are doing well and we want them to be able to do so. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to say this and for his support, as I understand it, for the approach we are taking. However, I do not think that education development plans are the right place for that. They relate to the achievement of standards rather than school buildings.
Clause 25 would be an appropriate point to discuss this matter. The clause provides for each local education authority to prepare a school organisation plan which will set out how to secure provision of education to meet the needs of pupils in the local authority's area. As the statement on school organisation that has been placed in the Library makes clear, we do not intend to be over-prescriptive about the content of the plan. That is a decision to be taken at local level. But we expect the plan to include statements of the authority's policy for the provision of places that make a specific link to raising standards. I hope the noble Lord will agree that Clause 25 is the right place to discuss the matter. I shall be glad to consider it at that time.
We should also consider asset management plans on which we have recently consulted. We hope to issue guidance later in the summer. The plans set out the process through which LEAs and schools determine school premises priorities. They might also include LEAs' proposals for improving school premises.
Education development plans, which are the subject of Clause 6, rightly focus on raising standards of pupil performance through school and LEA targets and LEAs' school improvement programmes. That specific focus is the most effective way in which LEAs can make their contribution to the standards agenda.
There may be scope for LEAs to make reference to their school organisation plans and their plans for improving school premises in the supporting evidence part of their EDPs if those contribute directly to raising standards in schools. The draft guidance already proposes that any relevant outcomes from the plans, alongside other plans, should contribute to LEAs' audit and self-review and feed into the process of identifying priorities for action in the school improvement programme.
1474
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we take his concerns seriously and that the Bill will provide the information he needs. On that basis, perhaps he will withdraw his amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a question. He talked about the money that has been put in since 1st May last year in relation to this amendment. I have seen some of the applications that have come in bidding for some of that money. I do not remember anywhere, in either the bidding advice or the applications that came in, where there has been a link with popular and successful schools.
My understanding is that local education authorities have apportioned money consistent with their priorities; in other words, schools needing new roofs, buildings with outside lavatories and buildings needing new heating systems. Nowhere in the information that came from the DfEE has there been a link to my knowledge with the provision of extra capital for expanding and developing successful schools.
Linked with that point, is the noble Lord saying that in the future, if my noble friend's amendment is accepted at the appropriate place in the Bill—I believe that that is what he said—there will be capital which will be ringfenced for the expanding of popular and successful schools and which will be additional and ancillary to the money made available to meet the statutory duties of local education authorities and their own local priorities in terms of refurbishing and expanding their buildings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To get a potential problem out of the way, I did not say that we would be accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Clause 25. I said that we would he properly debating these issues at that stage.
I am surprised that the noble Baroness should raise the point that she did. She is absolutely right to say that the £83 million extra for school building work in 1997-98, the beginning of the new deal for schools, is remedial. It is remedial because of the neglect over many years under the previous government, not by local authorities. It was lack of support from central government for local authorities in providing the necessary capital authorisation and finance for school buildings. If that has to be got out of the way first—and it does—it is the previous administration which should be taking responsibility. I am surprised that the noble Baroness should seek to lead with her chin in that way.
What I said about the future is that capital expenditure on school buildings will be affected by the demand for those schools. When we are talking about schools which are in demand we are talking about successful schools. When we are talking about successful schools we are talking about schools that achieve the necessary standards. That is the relationship between school building expenditure and standards and that is what this

1475
Government are determined to proceed with after they have remedied the shameful neglect of school buildings by the previous government.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I can intervene in this fascinating debate to say how glad I am that the Minister has not accepted the amendment. However. I am not particularly reassured by what he said following his declaration that he was not going to accept it. Looked at from the point of view of an education authority, one might well—with great justification—decide to improve, for example, the laboratory availability at schools in order to improve the performance of that school in terms of education of its children. It is not sensible, in many places, to concentrate on improvement in one site or one school which is deemed at that time by parents to be the best school, often on faulty information. From the point of view of the education authority and the children who are being educated within that authority, it is better to concentrate expenditure where it is most needed—not just in replacing outside lavatories, but also for first-class equipment or as near as one can get to first-class equipment across a wide range of the curriculum. I hope that when this kind of matter is reflected in the discussions between the Secretary of State and the local education authorities, that kind of approach will be adopted.
Baroness Byford: The noble Baroness slightly beat me to it. I understood the Minister to say that the money would only go to schools which were achieving. We will read Hansard tomorrow, but if that is what he said, it is very strange. The development and help we need is often for schools that in many cases are not achieving. I was standing up to raise that issue; it may be that I misunderstood the Minister. I shall certainly read Hansard tomorrow unless he wishes to clarify the situation. I reacted in the same way as the noble Baroness.
Turd McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with every single word that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said. Therefore, if I said anything in my previous remarks which confused the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I apologise. They are both saying what he Government are saying and the opposite of what the Opposition Front Bench is saying. They are both saying that the applications for expenditure on school buildings should not be linked to this part of the Bill, which is concerned with school standards. We are certainly not saying, and have never said, that capital expenditure should only be provided for those schools which are successful and attracting more pupils. However, the element of demand must be one element among all the others referred to in deciding where capital expenditure should be allocated. That is all we are saying.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister misinterpreted what I was saying. I was trying to obtain clarification from the Government who claimed that this policy was being
1476
pursued. I was simply saying that the money bid for so far in this past year has been on the basis—I believe rightly—of local authorities' priorities.
A policy that I would support—my local authority did this to great effect—is that when buildings are refurbished and schools reorganised, it is done on the basis of trying to root out of the system the buildings that are beyond repair or more expensive to repair. To get the best value for money and the best provision for children, the capital programme can be dovetailed into doing just that. That makes sense in local authority terms. I still say that the best people to determine how to spend the money and what the money should be spent on are the local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: So do the Government.
Lord Lucas: I shall read with great interest this debate in Hansard. If it seems appropriate to return to it in the proper place in the Bill, I shall. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 21, after ("otherwise;") insert—
("() in the case of the second and subsequent such plans, a statement in prescribed form of the outcome of the previous plan;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 31 merely asks the Government to make sure that when a local authority draws up its second or subsequent plan, it should include an analysis of what went right or wrong with the first or previous plans.
It is always the wish of those involved in forecasting—I am sure that economists are not exempt from this—that previous forecasts should be forgotten if they are wrong and trumpeted if they are right. It is a bad practice to allow local authorities to behave in that way. It is important that everyone is honest about what did not work as well as what did. I hope that the noble Lord can confirm that this sort of analysis will be included in the plans to be specified by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I may get in before the economists do, after that temptation! The noble Lord is certainly ahead of the game. We are still struggling with education development plans in the first round. Now he is trying to prescribe what we should do in the second round.
The education development plans will be three year plans subject to annual monitoring against targets and the implementation of the LEAs' school improvement programme. This will inevitably involve consideration of the outcome of the plan each year and their contribution towards the overall progress of the plan. LEAs will be required to submit information annually to the department to support this monitoring. Approval of the education development plan can be suspended or withdrawn if an LEA has not shown satisfactory progress. The details of all of this are set out in the draft education development plan guidance and will be

1477
reflected in subsequent regulations. This will allow flexibility over the precise details and timescale. In addition, it will provide the chance for us to see how the whole process works in practice before the second round of EDPs and to learn from the experience. It will also avoid adding unnecessary detail to the Bill and creating further bureaucracy, a point I rather think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, supported when he was in government. On that basis, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: It is important that we should not confuse the word "plan" with the word "forecast". I speak as a notoriously bad forecaster. Indeed, if I may say to the noble Lord, if he ever hears me forecasting anything, I suggest he backs the opposite. I am much worse than random.
These are plans. One of the things we have to bear in mind, much as we do not like it, is that some of the plans will be ambitious—we hope they will be ambitious—and therefore they will achieve less than they are saying. Yet, having done that, they will still have achieved a great deal of good. I am totally with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and with my noble friend. When it comes to assessing outcomes, which is vital—there is no point in having plans if one does not assess outcomes—we should not take it for granted that the only acceptable outcome is one that hits the plan's target. Sometimes an ambitious plan will not be met. Equally, sometimes an unambitious plan—I hope that the Secretary of State at the time will say that the plan is not ambitious enough—will hit the target but it is still not good enough in terms of performance. To go back to the point made earlier about the difficulty involved, we should not jump to too easy a conclusion on any of this.
One thing I would say in favour of the previous government—I say it most sincerely—is that they suggested that we should not accept poor performance Is being inevitable in the system. Some of their philosophy, much as I disagreed with other parts of it, was that we should be ambitious over what we can achieve in schools, and in the worst of circumstances their philosophy was that we could still do better. I agreed with that very strongly. But in trying to do better, we may not do as well as we would like. We must not then undermine schools by saying, "You did try to do better; you actually improved; but you did not do as well as your plan". I hope that the noble Lord is not preparing a frame of thought—I am sure he is not—for saying that, "You did not hit the target. Therefore, you are like those stupid economists and their forecasting and we are going to tell you off'. I do not think that is the way we should approach the matter.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, responds to the Minister, perhaps I may say how much I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. I think it is important that people should have ambitious plans, if I may use that as a basket phrase; not ludicrously ambitious but not just saying, "We can achieve this and therefore this will be
1478
our target". One of the merits of the noble Lord's amendment is that it would bring to people's attention what has worked in areas.
The whole of the development plan approach is based to some extent on good practice in certain education authorities. Some education authorities are doing this already. Other education authorities have had extremely interesting plans afoot as to how to bring the lowest performing schools and pupils up to a more average standard. They have undertaken extremely interesting and varied plans and activities to achieve that result. If the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was adopted it would enable this learning from good practice to continue. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not slap down local authorities which had made a genuine attempt to achieve a good deal. Therefore, whether or not the requirement remains on the face of the Bill, I hope that the approach suggested by the noble Lord will be adopted. It bodes well for sharing good practice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Peston because I think he made a valid point. I do not think I used the word "forecast" in what I said. I would not do so. I have quoted Robert Graves to the House before. In his poem Non Cogunt Astra he said:
"Come, live in now and occupy it well;
Prediction's no alternative to forethought".
That, I can grandly say, is certainly the view of the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend are right. Targets are not forecasts. They are not intended to be seen in that way. It is important that they should be ambitious as well as realistic and it is important that we should not degrade the education development planning process by allowing targets which do not achieve our national objectives for improving school standards. But that does not mean that we need to prescribe on the face of the Bill now what
will happen in the second round of EDPs.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made an important contribution. She suggested to the noble Lord that the amendment might be worth consideration and she gave the reasons for that. It would be a pity if the Government did not consider the amendment for the next stage of the Bill to see whether there is not something in it. The noble Lord said at the beginning of his remarks that my noble friend had moved on from the present to future years, as if that were an unfortunate thing to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who has great experience in these matters, suggested that the amendment might have great uses. I wonder whether the Minister could consider it before the next stage of the Bill to make quite sure that it is not a good idea to include reporting back on where there were successes and where there were not. That would improve good practice in local authorities and would enable them to share with one another what they

1479
had achieved. To me that sounds absolutely excellent. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Minister pooh-poohed it a little.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not pooh-pooh it in the least. I referred to the draft education development plan guidance which talks about the annual monitoring of the three year plans against targets, the implementation of the school improvement programme and the consideration which that involves of the outcomes of the plan. That draft guidance will be reflected in subsequent regulations. There is no pooh-poohing at all of the sensible and forward looking thinking behind the noble Lord's amendment. It is just that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Lucas: Nonetheless, I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said. It seemed to be eminent good sense that there should be mechanisms for one local authority to learn from another. A local authority or LEA reporting in centrally to the DfEE and knowing what is happening in its own plan will not disseminate information between local authorities. As good practice is developed in one area it needs to be disseminated. There need to be mechanisms for that. I hope the noble Lord will bear that in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert ('which shall include proposals for monitoring standards and exclusions by gender and ethnicity and for using evidence from such monitoring in order to raise standards").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31B and 33A. Amendment No. 38 has been removed from this grouping. These amendments are pleasantly straightforward, although the esoteric arguments we had earlier on may well colour some of the discussion we will have on them. Amendment No. 31 addresses a problem that has been recognised in virtually the whole education sector. Certain ethnic groups—for instance, white males from lower socio-economic groups (or working class groups as they used to be called in days gone by)—do badly in school and young males from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds tend to rank highly in the number of people who are excluded from school. Even if we do not want this provision on the face of the Bill, I look forward to the Minister giving some assurances that these issues will be looked at in the plans. Surely here is an opportunity to deal with one of the larger problems in our schools today, and that is the perception of a breakdown in discipline. I believe that is far more a perception than a reality. This is an opportunity to deal with the problem.
Amendment No. 31B asks for a very important provision to be put into the proposals, which is how these are to be achieved in certain areas. When one is dealing with such matters as discipline and performance in class, if one knows how these are to be achieved one will probably be able to allay a certain amount of public
1480
disquiet. In trying to reduce the number of exclusions, if one shows under what conditions pupils will be kept in schools, that may well prevent some panic measures which seem to occur in certain schools periodically. We all have had to listen to a great deal of parental reaction to very important matters such as a child being returned to school, and the ensuing arguments. This measure would provide people with information on issues that worry them.
As regards increasing inclusion of children with special educational needs within mainstream schools, that is a subject I know rather more about than I should. Over the past few years we have discussed this subject many times at a philosophical level. People do not know why certain pupils are not allowed in mainstream schools and why certain groups are asked to withdraw from them. Often one finds groups with special educational needs and individual parents fighting each other. Surely, if we have a clearer definition of what is in the plan, we shall once again be able to deal with this problem. It is a matter which takes up far too much time when people argue philosophically about things which are basically of a practical nature.
The last amendment is Amendment No. 33A, which also deals with special educational needs. It was said earlier in the discussion that there was probably a place in this Bill for special educational needs and for including a policy in the development plan. I suggest that those suggestions and plans could sit quite comfortably in Clause 6. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I would not disagree with the intentions which clearly inspire the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and his comments on this matter. I have two or three very brief observations to make. I believe that far too many young people are expelled from schools or suspended. Any steps which are taken to reduce that number are to be commended. The one anxiety that I have is based on my experience long ago as a senior schoolmaster and arises from conversations with former colleagues over the past decade or so. They have told me that they are over-burdened by bureaucratic demands. If one lets the bureaucrats loose and if the House were to approve this amendment, the bureaucratic burden may be increased more than it need be.
My main concern is with Amendment No. 31B. I entirely agree that, wherever possible, children should be brought into the mainstream of education and that is particularly the case with those who are physically disabled. It is good for such children and for their peers to work, live and enjoy life with those who are less fortunate than themselves. I have a reservation about schools for those who are not gifted mentally. Not far from my home there is a school which was established for the educationally subnormal. I knew it for many years while I was teaching. I kept in touch with it when it was in my constituency. It was, and is, the happiest school to be found in South Yorkshire. I believe that such a school gives rather more to those children than they might get in a mainstream school.

1481
Indeed, on one recent visit I left that school in a state of very real anger that the previous administration required its results at GCSE to be published. Year after year the school was offering "nil, nil, nil" in the entry for GCSEs as though it were an appalling failure. I found that to be distasteful and disgusting. I remember raising the matter in the other place. But that particular burden may not apply. However, in that school, with dedicated staff and fine people supporting it, the children are happier and have a greater sense of confidence. They attain more than they would in any other circumstances. I would not wish such schools to be in any way affected by the belief that we should draw the children automatically into the mainstream where they would not enjoy the advantages that are available in a school of the kind I have mentioned. When my noble friends consider the amendment they will bear that kind of condition and consideration in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Like my noble friend Lord Hardy, I very much sympathise with the thinking behind the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Let me deal with them in turn. Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B both deal with exclusions from school. That is certainly an issue that we are determined to tackle. Amendment No. 31A would include among annexes to education development plans proposals by LEAs to monitor standards and exclusions by gender and ethnicity and to use the evidence so obtained to raise standards.
Amendment No. 31 B would require the statement of proposals within the EDP to set out how an authority planned to improve attendance, reduce exclusions and increase the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs. The noble Lord is quite right that truancy and exclusions result in educational disadvantage. Children stop learning and the wider community suffers because of the high levels of crime into which some truants and excluded pupils are drawn.
The Social Exclusion Unit published an important report on 11th May on truancy and social exclusion. That is available from the Printed Paper Office. It sets out how the Government intend to bring the level of truancy and exclusions down and to secure a better deal for all children.
That depends—and it comes back to the thrust of the amendment—on setting clear goals and allocating clear responsibilities. As the Social Exclusion Unit's report says, we propose to set national targets to reduce truancy and permanent and fixed-term exclusions. These will be set out in LEAs' education development plans following consultation with local authorities.
Speaking as an ex-chair of governors for many years of a comprehensive school, I am personally very well aware of the difficulty which headteachers and governors have in making decisions about exclusion and what happens to those who are excluded. It is always tempting for teachers to exclude disruptive children without paying adequate attention to where they will go.
Therefore, I refer Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Hardy, to paragraph 15
1482
of the draft guidance for LEAs on education development plans. It says,
"In planning for improvement in the three key areas, you should also reflect the following aspects in the priorities and/or the activities. There should be significant action in: improving standards in literacy and numeracy; raising standards attained by underachieving groups of pupils (gender, ethnicity. or background): particularly the underachievement of boys, where relevant; supporting pupils with special educational needs (SEN) and gifted and more able pupils;"—
I should have quoted this passage to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in connection with the previous amendment—
"supporting schools which are causing concern; supporting school self-review; disseminating good practice; and using information and communications technology".
All these factors have to be considered and analysed by LEAs to support the drive to reduce truancy and exclusion and monitor and raise standards.
The result of all of this is that the draft guidance, subject to any further consultation that is necessary, will be reflected in regulations which, I hope the noble Lord will agree, will achieve the purpose of his amendments. We have to make it clear that the Government's response to the Green Paper would be linked to the availability of resources. Subject to that, I hope that our determination to deal with the problems which the noble Lord has identified is undiminished.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I welcome some of what the Minister has just said. The Government are fashioning a policy to deal with exclusions. We all await with interest the specific recommendations, some of which have been outlined. The rise in exclusions has been due largely to the extension of the development of local management of schools. As the noble Lord, having been a school governor, will know, before LMS, exclusions had to go before local education authorities, which often overruled the views of the headmaster or headmistress and of the governing body because they were not keen to expel unruly pupils. Since that responsibility has moved to schools, there has been a substantial increase in the number of exclusions. That must be of concern. Although the Government may hope to reduce the number of exclusions, that may be difficult to achieve, despite some of the noble Lord's statements. A policy to deal with truancy is not the same as a policy to deal with exclusions. They are very different problems indeed.
On the question of exclusions, I hope that the Government will develop a series of policies which recognise the fact that it is almost too late to deal with unruly children at the ages of 12 to 14. Behavioural problems should be identified at a very much earlier age, at primary school. Remedial action should be taken then, possibly within the school. The most difficult children should, however, be removed from primary school to a special school. I have seen some such schools operating. They are exceptionally good. They take children whose behavioural problems have been identified early—even at the ages of five, six or seven—and provide helpful and constructive action to try to improve their behaviour. That is much better than merely leaving

1483
matters until the behaviour develops into an almost intractable problem at the age of 12 or 14. As the Government develop their plans in this area and their guidance to local authorities, I hope that they will take such considerations into account. I believe that exclusions can be reduced in the years to come only if action is taken at a much earlier stage of a child's development.
Baroness Blatch: I support my noble friend Lord Baker in what he has just said. I believe that Section 3 of the 1993 Act was devoted to special needs. I understand that the department is now updating that provision. Indeed, I have had a constructive meeting with the Minister, Estelle Morris, about it. That earlier provision identified five stages with regard to early intervention. Stages 1, 2 and 3 related not only to children with learning difficulties, but also to children with behavioural problems, which usually manifested themselves in learning difficulties because the one was very often the cause of the other. The intention was that in the first three stages schools should resort to their internal processes for dealing with difficult children. If, at the third stage, the problem was beyond the capabilities of the classroom teacher or the school, outside advice would be sought and the school would move to the fourth and fifth stages, during which help would be received from the LEA special needs department. I am not sure how effective the monitoring of that five-stage plan has been. I do not think that it has been changed in the new proposals.
I understood with feeling my noble friend's point about when a school has come to the end of its tether and the governing body has agreed to an exclusion, not wishing to undermine the head teacher or the teachers, but is then overruled by the LEA. The result is that everybody's authority is undermined. The child with the behavioural difficulties which are deemed to be beyond the control of the school is sent back into the classroom. The knock-on effect and result is that the good education of other children is very much disrupted. That conundrum needs to be addressed.
Perhaps I may refer to the pupil referral unit which I know best, that in my own local authority. It is not used simply to take children out of school and to keep them out of school; it is used so that children can be taken out of school for a period of time during which their problems can be assessed. The unit works with the school so that the pupil can then be readmitted. It has been most effective. However, I understand that the number of pupil referral units, and the number of places in them, are reducing.
This seems an inappropriate time at which to put in place an aggressive process to reduce the number of exclusions. Frankly, if there is a case for exclusion, there is a case for exclusion and help has to be given. The school and the classroom teacher need to be helped. If the number of places at pupil referral units is reducing, where can teachers and head teachers turn if they are asked to keep within targets which I understand are pretty rigorous? I understand that the number of exclusions is to be reduced by two-thirds by the year
1484
2000. Schools can do that only with help and by the effective implementation of the policies. The earlier the intervention, the more effective the remedy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether I need to reply. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that the increase in exclusions has occurred substantially since the adoption of LMS. I was a chairman of governors before LMS, so perhaps I faced fewer and different problems from those facing governors and head teachers now. The noble Lord implied what the Government are saying: there ought to be some reduction in the number of exclusions. However, saying that there should be some reduction does not in any way reduce the need for pupil referral units, so I agree with the noble Baroness also.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: With due respect to my noble friend, perhaps I may add a couple of points. The Minister made a good point about the draft guidelines. They refer to raising standards for various groups of pupils, including those from ethnic minorities and white males, to take just two examples that we have used. However, that does not appear on the face of the Bill, but that is a different point.
Monitoring exclusions and attendances is a little different. With all due respect, I do not think that that appears in the draft guidelines. It is a new subject altogether. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could consider whether provisions to that effect would make a useful contribution to achieving the purposes of the Bill. If so, perhaps such provisions could be introduced either on the face of the Bill or in some other way. As I understand the draft guidelines—the noble Lord can see that I have them with me; I have, indeed, read them—this is a new subject. The monitoring of attendances and exclusions is important in the context of improving standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was absolutely right when he spoke about the need for early intervention with regard to children who are difficult in school. Something like two out of three pupils who are permanently excluded from school never return to full-time education. They are being deprived of something which the Education Act 1944 said was their right. Indeed, most people who are interested in ordinary human rights would say that education was a right. We, in this country, say clearly that a child has a right to receive a suitable level of education. This is an extremely important point. As has been pointed out, exclusions are linked to levels of offending behaviour. The noble Lord's Government are interested in trying to repair that problem and other problems of exclusion. I am asking the noble Lord to reconsider those two subjects and whether suitable provisions might add something useful to the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: I rise briefly to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I believe that all noble Lords will agree that early intervention is important. However, so far no one has mentioned the involvement of parents. It is not for me to rewrite the brief of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but the

1485
Government have plans for the involvement of parents which I would have thought would be extremely important in this context. I urge that what is produced should include local authorities' plans for the involvement of parents to encourage them to support their children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is correct in saying that truancy is not the same as exclusion, although they were both dealt with at the same time by the Social Exclusion Unit. I believe that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Paragraph 15 of the draft guidance does not include a reference to truancy and exclusion, but perhaps I should reread my introductory remarks which the noble Baroness may have missed:
"As the Social Exclusion Unit's report says, we propose to set national targets to reduce truancy and permanent and fixed-term exclusions. These will he set out in LEAs' education development plans following consultation with local authorities".
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend concludes, we are in agreement on a great many matters. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke of exclusions. I speak with feeling on this matter since when I was a student I was excluded from seminars on macro-economics on the ground that I talked too much and no one else could get a word in. I am sure that most noble Lords find that very hard to believe.
While I agree with what has been said—I have read the remarks of the Social Exclusion Unit—I have a twofold fear. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was right to remind the Committee about local management. We want to be supportive of teachers. I do not believe that teachers wish to exclude children if they are in any way educable. The problem is that if children are disruptive the cost is not borne by the teachers or indeed by any member of your Lordships' House but by the other children in the class. That is something that we should never forget.
I am aware of the rules under which the Government act. However, I am concerned about the belief that these problems may be solved without resources. I am not of the opinion that this problem can be solved by a free ride, if I may use that expression. Although I am totally supportive of my noble friend—he has struck exactly the right note—when we come to the practicalities of dealing with exclusion in particular it will not be a cheap option but will involve considerable expense. That is an expense that I support on the ground that I believe that in the end virtually everybody can be given a good education as long as the right circumstances are created and the right teachers are there. No one willingly gives up in this field, but we should not simply assume that this problem is caused by a bunch of incompetent teachers. I do not believe that for one moment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: This debate demonstrates the value of tabling probing amendments. We have managed to get nicely under the skin of this subject. As my noble friend Lady Thomas has demonstrated, we may be able to enhance this Bill by putting something into it. However, that is an argument for another time.
1486
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that the amendment will increase the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs. I do not believe that anyone involved in that field at any level is of the view that everybody should be included. I take that back. There are one or two but they are in a decreasing minority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has pointed out, many children with special educational needs who are not dealt with end up with behavioural problems. It is very important that this matter is dealt with early. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that it was important that these matters should be taken into account.
These amendments are all about trying to obtain information and demonstrating how it is to be used. I hope that the Committee has benefited from this discussion and that, in light of the information that has been drawn to the attention of the Government, we can return to this subject, if not these amendments, at a later stage with greater knowledge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31B not moved.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. At Second Reading many noble Lords, particularly on this side of the House, expressed doubt as to the excessive bureaucracy embodied in the Bill. The Minister's noble friend Lord McIntosh has said something to the same effect. I understand the dilemma faced by the Government, in that in the past there have been occasions when local authorities have been less than perfect in their management of education. In consequence the Government wish to have reserve powers to enable them to deal with local authorities who fail to fulfil their functions or have the desire to improve standards of education. They have decided to use the dirigiste method of holding power at the centre in the form of the Secretary of State and his department. Without making a judgment or political point on this matter, this is in total contrast to the stance of the previous government. Faced with the same problem of local authorities which failed to fulfil their function, they decided to give schools more authority over budgets and everything. That was the essence of the grant-maintained schools policy. This amendment is designed to question the Government's reliance on bureaucracy.
I emphasise that the Government have a choice in this matter. One can follow the grant-maintained approach, which the Government reject under this Bill, or use the bureaucracy at the centre. There can be no doubt that the object of both—I say this for the third time—is to deal with a problem that has bedevilled English education, namely, that some local authorities are not as good as others.
Under this clause, in the end every local education authority development plan coming from the 24,000 schools in England will be referred to the department

1487
and considered by officials, and the Secretary of State will make a judgment upon them. (I shall say more about that when we come to Clause 7.)
I do not wish to insult or question the Minister, her department or the galaxy of talented civil servants who fill every chair in the corner of the Chamber, but having had almost 35 years' experience of education, some of it spent dealing with the Minister's department, I know that speed has never been the essence of that body. I speak from deep experience. Without casting any doubts on the Minister's ardour or that of her civil servants, I have serious doubts whether the department, given its present size and resources, is capable of making a meaningful and testing contribution to the education development plans to be produced by every school in the country.
I accept the difficult position of the Minister in relation to some local authorities. I am not saying that the local authorities should be left in total charge. I provide two more easily accessible judgments on these education development plans. My first concerns the inspectorate. The inspectorate has looked at these schools, studied them and written reports upon them. The inspectorate, under Chris Woodhead, has contributed enormously over the past few years to the improvement of standards, to the extent that they have occurred, in English education. It has done an enormous amount of work and has a mass of evidence. The inspectorate should be the first port of call. My second approach involves governors of schools. Governors are responsible people. Later in this Bill great emphasis is placed on the control of governors and the type of governors to be appointed. I believe that they would also be good judges of the education development plans. Those people know the schools and know the areas. They are much better groups to judge the effectiveness of EDPs than the Secretary of State and his cohorts of civil servants, not very large cohorts.
I make no criticism of the department. In England and particularly in the Department for Education and Employment, we have never had the traditions and skills of a continental state which made it its business to judge from the centre every part of the administrative system of the state. England has never had a system of prefects or intendants. The French, who run a system rather like the Minister suggests where the central department of education judges individual schools, were first taught that by Napoleon in 1799. Therefore, they have a tradition of almost 200 years of that. The tradition of the Napoleonic civil service has not governed the Department for Education and Employment. Nor, I emphasise, is speed the essence of the French administrative system, as the English lorry drivers discovered. I fear that the experience of English schools and their EDPs in relation to the Department for Education and Employment will be the same as the experience of the English lorry drivers with the equivalent French department with which they have to deal.
Therefore, I commend this amendment to the Committee because I believe that the Government are making a mistake. I understand why they are doing it.
1488
I cannot understand why they do not like grant-maintained schools, but the Minister need not explain that to me. The Government are wrong but the hammer which they are using to crush that multitude of nuts will be very slow and not very effective. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 32 would remove the requirement for EDPs to be approved by the Secretary of State, as set out in Clause 7.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for saying that he understands our dilemma and that the Government should ensure that the plans are adequate. That is the Government's view. I do not wish to imply in any way that because the Government feel that something as central to our standards and objectives should come back to the department that we want to judge every single part of the system and require LEAs to report on every aspect of what they do. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was drawn into flights of fancy when he drew comparisons with systems which exist in France and elsewhere on the Continent.
EDPs are a key mechanism in our drive to raise standards in schools. As such, it is necessary that LEAs should produce plans that are of sufficiently high quality to make a real contribution to the improvement of schools' performance. Likewise, it is just as important that when LEAs have implemented their plans, they should monitor how schools are performing and where there is a discrepancy between the plans and schools' actual performance, authorities should take appropriate action to put that right, if necessary by seeking the Secretary of State's approval for a suitably modified plan.
Perhaps I may clarify one matter. The noble Lord implied that EDPs are produced by schools and not by LEAs. It is of course the LEAs which will do that. I am glad that the noble Lord is nodding and is clear about that because he said something which made me a little worried that he had misunderstood the position.
The amendment would remove the responsibility of LEAs to produce EDPs of acceptable quality and to ensure that their plans, in being implemented, were adapted as necessary to maintain the drive to boost the performance of schools. The EDP would effectively be neutered by this amendment, relegated from being a means through which LEAs could help schools to make a real impact on the performance and achievement of children to a mere statement of good intentions. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want it relegated in that way.
The Secretary of State's powers to consider EDPs, to judge their quality and to take appropriate decisions in approving, rejecting or modifying them or in withdrawing his approval, will be crucial to the effectiveness of them. To remove those powers would represent a lost opportunity to raise standards of achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, questioned whether the department can examine LEAs' EDPs. He has thrown some doubt on whether there are enough officials to support that work and whether they have the

1489
skills to do so. I hope that he will have confidence and be a little more optimistic about the quality of work done in the department and its ability to do something which we believe is extremely important in raising standards.
Amendment No. 33 would require LEAs to publish and send their draft EDPs to the Chief Inspector of Schools for England and the governors of all schools affected by the plan. That would involve an unnecessary exercise in bureaucracy and additional cost, both of which the noble Lord is rightly concerned to avoid. There would not be any benefit for schools or the Chief Inspector of Schools in doing that. LEAs are required to involve schools closely in the formulation of their EDPs. There must be a very deep dialogue between schools and their local authorities about that. That involvement means that schools will be able to enter into an exchange of views with their LEAs at the most significant stage of the development of the EDP. Sending the draft EDP to governors would be of little benefit after they had already engaged fully with LEAs in agreeing targets while the EDP was being prepared.
The prepared EDPs will, as a matter of course, be sent to the chief inspector. I hope that that piece of information is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The Chief Inspector and his Office for Standards in Education will play an absolutely integral part in the approval process for EDPs. It will not be simply left to officials in the department. It will be a joint exercise. With the Chief Inspector, Ofsted will be invited to comment on all the EDPs. The Secretary of State will take those comments into account when deciding whether to approve the plans. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: It seems to me that the education development plan is an addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, which will give rise to additional work both in the department and the inspectorate and the LEAs. Does the noble Baroness have a figure for the additional number of employees and officials who will be required? Has a sum of money been allocated for the cost of that work?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot give any specific figures. I do not know whether additional LEA staff will be needed to undertake that work. I should have thought that the work would be of such high priority for LEAs and, indeed, for Ofsted that they would find the staff from their existing resources to undertake that work. However, if they are unable to do so, I am sure that the department will be told.
However, EDPs are absolutely fundamental to the whole process of improving standards in our system. I believe that the LEAs are working very hard at this already. They are anxious to do the very best possible job. If additional resources are needed, I have no doubt that that will he reflected in the resource allocation to local authorities.
6 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I was rather surprised to hear the Minister say that if the Secretary of State is not required to approve an EDP it will simply become a statement of good intentions. Surely the Secretary of State has adequate powers to ensure that it is much more than a statement of good intentions, without being required to approve every plan. He will see the plans in any event and will have the power to criticise them either in public or in private. Indeed, the Secretary of State will have considerable powers to close down LEAs if he feels that they are not doing a good job or if they are failing.
The Secretary of State also has powers over individual schools. In the light of the very considerable reserve powers which already exist, it is inconceivable that an LEA would draw up a plan without due care and attention that was simply a statement of good intentions. They will be serious plans and will be scrutinised. Why do the Government need to insert the specific power that each EDP has to be approved by the Secretary of State when he can actually influence them in a variety of other ways?
Lord Dearing: The Minister will doubtless wish to respond to that point. However, I have a few comments to make. I welcome the assurance that Ofsted will be inspecting. However, as one who for many years was on the receiving end of Whitehall, I know the immense frustration caused by long delays in getting decisions; and, indeed, the frustrations caused by interplay especially when, if a plan is not approved, there has to be further consultation with the schools.
I have seen the consequences in Japan of strong central control and vast mounds of paper slowing down all action. In pursuing this clause, I hope that the Government will ensure that there are procedures which require decisions to be made quickly.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It would, of course, be extremely unfortunate if there were to be very long delays in approving these plans. As I keep repeating, they are central to everything that the Government want to do to ensure that standards in our schools improve. Perhaps it would be helpful if I made clear that the standards and effectiveness unit of the DfEE has put together teams of senior education advisers precisely to work with LEAs on these plans. Those advisers are drawn from schools, from LEAs and from Ofsted and they are organised on a regional basis. They will also work very closely with Ofsted and with senior inspectors in both challenging and supporting LEAs as they develop these plans. We want an amicable partnership between all the parties who wish jointly to share this approach to raising standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that we do not really need the power on the face of the Bill. I think that it is right for us to have this power. It will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that EDPs are of the highest possible quality, given their centrality to our policies. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's suggestion that the Secretary of State already has the power to close

1491
down LEAs. That may be true, but it would be a very draconian action to take just because an EDP did not reflect the kind of quality that we all want to see.
LEAs already undertake a great deal of planning. We want them to refocus their activities on improving standards. Therefore, I do not believe that there ought to be huge additional staffing costs. It is a matter of how they use their resources on something which is a very high priority matter for them, for us, for schools and for parents and pupils. Having further explained the situation, I say again that I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Can the Minister tell the Committee how many LEAs there are? Further, can she tell us whether all the EDPs will be coming in for the Minister's consideration and approval at the same time of year, or will they be spread throughout the year? I ask that question because I suspect that many plans will be submitted at the same time. Therefore, there will surely be quite a long delay as regards the approval of some of them.
Baroness Blackstone: EDPs will come in over a relatively short period of time. That is part of our wish to get on with ensuring that there is no delay in trying to do something about improving standards right across the system. I should like Members of the Committee to be a little more confident as regards the Government's ability to deliver a reasonably quick response. Indeed, that is most important. The Government will ensure that the resources are available to provide the answers to the 150 LEAs which will send in their plans.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am still quite concerned about the matter. Perhaps I may emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, which reflected mine; namely, that the response must be quick. That is the essence of the matter. Perhaps I may outline my worries. First, there is no mention of Clause 6 in the financial memorandum. Either there are people at the DfEE who will receive 150 schemes who presently have time on their hands or, alternatively, greater resources will have to be found.
The plans are quite complex. Perhaps I should explain them. The Minister thought that I did not understand them so it is quite possible that some noble Lords may not. Each school prepares a plan and the LEA co-ordinates it. From my experience of administration I know that when a plan is to be judged the officials in the department will inevitably have to look at some of the individual schools. If an LEA prepares a plan which the department finds inadequate, the latter will have to say why it is inadequate. The department will then have to look at the bricks which make up the house; in other words, it will have to do a survey. No surveyor goes round a house, just looks at it and then decides whether or not it looks good or bad. Indeed, he will tap individual bricks and look under the floorboards, because that is where he may find the smell.
If the job is done properly, we are talking about an enormous task. Therefore, I am worried about the money and about the detail. I am also puzzled by what
1492
the Minister said about the inspectorate. The inspectorate will have to look at the plan as, indeed, will the governors. I was not suggesting that we should just leave them as bland statements; I was asking that the inspectorate should be used to judge them because I believed, and still believe, that that would be more effective than the department undertaking the task.
In summary, there is no money for this, either for the LEAs or the department. It will not be just a matter of a cursory look. Indeed, from her own academic life the Minister knows all about looking at plans which may be found to be inadequate and have to be sent back. The LEA will not say, "Thank you Baroness", and touch its forelock like the natives did to the bwana in the woods in the old imperial days. It will question the decision. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and I say that the process must be quick. The department will have to enter into such detail.
I believe that the Minister is being very optimistic. My experience is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and he was closer to the engine room than I have been. Indeed, the engine sometimes ticks very slowly. Therefore, I fear that my worries remain.
Baroness Blackstone: I am an optimist. Indeed, life would be pretty miserable for all of us if we did not have some optimism about the changes that we want to make and the wish to make progress in everything we do. I respond again because I am a little worried. I believe that the noble Lord is confused about how the EDPs will be prepared. It is not a matter of each school preparing a plan individually. The LEA will, of course, have discussions with every school about its targets. However, it is the LEA which will be preparing the plan.
The noble Lord suggests that we will not have enough officials to go round. However, officials are working on a whole range of other tasks at the moment. For or example, they have been working on 150 early years development plans which have been provided by local education authorities to fulfil our commitment to expanding nursery education. They turned those round in six weeks. That is a pretty good record. Some of the officials who worked on that will be available to work on EDPs. Some of the officials supporting Ministers in taking two major Bills through Parliament will be able to work on EDPs. Heaven forbid that anyone should touch forelocks over this, but let us be a little more optimistic and less worried about long delays than the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is optimistic. That is good, for if she is not optimistic heaven help us all. My local authority has over 300 schools. The negotiations with every school should be based on the progress of each child within a school. That is the way the plan is built up. If this exercise is to be meaningful, it will involve considerable work even in terms of getting around the large counties such as Kent, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire and my own authority in Cambridgeshire. The negotiations will involve many men and women hours. Then the plans have to b drawn up. That is a relentless process. Plans are sent to the department and if the department does not like them

1493
they are returned. If the DfEE is turning every development plan round in six weeks, it is not doing its job properly. This exercise must be based on the premise of improving educational standards. Then there is the monitoring of that.
The noble Baroness knows that the financial memorandum contains not one single pound extra for education authorities. The noble Baroness told my noble friend Lord Pilkington that many advisers have provided support to the DfEE. How many staff are now in the DfEE as opposed to the number who were in post on I st April last year? This measure constitutes work those staff do not do now but which they will have to do year on year in the future.
The DfEE may have the capacity to take this extra work in its stride. If that capacity exists, that is good as it will not cost the state and the taxpayer another penny. However, I can tell the noble Baroness now that local authorities do not have the capacity in their budgets to take on a whole new administrative burden. The noble Baroness may be optimistic about her department, but she has already said today that the costs of the measure will have to be met from existing resources. Every pound taken from existing resources is a pound that is not spent on the education of children in the classroom. If that cost is not met by the Government, a confidence trick is being played on local authorities. I cannot say that they will share the noble Baroness's optimism.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Much work has been undertaken in the DfEE since the new Government came to power because we regard education as our top priority. There have been many initiatives, most of which I believe have been widely welcomed by the public, parents and many others. I put on record my gratitude to officials in the DfEE for their enormous support in getting this work done. As I said, the early years development plans being turned round in six weeks is a good example of that.
I believe that the noble Baroness is being unduly pessimistic about LEAs. Of course we recognise that this measure constitutes additional work for LEAs. We have reached the end of the consultation period on EDPs. A large number of draft EDPs have already been s submitted by LEAs. There is no suggestion that people are dragging their feet and holding back. We have a timetable for completing this work which has been agreed with local education authorities. I am sure that, like us, they will want to keep to that. It is an iterative process in which we are working together. There will also be a two-stage process for submission which will perhaps make things a little easier. I hope that the Members of the Committee on the opposite Benches will have more faith. I am sure that the work that local authorities will carry out on this important task and the work of officials and members of Ofsted will justify having that faith.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am puzzled to hear that so much work has been done when the Bill has not yet become an Act. We have been assured by the noble Baroness's colleague that all kinds of measures are to be
1494
included. Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, assured us that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, would receive a letter. However, that would appear to be of total irrelevance to some authorities. I am sorry about that as I believe there are people in this Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in particular, who could contribute to the noble Baroness's work. I hope authorities which have submitted plans will bear in mind any subsequent work that is done.
That said, I am not an optimist. I hesitate to say to someone of the noble Baroness's experience, sophistication and power that I think there is a degree of innocence in the way she approaches the matter. She is a poor little innocent in a savage world and she has my sympathy. However, she can be assured that, week after week, I and my colleagues will ask how many education development plans the department has dealt with. Believe me, that galaxy of talent will have its work questioned. I hope the noble Baroness can tell me how the EDPs have been submitted when, as I understand it, the consultation is not yet over. How many have been submitted?
Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that EDPs have been submitted; I referred to draft EDPs which are a totally different matter. The date for submission of EDPs is not until the end of the year. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I advise those who submit drafts that if they want a good draft it is best to have all the evidence in front of them or a draft just becomes a dream. I do not wish to continue this discussion any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 33A not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("() The authority shall collect such information for the purposes of preparing an education development plan in such form as may be prescribed, and shall make such information available to others subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is founded in two sets of experiences. One is in asking schools how they know that their pupils and their teachers are doing as well as they can. The answers fall on a scale from, "We talk about it among ourselves and really chat quite a lot", and at the other end of the scale, "We measure." I have been so impressed by the results coming from the schools that measure that I have become a convert to the use of information within education.
I hope that I may draw a particular example to the Minister's attention. She may have come across Greenhead Sixth Form College in Huddersfield which has taken measurement further and for longer than most other schools, certainly those in the state system. The state system is generally ahead of the private system in this area. I have spent time with the English department in that college. Those in the English department remember being up in arms about this mad, physicist scheme for measuring everything and looking at

1495
statistics and how a child is doing on one aspect compared with another. However, after a year or two of that, they discovered what an extraordinary difference it made to their experience of teaching their kids. They only have the kids for two years and they could get hold of them early on and see what was going wrong or right with the child and build on it right from the first few weeks that the child was there. That really gave them a feeling of being able to look after the individual children who were coming through their care and achieve much more with them than they were able to do when they did not have the measurements in front of them.
They also found that they could improve their own individual performances as teachers because they could understand what kind of thing they were doing badly and what aspect of teaching one teacher was better at than another. They could help each other to find new ways of overcoming problems and doing better with children who were performing relatively badly. The result is that the college, which has a broad and really very ordinary intake, produces the most extraordinary results at A-level. There is enormous value to be had by using information if you can get the right information in the right way.
The second experience was that of being in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and looking at what had happened with BSE. There, right from the early days of the epidemic, we had a team of excellent scientists doing excellent work. They collected a lot of information but they kept it all to themselves. Their capacity for analysing that information was limited by their numbers and their own intellectual experience and background.
When in the last year or two of our Government we started to release this information to others, we were astonished by the speed and variety of responses and at all the new understandings which suddenly became available to us.
There was a feeling in the department that somehow it would be disrespectful to the scientists to question their judgment in interpreting the statistics or the quality of what they were producing. Indeed, in both circumstances we would have been wrong to do so. Nonetheless, there was a great deal which we could have gained by releasing the information much more widely.
Looking at the performance of the [NEE in that respect, it is a great deal better than the performance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ever was, but it is not perfect. In particular, Ofsted has an enormous amount of information accumulating on how schools are performing in relation to each other and what their relative characteristics are. Ofsted produces occasional reports on that. But I do not find reports based on that data coming out of academia generally, and why not? Surely if that information were released we would see a great deal more benefit from it.
As regards the information which may become available from all the efforts which will be made by local authorities to plan for educational improvement, I ask the Government to ensure, first, that the information that is derived from that process is in a form
1496
which is useful to people who want to compare one system or initiative with another and to draw conclusions; and, secondly, that that information should be made widely available to anybody who can make use of it so that the best possible advantage is taken of all the good work and ideas which I hope will flow from the Government's initiative. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord consulted his Front Bench before putting down that amendment. It is in direct contrast to the amendments that have just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is very concerned by the amount of work which is involved in the submission of these education development plans. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing an enormous increase in the amount of information which should be prepared in a specified form and available for further circulation.
I have spent a lifetime as a survey researcher, so I am the last person to say that we should not have measurement wherever possible. That which is not measured in a real sense does not exist. But that is not to say that all the raw information which is used for the purposes of preparing an individual education development plan should be collected in such form as may be specified. That would mean that the Department for Education and Employment would have to specify all the information which different education authorities in different circumstances might need. It would ensure that anything that was collected for an individual education authority's specific need was included in the specification, otherwise the impact of this amendment would not be achieved.
In addition to my deep respect for measurement, I learnt in my business career something else which is called "data reduction". Data reduction means that you do not produce the raw data if you can make better sense of data which have been digested and analysed. We say in the draft guidance that local education authorities should indicate the broad results of their analysis of the information and show how it links with their proposals for action. We shall be able to get below the data by co-ordinating and exchanging available data within the department. That will avoid unduly imposing on local education authorities and asking for the same information twice.
We shall also be able to ask local education authorities for clarification and further details, if necessary, during the visits that our advisers will make to local education authorities to help them prepare and strengthen their plans. But to make all of the information available in a prescribed form, and to make it in such a way that it can be communicated between others—"others" presumably include academics as well as other education authorities—subject to such conditions as may be prescribed smacks to me of bureaucracy gone mad. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am sorry that the noble Lord takes my amendment that way. I see no conflict between what I have proposed and what my noble friend Lord

1497
Pilkington was saying. I think that the noble Lord has put an interpretation on my amendment which is just not there.
I was suggesting that those parts of the data which the Government consider important should be collected in a particular way. That is something which the Government do extensively already; for instance, in specifying how data should be collected for the performance tables, in what is truancy, and so on. I am not saying that the contents of school meals should be specified down to every last chip. If the noble Lord has recently seen the health and safety manuals in schools he will realise how enormous these specifications can become.
That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting, and what I hoped the noble Lord had understood, is that the data, which are central to the ability to co-ordinate and understand what is going on between one local authority and another, should be in a specified form. I did not envisage that that would amount to more than 10 or so data items. I cannot see that that would create a difficulty.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, do not see the inconsistency. First, it will not be a unique experience to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, either when in Government or Opposition, for a Member on his Back Benches to come up with an amendment that he has thought through and has put forward as is his legitimate right in this place.
But I do not take issue with my noble friend on this amendment. I have read this document carefully. My understanding is that this is some pretty standard information which is required in a set format. There are suggested formats. There is very specific, mandatory information: a table of targets for each maintained school; LEA context and audit; action to address school improvement priorities; resource information for the school improvement programme; a strategy for monitoring and evaluating its plan; and the LEA's consultation on the education development plan.
Perhaps I may link that to something the noble Baroness said earlier. When reference was made to the schools affected receiving a copy of the plan, the noble Baroness said that it was too expensive. So we have a rather secretive process; schools in those authorities about which this plan is devised will not receive copies of it. That seems extraordinary.
Ofsted was also linked with the proposal. My noble friend's previous amendment proposed that this should stop at Ofsted and the governors of schools, so as to cut out the massive bureaucracy beyond. The reply from the noble Baroness was that it would be too expensive to send copies to Ofsted and copies to the governors. So we are to believe that Ofsted will not receive copies and yet Ofsted will inspect LEAs. I suspect that one of the key pieces of information it will use in its inspection will be their educational development plans, the way in which they were implemented and the degree to which they achieved the outcomes, or not as the case may be. And that would form part of the base information on which Ofsted would carry out its inspection of LEAs. I
1498
have spent many years as a school governor. I should find it extraordinary to be told that I could not receive a copy of my own local education authority's plan.
I refer to my noble friend's point. Unless it is possible to make some judgment about one LEA vis-à-vis another—where the strengths and weaknesses are, and how the country is doing as a whole—the plans will not be worth the paper they are written on. The information must be in a relatively common format. We are now a mobile society. People move from one area to another. It is important that someone moving from Newcastle to Buckinghamshire is able to make sense of their local authority's education development plan and understand what is going on in both authorities. He should be in a position to make a judgment on it.
There is nothing inconsistent on this point. It is not over-bureaucratic. Those of us who oppose the massive bureaucracy have two difficulties. The first relates to how we should like the system to work. LEAs should produce education development plans. They should be ambitious for their children. They should be accountable. The local schools should be involved. Ofsted should be the body that measures both schools and local authorities against those plans. We do not believe that it is necessary to involve the Secretary of State. But if he is to be involved, it is important that whoever reads the information can make sense of it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: The main purpose of my noble friend's amendment is to ensure the diffusion of good ideas throughout the system. (I am making a point; if the noble Lord will listen I shall be grateful.) I am sure that the Government will accept that as the right objective.
Perhaps this mechanism can be improved on. I am sure that there are other ways of accomplishing the objective. But what is the mechanism at present? Is there a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that good ideas from a local authority development plan can reach other local authorities? Is there a way in which ideas can circulate and improve the system?
I was disappointed that the Minister gave a blanket rejection of what my noble friend said, without acknowledging that his purpose was good and suggesting an alternative method of achieving it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Without restricting the scope of what local authorities want to put into education development plans, this is not exactly the place for good ideas. These are development plans. They are designed to ensure that all local education authorities and schools concentrate on the improvement of standards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read out the mandatory information required in paragraph 19 on page 6 of the draft guidance. Perhaps I may read out paragraphs 17 and 18, which are relevant. They state:
"The supporting information you provide should underpin the proposals in Part 1 of the plan. Some of the supporting information must be included in mandatory annexes".

1499
That is what the noble Baroness read out. It continues:
"You may provide other information on an optional basis.
The information required in Part 2 of the Plan should not be overburdensome. The [NEE does not require any information direct from schools and the information sought is similar to that which LEAs already collect. The information will dovetail closely with that required by OFSTED/Audit Commission for LEA inspections".
That enables me to say what I omitted to say when I first responded to the amendment. In strictly comparable terms, we have a wealth of information available and coming on stream, including Ofsted, LEA and school inspection reports, Ofsted LEA profile information, and performance and assessment reports. It includes national curriculum data, examination results, bench-marking data, best value reviews of relevant services and many other sources of information. There is no shortage of information collected on a comparable basis. What is called for in the EDP report is the analysis, not the raw material, which is what is called for in the amendment.
On dissemination, there may be some misunderstanding. In response to an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the draft reports would not be made available to governors. Of course all schools will receive copies of their LEA's education plans. That is set out in the draft guidance, and will be set out, if necessary, in regulations under Clause 7(9).
Baroness Blatch: The suggestion in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pilkington was that the plan should be submitted to Ofsted and to governing bodies. The amendment did not relate to the draft plan but to the plan. We shall read the Minister's reply in Hansard tomorrow. The noble Baroness said that it would be an expensive proposition to send copies to Ofsted and to the governing bodies affected by the plan. There was no reference at that stage to draft plans. The reference to draft plans came later when the noble Baroness said that draft plans had come already into the department and they would be updated with the definitive plans later in the year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I saw my noble friend's speaking note and it referred to draft plans. But what is important is to repeat what I have just said. All schools will receive copies of their LEA's education development plans. That means that governors will be able to have access to them.
Lord Lucas: I find difficulty in trying to persuade the Minister about the virtue of consistency of information. The noble Lord may remember an earlier debate when we discussed inflation. We know today that our inflation rate is about 4 per cent.; and in America it is about 1 per cent. However, when considering the way in which those two indicators are composed, as regards the UK rate one can first take out taxes and interest rates and one then gets down to a rate of 2 per cent. If one takes out further indices of measurements, one gets down to 1 per cent. Unless the indicators of local authorities are compiled on the same basis, it becomes
1500
extremely difficult to understand how an example from one authority will apply to another. One needs a basic level, a bench-mark of consistency, in order to make the best of all the efforts which will be put into improving schools by individual local authorities.
We shall have to return to this matter, in a slightly different form, at a later stage of the Bill. The Government need to understand that introducing a measure of consistency at this stage will reap enormous dividends later. However, I see no point in trying to pursue the matter at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfenmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 39, at end insert—
("() social services departments;").
The noble Lord said: The noble Baroness, Lady David, whose name is first to the amendment, has asked me to apologise to the Committee. Unfortunately she had a long-standing engagement which she was unable to break. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas are grouped with the amendment. I shall not speak to them; I shall leave that entirely to him.
The Children Act 1989 requires that social services departments produce, after consulting relevant agencies, children services plans covering all "children in need". The Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health Joint Circular 13/94 states that,
"the services which meet the educational requirements of looked after children must feature prominently in these plans"
Despite that guidance, collaboration between education and social services departments is extremely ad hoc. Consequently the best interests of children in respect of their education are not being met. For example, 75 per cent. of looked after children leave school with no educational qualifications whatsoever.
This amendment seeks to enforce existing guidance and to ensure that educational departments consult social services departments in the preparation of education development plans. In addition, the social services departments are probably the departments most in touch with those families who have children with special educational needs of one kind or another, or those who are most likely to be excluded for reasons of poor or bad behaviour. It would be helpful. I am sure, to the education department to have advice in some instances from the social services department on what is happening outside school that the schools might be able to put right or which would have a bearing on the way in which they educated those children. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I am principally interested at this stage in listening to what the Minister has to say about how she will address the particular points raised by these two amendments.
Amendment No. 36 suggests co-operation with the-, Further Education Funding Council, as the educational divide at 16 starts to be worn down with children indulging in vocational education earlier than that age,

1501
and greater co-operation, which I am glad to see, between further education colleges and eleven-to-sixteen schools and certainly eleven-to-eighteen schools. It seems to me that what the FEFC is up to has a bearing on eleven-to-sixteen education within an area, and that there should be some form of co-operation between the LEA and the FEFC in putting together plans for the improvement of education within an area. There may be much that further education colleges can contribute.
Amendment No. 37 deals with what one might call the London problem, although of course it exists at the boundaries of many other areas. Particularly in inner London, the ILEA never designed the pattern of religious education to be subdivided into boroughs. You can look at somewhere like Kensington and Chelsea, where four out of five of the secondary schools are Catholic and they therefore cater for many children coming from out of the borough while there are many children within the borough who do not wish to have a Catholic education and have to go out of the borough. Pimlico School, which is not unknown to certain members of the Government, is in Westminster, but only about 30 per cent. of its children come from Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, I think at Second Reading, complained about the effect that out-of-borough children were having on the description of his borough's schools. I find that rather a disappointing attitude. If you provide good education one should surely welcome children from out-of-borough; but there we are, and there is room for differences.
At least it is recognised that there is a considerable problem in asking an individual local authority to plan for its own children without recognising that in certain circumstances, particularly in inner London and, I imagine, in similar circumstances elsewhere, much of that provision will be undertaken by neighbouring local authorities and vice-versa. The local authority will be educating a lot of children for those neighbouring authorities and therefore will, perforce, he co-operative. I hope that the Government will say how they intend to encourage co-operation, rather than the sort of competition which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, seems to envisage between neighbouring boroughs.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is very important, for the simple reason that it preaches the benefits of horizontal as opposed to vertical integration and that attention must be paid to matters outside the educational world. I am not altogether sure whether it is right to put it all in the Bill, but certainly the intention behind the amendment is something to which I think everybody involved in this field or in any other type of legislation should pay far more attention than any of us do.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 extend the requirements as to whom LEAs should consult in preparing their education development plans. We have kept the requirements minimal so as to avoid unnecessary and overburdensome prescription. Under existing provisions in Clause 6(6), proposed statutory
1502
consultees whose views must be canvassed by LEAs in preparing their EDPs consist of the heads and governing bodies of all LEA-maintained schools, diocesan authorities and other appropriate persons.
The inclusion by name of the first two categories will be understood—at least I hope it will—and accepted on all sides of the Committee. EDPs should be prepared by LEAs in partnership with their schools, while diocesan bodies have a direct interest in how EDPs will affect church schools. Beyond this we really do not want to set out precisely whom LEAs should consult. It is bound to vary from local authority to local authority, and we think that LEAs should be free to take account of local circumstances and needs without having this set out in legislation.
We have set out in the draft EDP guidance what further consultation LEAs ought to consider. This includes social services and other relevant educational institutions such as the Further Education Funding Council. However, I believe that it is very important, particularly for pupils with special educational needs, that LEAs and social services departments should consult each other. I intend therefore to consider this point further, and so I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and to my noble friend Lady David for raising this matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that of course we want to strengthen cross-service inter-agency work, and, where appropriate, we will try to improve consultation with social services departments. EDPs provide a very special and unique opportunity for LEAs to forge local partnerships and to agree on what needs to be done to drive up performance, and who will do it.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are trying to encourage a great deal more contact than existed under the previous administration between the FEFC and particularly its regional committees and the local education authorities in their areas, because we think co-operation here is also important.
LEAs will also be required, as part of their audit within their EDP, to analyse the numbers of pupils with special educational needs and to include significant action to support such pupils in their school improvement programme. We also expect LEAs to consult neighbouring LEAs where it is appropriate when they are preparing their EDPs. However, it would be unduly prescriptive to specify on the face of the Bill too many additional consultees. For some LEAs additional consultees will of course need to include neighbouring LEAs, but this may be rather less appropriate for others. We think that LEAs will be best placed to decide who else they ought to be consulting during the consultation process.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that local authorities will not be able to circumvent either our or his expectations on this point, since the EDP will contain information about the nature of the consultation process, including what responses have been received. That LEAs have consulted appropriately, and with their neighbours where that would be proper, will certainly be one of the considerations the Secretary of State will bear in mind in deciding whether to approve an EDP.

1503
Guidance on EDPs will make it clear that neighbouring LEAs are among the bodies which may be included as consultees but, as I have said, we do not want to impose too many additional administrative burdens on the LEAs on the issue of consultation, irrespective of whether the circumstances are right. In view of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank the Minister for what she has said. I will read her reply very carefully, as will my noble friend Lady David. We will consider whether it is necessary to come back at a later stage of the Bill, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("() No education development plan prepared under this section shall include proposals to—

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

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

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

unless the proposals submitted within the education development plan have previously been accepted by the governing body and parents of the school concerned.").
The noble Lord said: These issues, as noble Lords opposite will know, are very sensitive. School communities take many years to form themselves, and part of their achievement lies in the traditions of the past and the manner in which those are grown. To destroy those traditions often means the destruction of a good school. It has happened many times in the past 30 or 40 years.
Let me examine each of the issues. First, let me take the sixth form. As noble Lords opposite may remember, there was an intense battle fought some years ago over a school in London, the Oratory school—which I am told is so popular that parents go long distances across London in order to send their children there. So it obviously had some value. There was a proposal from the local authority to discontinue the sixth form. The then headmaster fought a long battle against his own diocesan authorities and the local authority. With the help of his trustees, his sixth form was retained. I think we would all acknowledge, especially those parents who take long trips across London, that it was a worthwhile battle. The school was, and remains, excellent. I point to that as one example of what can happen if you try to behead a school.
Secondly, I turn to the matter of single sex education, regarded by people who choose such schools—in many cases for their daughters—as particularly important. To destroy that tradition breaks a pattern which parents have deliberately chosen. Thirdly—and I realise that this will raise opposition from noble Lords opposite—a school develops its character by the manner in which it selects its pupils and chooses its staff.
1504
I am suggesting, not that changes cannot be made—I emphasise that point—but that in the case of these particular issues, equity and common justice demand that the governing body and the parents of the school concerned are consulted. Ballots are to be in vogue later in the Bill. I assume that the Government believe in consulting parents. I therefore hope that the Government will give attention to these matters. We on this side feel strongly about them and shall be very interested in the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I speak briefly in support of the amendment, in particular on the question of single sex schools. Members of certain religious communities specifically forbid their daughters to mix with the opposite sex without being properly chaperoned. That is of particular significance in relation to single sex schools. It would cause considerable distress to members of those religious communities were they to be forced to send their daughters to mixed schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for tabling the amendment. I have visited schools, as, I am sure, have other noble Lords, where those from religious minorities find suitable places particularly for their daughters. I know that there are varied views on whether schools should be of mixed or single gender. I think the received wisdom is that, on the whole, girls flourish in schools that provide for their gender only and that boys do not do so well in schools for their gender alone. Nevertheless, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is important.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. I am afraid I am revealing that I have not done my homework in the way that I should. Am I right in thinking that the three limbs of the amendment—that an educational development plan shall not include proposals unless the governing body and parents of the school concerned have been consulted if it affects the discontinuation of the sixth form; if it introduces pupils of the opposite sex into any age group; or if it eliminates, say, selection by ability—are presently part and parcel of the changing of the character of a school and that therefore those issues presently fall under the well-tried provisions of public protestation if necessary and final decision by the Secretary of State? I apologise if I have got the matter wrong.
Secondly, the question of Church schools has been raised. What about the question of transfer age? Transfer age may be 11 or, in a middle school system, 11 and 14. That has affected the character of schools. Is a different procedure envisaged under Clause 6?
Thirdly—and this possibly reveals the reason for my suspicion—what does "or otherwise" mean in line 21 on page 4? Subsection (2) of Clause 6 states:
"An education development plan shall consist of … proposals for developing their provision of education for children in their area … by … raising the standards … or … improving the performance of such schools, or otherwise".
What does that mean?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can set the minds of noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate

1505
at rest fairly rapidly. It is the Government's intention to be much more strict than this amendment would provide. Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to look at the wording of the amendment, and I shall read out what is the Government's intention.
It is the Government's intention that no education development plan prepared under this clause shall include proposals to discontinue sixth form provision at a particular school, introduce pupils of the opposite sex into any age group or teaching group in a particular school in which that school currently offers single-sex education, or eliminate selection by ability in part or in whole. Period. Not whether or not the education development plan has been accepted by the governing body and the parents of the school concerned—but period. Under no circumstances will an education development plan do any of those things. That is not the purpose of education development plans. The plans are about raising standards.
Separate legislation already exists, or is planned in this Bill, regarding school organisation. It is referred to in Clause 25, which provides for the school organisation plan, and later in Clauses 94 and 98 dealing with the character of a school. That is not what education development plans are for. Noble Lords can be entirely assured that none of these issues will be included in them.
Baroness Blatch: That is a pretty unequivocal answer. However, I want to press the noble Lord further so that we get it absolutely, unequivocally, on the face of the Bill. If a local education authority took the view that it would be an educationally sound proposition to rationalise sixth form education and not have sixth forms in schools but another form of provision; or if its view was that co-education was preferable because it believed that educationally it was more sound, or that selection by ability was thwarting good education under that local authority, is the noble Lord saying that, even if it had come to those views on educational grounds, that would have no place whatever in an education development plan?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that local authorities would never come to those views except on educational grounds. Yes, it would not occur in an education development plan. If they took that view, then they would make other proposals which are dealt with in other legislation and later in this Bill.
In direct response to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the statement of proposals is about developing education, first, by raising standards, and secondly, by improving performance. Those are non-exclusive examples, and if the LEA has other ideas for raising standards and improving performance then it can include them— but not about organisation, not about selection, not about single sex schools, not about selection by ability.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Would the Minister like to give me an assurance that he would be prepared
1506
to put on the face of the Bill in the clauses regarding school organisation committees that they would not break the conditions in this amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord cares to put down an amendment to Clause 25 or a later clause, we shall consider it. But it is hardly for me to anticipate what will happen in the debate on those later clauses.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should like to put this on the face of the Bill and therefore I wish to ask the opinion of the Committee.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

McColl of Duiwich, L.

Ashborne, L.

McConnell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Naseby, L.

Cadman, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Caithness, E.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Chesham, L.

Palmer, L.

Coleridge, L.

Patten, L.

Cross, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Greenway, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Keyes, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dixon, L.

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blease, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Burlison, L.

Geraint, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

David, B.

Grantchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Gregson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Grenfell, L.

Dearing, L.

Hampton, L.

Desai, L.

Hamwee, B.

1507

Hardie, L.

Parry, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Haskel, L.

Peston, L.

Hayman, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollick, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hoyle, L.

Razzall, L.

Hughes, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rix, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Sandberg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Sewel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shannon, E.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Slim, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lockwood, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

McNair, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maddock, B.

Tope, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Varley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mishcon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Molloy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.8 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Approval, modification and review of statement of proposals]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 9, after ("shall") insert ("publish it and").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44. It is a loose group of fairly minor amendments. Amendment No. 41 suggests that when the local authority sends an education development plan to the Secretary of State, at that point it should become a public document. The public should not have to wait until the Secretary of State has had his say before knowing what the local education authority proposes. They should have it in front of them, as the Secretary of State has it in front of him or her. The public should therefore not find themselves in the position where the plan has gone through all the approval procedures and has been set in concrete before the public have a chance to chirp up and say what they think about it. It would be advantageous to the progress of democracy and the production of a plan which will command local support generally if it is made available at that stage. I am not suggesting that it should be published in the thousands and sent round
1508
to everybody. However, it should be made available. A couple of copies could be sent to local newspapers and copies made available in council offices. Something on those lines would be useful so that people pick up what is going on if they wish.
Amendment No. 42 deals with the position where a local authority has taken advantage of this part of the section to propose modifications to the plan. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands which limits the extent of the modifications and they could be extremely wide-ranging. Amendment No. 42 simply suggests that the local education authority should consult such persons as it considers appropriate. Therefore, if consultation is appropriate, it should be undertaken. At the moment there is no requirement whatever for consultation, however wide-ranging the modifications may be.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are probably unnecessary, but it seemed to me that the plan should be provided to anybody who asks for it and not just to a prescribed list of people who are entitled to have it. I doubt the accuracy of my drafting, but that is the intention behind the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: It is perhaps time I joined the debate and I start by embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, by saying that I agree with everything he said, including his comments in relation to his drafting on Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
The intentions behind the amendments are obviously right and I am sure that they will be fulfilled. I was considering under what circumstances it may be possible for a local education authority to produce an education development plan and not publish it. At some stage it will be approved by the education committee. That alone will make it a public document. I cannot conceive of an LEA refusing to allow people to see it, so I am sure that it will be published. It certainly should be published and I cannot conceive of circumstances under which that would not happen.
Amendment No. 42 refers to the consultation, and of course that is right. Again, I cannot envisage circumstances under which that would not happen anyway. I wonder—it is for the Minister to reply and not for me—whether it is necessary for the amendment to be on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was rightly a little bit more uncertain about Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, but again I agree with their intention. It is of course right that everyone who wishes to have a copy of either the summary or the full plan should have it. I would have thought—I am not a legal expert—given that it is a local authority document, people will be entitled to obtain copies under the access to information Act anyway.
On those grounds, though I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, and the intentions behind the amendments, I suspect that the Minister is about to tell us that they are unnecessary. On this occasion, if that is what we are told, I have to say that I agree.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, answered the point for me; there does not remain much more for me to say.
Amendment No. 41 would require LEAs, having consulted on and prepared their education development plans, to publish them prior to submitting them to the Secretary of State for his approval. I fear that the likely consequence of this amendment would be to add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, something that I am sure cannot have been intended by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The LEAs will have agreed performance targets with schools and consulted schools and others on the means by which they propose to help them meet those targets. Everything necessary for the Secretary of State to consider the EDP should have been done. Publication at that stage, however, would be a tacit, but misleading, invitation for further comment. Yet any comments offered at that point would not only be superfluous but would lack the detailed significance of the direct exchange of views that would have occurred during the actual consultation period.
Amendment No. 42 concerns an EDP which has been approved by the Secretary of State but which the LEA in question wishes to modify. Clause 7 of the Bill already makes provision for LEAs to seek such modifications. The amendment would require an LEA seeking a modification first to undertake consultation with appropriate persons.
The noble Lord's amendment raises the issue of whether modifications to EDPs should always involve re-consultation between the LEA and relevant bodies or whether there are circumstances, as currently envisaged in the Bill, when the nature and circumstances of the modification sought makes further consultation unnecessary. In the latter case, to require re-consultation as a matter of course might on occasion introduce a gratuitous element of bureaucratic delay that I have no doubt the noble Lord would not wish to see.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 may be considered together. Their joint effect is to require LEAs to provide copies of their approved education development plans, or copies of summaries of their plans, or copies of both, to any persons who request them. The draft guidance on EDPs—on which we recently completed consultation with LEAs and others—provides details of the proposed publication arrangements and those will in due course be set out in regulations.
The draft guidance proposes that LEAs should provide a full version or, where appropriate, a summary of the approved EDP, on request and without charge, to a range of bodies including head teachers and chairs of governing bodies of their schools, the diocesan bodies, local training and enterprise councils, and the regional committee of the Further Education Funding Council. The EDP must also be provided, at a price no greater than the cost of production, to anyone else requesting it. Furthermore, to ensure that approved EDPs are made fully accessible, LEAs will be required to place copies of their EDPs in local libraries, to send copies to the local press, to place them on the Internet and to
1510
publicise them through media used to disseminate information about council services along the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Regulations will formalise the contents of the draft guidance on that as well as other points concerning EDPs.
Given that, I do not believe that this amendment would add significantly to existing provisions to ensure that EDPs are widely available to those who need or wish to have access to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I am in full agreement with the intention of the amendment to see that access to EDPs is maximised; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will agree with me that what is already proposed in this connection will lead to that outcome while avoiding the possibility that some authorities will find themselves unnecessarily burdened in having to distribute an unspecified number of EDPs.
In light of the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Blatch: First, I accept all that the noble Baroness says regarding the number of documents that may be prepared on the way—drafts and redrafts of documents—until one arrives at the definitive document. I am not sure therefore whether my noble friend meant that all those documents should be widely distributed.
Perhaps I can ask two questions. The first is in relation to Amendment No. 42. If I understand the noble Baroness's point correctly, there will be modifications which are so small in nature that they are inappropriate for wide consultation, being either minor or technical. As I understand the amendment, it says,
"after consultation with such persons as they [LEAs] consider to be appropriate".
In other words, if the LEA considers it to be appropriate, there should be consultation. For instance, if there is an impact on a school, an aspect of the curriculum or some change of policy in some way, it seems appropriate that there should be consultation, and the amendment gives the local authority discretion to do that. I should have thought that this was a fairly inoffensive amendment. Even if it were not accepted on the face of the Bill, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could say that there would be an obligation on local authorities where the change was not just minor or technical but where there was an impact on policy or on the delivery of education.
There will be occasions—one hopes not very often—when there is a tension between the DfEE and the local authority. The local authority will submit its EDP and the Secretary of State and the people who will be judging on his behalf may reject it for one reason or another. That sets a tension between the local authority and the department. If I were a parent in that authority I would want to understand the nature of the disagreement between the DfEE and the local authority. I know that the system is that the DfEE will request the local authority to modify its plan according to what is deemed by the Secretary of State. I am not quite sure, because I do not understand the Bill, what will happen if the local authority refuses to accept the advice or the

1511
requirements set out by the DfEE. I suspect that the DfEE has the whip hand, but I do not quite know in what way that will be delivered in practice.
It ought to be a matter of public record if an EDP is rejected by the Department for Education and Employment so that not only the councillors in the local authority understand what the tension is between the DfEE and the authority—it is not just between one official and another—but the local authority understands what the tension is; and if it is serious, then the school, the head teacher and the governors and parents should know. I just wonder what facility there is for making it public that there is a disagreement pending the outcome of the definitive plan that is satisfactory to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 42. It is inoffensive. On the other hand, we do not think it is necessary to put it on the face of the Bill. I accept what she said and we shall try to reflect that in the guidance.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 and the possibility of disagreement between the LEA and the DfEE, the EDPs have to be agreed by the Secretary of State. She is right in saying that the department will continue to negotiate until agreement has been secured. That is entirely understood by local authorities. I think it would be a matter for the LEA to decide whether it wanted to indicate to its head teachers or others that there had been some disagreement and what the nature of that disagreement was. I do not think the Government would want in any way to restrict LEAs from providing that information. That is something we should leave to them.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. However, I still find some difficulty with what she is saying on Amendment No. 42. I entirely accept that there will be many circumstances where what is proposed by way of an amendment is minor. But let us suppose that what is proposed is major and has a significant effect on several schools or on a substantial part of the local education authority's area. The Government go to the lengths in Clause 6 of requiring that local authority to consult on the original plan but impose no conditions at all as to consultation under subsection (8). I would be content if she would say in terms that if the amendment was a major one the Secretary of State would not approve it unless there had been consultation. However, if we are not in that situation I really think that this is a matter which I would have to bring back at a later stage. Perhaps she would care to give me the comfort I seek, that, if there is a major modification, consultation will have taken place before the Secretary of State approves it.
Baroness Blackstone: I thought I had made that clear in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If
1512
there were to be a major change I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the comfort that he has asked for.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend responds, who decides whether it is a major problem?
Baroness Blackstone: That is a matter for the Secretary of State.
Lord Lucas: I am just as prepared to trust the Secretary of State as I would be to trust the local education authority. I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I wish to oppose Clause 7 standing part of the Bill. I will not burden your Lordships too long over this before supper because I have set out most of the reasons why I am worried about Clause 7. Perhaps I may put it simply and concisely. I and many of my noble friends believe that the inspectorate, Ofsted, would be a better judge of these education development plans than having the whole paraphernalia of the Secretary of State. That is the essence of our situation. Under Clause 7 the Secretary of State first has to approve the plans. If he decides not to approve them or to make modifications, he notifies the authority. The authority can say whether it agrees with the Secretary of State. Then the authority may submit modifications. There is an elaborate process here and the Ofsted system could do it better.
I realise that I am burdening the noble Baroness with a good deal on this but I should like further reassurance that all the processes that are gone through will be done quickly. Again I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said. I should like a clear assurance from the Minister that even if the local authority questions it—there will be times when the local authority and the Secretary of State are opposed to each other—she can guarantee what the time span will be. Can she take the risk—she is an optimist, so optimists must put their money where their mouths are—and say how long she expects these processes will take in the case of an objection? Is it six weeks or eight weeks? Two months is a long time with a school and a local authority not knowing where they stand. Can we have nice, big optimistic assurances to send us to dinner in a happy frame of mind?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord replies can he say clearly what will happen to a local authority which refuses to change the plan in the way the Government are insisting on? If there goes on being a problem, the Bill does not seem to say what will happen. The Minister said that the local authority will carry on arguing. There could be a confrontation. I think the Bill ought to resolve that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has described what Clause 7 involves.

1513
It involves the obligation on the Secretary of State to approve, to modify or to reject an education development plan. If he approves it, the LEA has to implement it. If he says it should be revised, the LEA has to revise it. He then has to review the proposals and the implementation. If he thinks it is not being properly implemented, he can withdraw his approval. Under subsections (5) and (6) he can require further modifications. The clause requires that the authority should publish the education development plan. Finally, subsection (10) says that the costs incurred are legitimate costs of an education authority. If the clause were to be taken out of the Bill, the education development plans described in Clause 6 would hang in the air. They would serve no purpose. Nothing could be done about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made an interesting suggestion that Ofsted should be responsible for all the procedure. If he wants to do that he should table amendments to that effect, but what he should not do is to take out the clause without replacing it.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is going to be basic, fundamental information for Ofsted anyway. It now has the responsibility for inspecting LEAs. It is a policy that we were about to implement and it has been picked up by the Government. We applaud the fact that local authorities will be inspected against their own plans. They will be inspected against the quality of their plans, their implementation and the output from them.
It seems that we now have two tiers and a raft of bureaucracy which will bypass Ofsted, going to the Secretary of State and to-ing and fro-ing the great paper chase. We are asking: why not have one bureaucracy instead of two?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness is right that Ofsted will be involved. The Secretary of State will take account of advice from Ofsted in approving the plans. If the Opposition suggest that Ofsted should take over the whole process it is perfectly open to them to propose amendments to do so. But the Opposition have not done so. Education development plans having been prepared, the Opposition's proposal would leave those plans completely in limbo.
The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is that if a local education authority refuses to obey its obligations under this clause it will be in breach of its statutory duty. Although I cannot conceive of this happening, in the end it could come to the courts. I am perfectly prepared to argue a serious case about the involvement of Ofsted, but to take out Clause 7 does not make sense.
Baroness Maddock: I support the Government on this issue. I am a little mystified as to why we have had such a long debate about it. I raised the matter earlier in a debate on this Bill. To the best of my knowledge, much of what will go into an education development plan already exists in most local education authorities now. It is not called an "education development plan" but it exists. Good education authorities work in that
1514
way. I do not believe that it will be too difficult for most local education authorities to get their education development plan together.
We on these Benches often accuse the Government and others of too much centralisation, but there is a point in having central information when one is trying to target resources effectively to a service that is being provided. That is particularly true of education. On that basis, it is important for the Government to have a grip on what is going on in our schools so that they can ensure that the resources go to the right place. We had discussions earlier this afternoon as to how we target money for school buildings and so on. I believe that this type of information will enable better long-term thinking in planning budgets for education. If the Government move to budgets that cover three years, such information will be very important.
I was somewhat surprised by the concern that the department could not deal with 150 plans. There may have been times when people thought that it was not possible. Businesses regularly deal with that kind of situation; they believe that they can deal with 150 plans, or whatever, coming in. It is the same for the Department for Education and Employment.
There may be problems ahead when the department falls out with a local education authority. The idea behind these plans is that schools can work with local education authorities to help them develop standards. It will be a useful tool. From that, information will go to the department to enable it to deal with future planning, particularly financial planning.
We have not been inundated with representations from groups and local education authorities, including teachers, who normally say that they do not like what is going on. We have been inundated with briefing notes. The reason we have not been inundated with representations from local education authorities and others is partly because the Government are putting the issues out for consultation, although that is about to finish. It may be that at some future stage we shall need to return to these issues. We may receive representations from local authorities, teachers and other bodies when we reach Report stage.
The clause should stand part of the Bill. As I was rising to speak to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, I was reminded of the time when I arrived in this place. I could not understand what that meant. People used strange language. I am pleased to say that I now know what it means and I wish that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I welcome the noble Baroness to our debate today. I agree with everything she said. We have designed the education development plan process in order to build on and develop existing processes and not to add unnecessary layers of requirements. As the noble Baroness said, most LEAs already prepare and implement strategic plans. Education development plans will serve to sharpen and refocus that activity on raising standards in schools. In practice, EDPs should reduce LEA bureaucracy since they will co-ordinate and streamline

1515
information-gathering exercises by the DfEE, Ofsted and the Audit Commission. On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: It has been a long evening. The noble Lord may remember Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 where I suggested that Ofsted should take over. I thank the noble Lord for his invitation to bring the matter back at Report stage. I shall give that consideration. I still believe that Ofsted would best fulfil the ideals behind these education development plans. It would fulfil the hope of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, of having central information. It would also provide the expertise which has been gained from detailed knowledge. But for the moment, I shall withdraw my opposition to this clause. I shall consider the noble Lord's strong urging to bring back a strong amendment at Report stage. I am glad that he is so keen for conflict.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, may I suggest that the Committee stage should not be resumed before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Anglo-Japanese Relations
7.37 p.m.
Viscount Trenchardrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote relations between the United Kingdom and Japan.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1998 is a special year for British-Japanese relations. Most importantly there is the state visit by the Emperor and Empress of Japan which takes place during next week. This will be the first visit by a reigning Japanese Emperor since 1971. The intervening 27 years have witnessed an enormous broadening and deepening of our relationship with Japan. In January the Prime Minister visited Tokyo and opened Festival UK 98, a year-long programme of events and activities designed to bring British culture, business and scientific achievement closer to the Japanese people.
I look forward to hearing the speeches to be made by other noble Lords, in particular that of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who makes such a positive contribution to British-Japanese relations through his chairmanship of the UK-Japan 2000 Group. I also look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, to whom I am grateful for her interest.
On the one hand Japan and Britain have much in common. We are both island nations situated close to great continents from which we have imported most of our cultural traditions, including much of our language,
1516
script, music and art. We are both constitutional monarchies whose reigning sovereigns maintain strict political neutrality.
There are also many respects in which Japan and Britain are different. I believe that Japan's enforced isolation from the world, which lasted for more than 200 years and ended with the Meiji restoration in 1868, still has some lasting effect on Japanese society. The excessively consensus-orientated decision-making process and individual reluctance to state publicly an opinion on any specific subject prevent the emergence of "leaders" in the western sense in politics, business or other fields. Indeed, there is a well-known proverb, deru kui wa utareru—the stake that sticks out will be hammered down. Japanese society is extremely corporatist and an individual's social position and his or her very identity own much to the company or institution to which he or she belongs. Recent years have seen a rapid increase in "twinning" arrangements between Japanese and British schools and universities, involving the exchange of students and in some cases teachers. There are at any one time about 1,000 young British graduates in Japan, spending at least a year on the Japanese Government's Japan exchange teacher scheme.
Japan's recovery from the ashes of defeat in 1945 has been remarkable. In several industrial sectors, such as cars and electrical appliances, Japan's great companies have become household names almost everywhere and their products, of high quality and sold at affordable prices, have done much to improve the living standards of many millions of people. The structure of its government, civil service and business has provided a stable framework for what we were beginning to call "the Japanese miracle" until the "bubble" burst in 1990. The Japanese Government last month adopted an economic rescue package involving the injection of £77 billion into the economy through public works spending and fiscal stimulus; 1st April 1998 also marked the beginning of Japan's version of "Big Bang", involving the liberalisation of financial markets and the abolition of much cumbersome and bureaucratic regulation. The objective is to ensure Tokyo's future as one of the great financial centres of the world providing efficient, free, innovative and transparent markets, a centre in the Asian time zone to complement London and New York.
However, market reaction to the government's economic recovery package was lukewarm and the impact of the "Big Bang" seems evocative of T. S. Eliot's words,
"Not with a bang but a whimper".
Confidence and optimism are commodities in short supply in financial and business circles and it is not clear who is able to provide the commitment and strong leadership necessary to complete the reforms. What is necessary is for the government to take bold and radical action quickly, for example in completing their privatisation programme and reforming the post office savings system.
I believe that British financial firms are uniquely qualified to play an important role in assisting Japan in this area. Japanese financial institutions desperately

1517
need to improve the poor returns they derive from their investments and British investment managers have a golden opportunity to introduce their professional approach and international expertise, which I believe should win for them a significant share of an enormous market. Indeed, Japan's current difficulties provide an opportunity for improved market access in several areas by British and other non-Japanese firms and it may be that deregulation and the weaker yen will lead to some correction to the enormous imbalance between Japanese direct investment in Britain and British investment in Japan. Japan's trade surplus with Britain was £4·7 billion in 1996, but that was more than compensated for by a surplus in services and investment earnings, giving us a current account surplus of £1 billion.
In the year ended March 1997, Japanese investment in Britain amounted to more than £800 million, representing 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in EU countries in that year, and created or saved 8,000 jobs in total. There are more than 1,000 Japanese companies operating in Britain, including 271 manufacturing companies which employ 65,000 people directly and secure the continued employment of many others. Investment by Japanese companies in certain regions of Scotland, the North East of England, South Wales, and elsewhere have played a significant part in their regeneration.
Japan and Britain are increasingly co-operating in third countries through partnership in development assistance and collaboration in the provision of aid in developing countries.
British-Japanese co-operation in third countries is, of course, not a new phenomenon. It may not be widely remembered that Japan and Britain were military allies from 1902 until 1923 and fought together in the First World War. Many former Imperial Japanese Navy officers remember to this day with pride and affection the links that existed with and the traditions that they inherited from the Royal Navy. The letter from Mr. Sam Falle published in The Times on 29th April, describing his treatment at the hands of the Japanese navy as its honoured guest, on being taken prisoner in 1942, bears witness to the fact.
Unfortunately, the Anglo-Japanese alliance did not last longer. As your Lordships are well aware, Japan's disastrous involvement in the Second World War led ultimately to its catastrophic defeat that followed the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs.
I believe that history shows that mankind is capable both of great bravery and savage cruelty in war. In the Second World War, prisoners of war and civilian internees suffered horribly in both Asian and European theatres. The treatment of British prisoners in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps was often atrocious. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 recognised the extreme nature of suffering endured by allied prisoners and, in addition to the customary sequestration of overseas assets, required Japan to make direct reparations to former prisoners, which was a new departure in a peace treaty and I think remains the only case of direct
1518
payment of reparations by a former enemy to individuals. Inadequate though the payments were, the matter was settled by the treaty which became the rock on which we have rebuilt our very successful relationship. I do not think it right that Britain should try to renegotiate the treaty now.
I believe that many Japanese still feel an obligation to redress the wrongs inflicted on their prisoners. The Japanese Government have recently instituted a scheme to provide scholarships to grandchildren of former prisoners of war for sixth-form education. They have organised a number of successful reconciliation visits to Japan for former prisoners and their families which have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion, which is itself involved this week in a joint memorial visit to Burma and Thailand. Many Japanese companies operating here are exemplary corporate citizens and make a full contribution to deserving causes in their localities. The community obligations observed and constructive social participation shown by managers of Japanese companies here have been a tremendous force for good in many cities and towns across the country. Their conduct has helped to heal the wounds which remain so deeply felt by many, in spite of the passage of more than half a century since the end of hostilities.
As a trustee of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, I am pleased that we were able to disburse £14 million in direct charitable expenditure during 1997. Of course, what we and other similar organisations give is not enough and our beneficiaries' needs are increasing with their age. We will continue to try to give more and we depend on the continued support and generous benevolence of the thousands of individuals and companies who give us donations regularly year after year. Among our supporters are Honda and Mitsubishi Motor which save us several thousand pounds a year by providing courtesy vehicles at the Royal International Air Tattoo.
I do not think it will encourage them if those they wish to help insult their own head of state while he is here as a guest of our head of state. I suggest that to be discourteous to the Emperor at his welcoming ceremony would certainly be discourteous to the Queen. I agree with the views expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who is unable to be here today, in his letter to the Daily Telegraph of 24th May. The noble and gallant Lord expressed the hope, with which I hope and trust that noble Lords will agree, that when the Emperor arrives in London he will be received with the courtesy and understanding for which this country is renowned.
We will not, and we must not, ever forget the appalling suffering endured and the sacrifice made by British and allied prisoners during the Second World War. There are those who, understandably, cannot forgive or forget. However, I hope that they will not feel it right to attempt to put their interests above those of the country as a whole. It is not in their interests or those of any of us to jeopardise the development of closer relations between our countries as we look forward together to the new millennium.

1519
There are still those who will not accept the sincerity of the apologies given on various occasions by Japanese Prime Ministers. The point was addressed in another place on 29th April by the honourable Member for Reading East. Miss Jane Griffiths is, I believe, correct in her statement that the word used by the Japanese Prime Minister to express apology, owabi, is an appropriately strong and serious word. The representatives of the prisoners of war who want the word shazai to be used may be misled or they may misunderstand. Shazai is a rather legalistic word not commonly used in the spoken language. The actual words used by Mr. Hashimoto expressed his "deep remorse and heartfelt apology" and should be taken as sincere and at face value. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister and other noble Lords will agree with Miss Griffiths' call for all of us to accept that the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty cannot be reopened.
Your Lordships may have noticed, and I trust will have welcomed, the investiture by the Queen of Mrs. Keiko Holmes, a Japanese woman, with an honorary OBE on 28th April. Mrs. Holmes has worked tirelessly over the past seven years to bring about reconciliation between former British prisoners and their captors.
We have heard that the Queen has decided to invest the Emperor as a member of the Order of the Garter, an honour also granted to his three immediate predecessors. I believe that the granting of this singular honour to His Majesty should be seen by the Japanese people as evidence of the importance we British attach to the relationship between our two countries and that it will inspire many to continue to work for national reconciliation and the further development of good relations.
I cannot agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Simon Heffer in his recent articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in which he attempts to draw similarities between the award of an honorary GCMG to the late former President Ceausescu of Romania and the award of the Garter to the Emperor. I cannot think of a less apt parallel. Ceausescu was a communist dictator who ruled his people with a rod of iron. The Emperor of Japan is a constitutional monarch, as was his late father, and acts only on the advice of his Ministers. The Emperor was 12 years old at the end of the war and reigns over a state which has renounced the right to use military force except in self-defence. His interests include the protection of the environment and wildlife. To link his name with that of Ceausescu is quite absurd. The Emperor and Empress are coming here as the Queen's guests bearing the goodwill of the Japanese people. I believe that your Lordships' House and the British people will give Their Majesties a warm welcome and that the visit will lead to the further enhancement of the close relationship between Japan and the United Kingdom.
7.52 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the debate. I am a little perturbed that noble Lords have been gagged to the extent of having only five minutes each in which to speak. This is a big economic, commercial and political subject. It involves the people of our country who fought for our country, who suffered and who made great sacrifices. They are the veterans. No one understands better the word "veterans" than Members of your Lordships' House. There are many in your Lordships' House but hardly any in the other place. No one sitting here, in the other place or in Downing Street would be doing the jobs they do today had it not been for the great sacrifice made by the veterans and their will to win a war against probably the most courageous enemy in Asia that Britain has ever fought.
No one is ever rude about the courage of a Japanese soldier, sailor or airman. What is resented is his behaviour. Many believe that this leopard has not changed its spots. The veterans require more proof. One can quibble over the use of Japanese words. It is difficult to find a word for "sorry" as we understand it. But I hope that we can come to terms with a proper apology as we see it, not as the Japanese see it.
There is the question of the loss of face if the Japanese use our terminology for "sorry". I believe that the Japanese would gain great face world wide and in this country—certainly with the veterans—if they made a proper, strong apology at the highest level. The omens should be good. Of course, we veterans support closer commercial and political relations. Veterans behave with great dignity and are also wise. They are more experienced than many of the young people involved in commerce, industry and politics today. They see a need for change, so little is required to bring them on side. But their resentment goes deeper because Britain today does not appear to bother about veterans. Naturally, it is the young who get into the frame.
The Government should pay greater attention to the veterans. I believe that since the end of the Second World War this nation and successive governments have lost face. We do not look after our veterans as countries like America, Canada and Australia do. We do not have veterans' hospitals, villages or all the other things provided for veterans. A man who has managed somehow to cling to life is brought back, given a tin of 50 cigarettes, a new suit and a railway warrant to his home. We send him off and forget about him. I speak completely non-politically. No government of Great Britain since the end of World War II have paid the degree of attention to the wellbeing, care and recognition of veterans that they deserve. I hope that this Government will listen and do something about it.
I support anything that furthers relations with Japan. I am a businessman. I also spend much time helping veterans in a small way. I believe that we should concentrate very much on the young. Young Britons and young Japanese should get to know each other. We should not preach to the veterans about whether to stand and shout or behave with their usual dignity. No one in your Lordships' House, the other place, the Church, or

1521
anywhere else, is in any position to preach to a veteran, particularly one who fought in Asia, and tell him what to do. He knows exactly what to do. Come the visit of the Emperor there may be a dignified silence. Not many veterans will be waving flags. But there will be no problems.
Only those among the civil internees are pushing hard for some form of compensation. I am worried. Most of the people affected are now dead and will not get compensation. Therefore, it is perhaps a rather pointless exercise. Maybe they were prisoners who suffered in a harsher and more barbaric way. For a number of political reasons of which noble Lords are aware perhaps compensation has had its time.
It has been suggested that the two governments should work together on these matters.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I appeal to the noble Viscount to note the time.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I have one more sentence. It is up to the governments of today to look after their veterans and those who were prisoners. It is up to us to look after our own people.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, in the late 1960s and early 1970s I had the good fortune to be responsible for exports to Asia, particularly to Japan. When we mounted British Week in 1969 I remember the accusation that it was rather difficult to sell coal to Newcastle, and so it would be when it came to selling to Japan. It is heartening to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who has so ably reminded us of the benefits of our current relations with Japan and its great success, with a surplus in the past year of over £1 billion. There are other successes. I refer to the number of tourists who come to our shores. In the past year 700,000 came here. That is a sign of interest in this country and a further reflection of the identity between our two great nations.
I should like to make a few points in the brief period that is allotted to me. They may sound rather trivial but I hope that they are of help. What have we to learn? This debate reminds us about the future. What should we change? I have been reading that the Japanese are not as knowledgeable as they might be about our culture. But, equally, we are not as knowledgeable as we might be about their culture. Therefore, there is room to improve our understanding of the Japanese. I shall give a few examples which may seem rather petty but I hope that they will be helpful to those who have day-to-day relationships with the Japanese.
Japanese people do not like what I would call the hail-fellow-well-met, back-slapping endearments which we sometimes use with each other. They are a very reserved race and they expect that of others. Strangely enough, the Japanese do not welcome eye contact. It is more respectful when you are dealing with the Japanese slightly to avert your eyes than it is to stare them out, as it were, with a feeling of great sincerity.
1522
Of course, when it comes to putting on a great spread for your Japanese visitors, I strongly advise that, however good your culinary skills, you do not try them on the Japanese because they are really completely at home with their own palate. Japanese people like Japanese food. Therefore, if you wish to make friends, it is better to make contact with somebody who can provide the Japanese with the food which they like so much.
I mentioned the fact that in the late 1960s I had dealings with Japan. At that time, there was one Japanese restaurant in London. Today there are 150. That is an example of how things have changed.
It was my good fortune at that time to meet the now Emperor, the then Crown Prince, and to hear how impressed he was with our country and what great respect he has for it. Those were not just words. He was to go on to do something which no Japanese Emperor has ever done before: he decided that his son should be educated in our country. There could be no stronger personal example of his respect for this country.
I was most pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, indicate that he anticipated that, in spite of the difficulties of which he justifiably reminded us, a warm welcome would be given to the Emperor. That is very encouraging. That would be extremely helpful as regards the way in which the press deal with this matter. We know that the press must sell newspapers and that colourful headlines are the main means by which they do that. Therefore, if our veterans do, very understandably, engage in gestures which draw attention to their feelings, I believe that that may be misrepresented by the media and will not do our country the certain good which will otherwise come from the Emperor's visit.
I end with a closing thank-you note to the Foreign Office and the Japanese Embassy for one of the arrangements that has been made. I was present when the previous visit of the last Emperor took place in the 1970s and I remember that he put on his reciprocal state banquet at Claridges. Some vision on the part of the Japanese Embassy means that on this occasion it will take place in the Victoria and Albert Museum. It may be that we shall see each other there and have a good evening.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, it is perhaps difficult, perhaps even arrogant, for those who did not have first-hand knowledge of Japanese atrocities to seek to suggest to those who did that they should now forgive and forget. But we must remember that it was a long time ago. When I was posted out east in the late 1940s, many of my British colleagues had suffered privations and suffering in camps, having been captured in Malaya, Singapore or China. They had fearful tales to tell. Indeed, British commercial companies which had opened up in Japan very often told their employees that if they did not wish to serve in Japan, they need not do so. The staff may not have appreciated that gesture, but I do not know anyone who asked not to be posted there.

1523
Indeed, during the three-and-a-half years which I spent in Japan, I cannot remember anyone speaking gloatingly to the Japanese about their humiliation and occupation. That was a lesson which I certainly took to heart. The Japanese man on the street was under no illusions because as a private soldier he had probably been thoroughly abused by his NCOs and officers, who had very little regard for the private soldiers.
Why have the Japanese Government never really said sorry or mea culpa? I do not know the reason. Why has the compensation been so derisory? Among other things, I believe that the Japanese find that it is difficult to articulate the shame. We are taught that it is not difficult to say sorry, but the culture of the Japanese world and the western world are not the same. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a good point—that Japanese culture makes it difficult for individuals to emerge as leaders and, therefore, it is also difficult for them to apologise on behalf of their country. Ideally, for the Japanese everything must be done by consensus. That is well illustrated by a Chinese thought, and the Chinese are nothing if not individuals. It is said that if one pits one Chinese against one Japanese, there is a Chinese victory; two Chinese against two Japanese, there is a draw; and three Chinese against three Japanese and it is a Japanese victory. It is a difficult position for Japanese leaders to take.
One must remember that there has been the same lack of apology to the inhabitants of Asia whose countries were occupied. Perhaps that is nowhere more apparent than in China, where people suffered more grievously and far longer than anybody else. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, the Chinese are ever mindful of leopards and spots and they are fearful of anything which suggests re-arming by the Japanese. But they have accepted that the atrocities are of the past and there is no real benefit to continue harping on them and about that period.
It is now well over 50 years since the end of the war, and I suggest that it is no longer appropriate, even for those who suffered directly, to continue to carry that torch. Many of those who were in Japanese camps were adamant that the Korean guards were more brutal than the Japanese. Korea was a colony of Japan at that time. But we do not seek apologies or restitution from Korea. Nor do we seek apologies from North Korea or Vietnam for the sufferings experienced in those more recent wars. Indeed, much suffering was experienced.
I began by saying that it is not easy for those of us who did not suffer directly to tell people to forgive and forget. It is not easy, but now I do appeal to them not to continue their protest and especially not to do so during the coming visit of the Japanese Emperor.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, spoke movingly on behalf of the veterans and his words merit our respect. Our concern is the relations between our country and Japan and I have two points which I wish to make.
1524
First, I believe those relations would be enhanced to our benefit if there were open and generous recognition of the contribution that the Japanese manufacturing industry has been making over the past 20 years to the regeneration and renaissance of the economies of the old heavy industry areas of Britain. I speak with some knowledge of the north-east of England where so much has been contributed. The headlines are made by major investors, by companies like NSK, the first to come to the north-east, Komatsu, Nissan, Fujitsu, Sanyo and many others. They have contributed to the lives of families in cities. That is very clear and obvious. However, less obvious is the influence that they have had on our thinking about manufacturing.
I was impressed by the commitment of the Japanese to quality. I remember being present in a large audience of north-east businessmen who were electrified by a senior manager of a Japanese company saying to them all those years ago that, by the year 2000, 100 per cent. quality would not be a competitive advantage; it would be the entry ticket to the marketplace. I have seen Japanese companies practising just that. I have seen the respect that they have for their workforce and their commitment to training those people. I have visited their factories and have seen that, for every man and woman, there is a training plan for the year. I have seen their progress being ticked on the charts. I have also seen their commitment to the development of long-lasting relationships with suppliers in this country.
I remember so well talking to a company which was tendering to one of those Japanese companies. It had been told that its prices were too high. The Japanese company said, "Trust us, supply at our prices, and we will re-engineer your manufacturing processes. You will prosper". The company did so and won contracts in other parts of the world. It is that kind of unseen and unsung contribution which has permeated so much of our thinking. I am not saying that many British companies do not think that way, but it has not always been the common practice. I believe that the Japanese have enriched our attitude as regards working effectively with people. It will help if we recognise that fact in terms of our relationship with Japan. Indeed, it will help if the Japanese people know that we are respectful of their contribution.
My second point relates to my consciousness derived from my dealings with Japan on visits to that country. For example, I recently visited Japan as the guest of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. I was struck by the commitment of the Japanese to learn from other people and by their respect for British education. I was invited to go across and, when I went to the Monbusho, I was astonished to find that a report of some 400 pages, which we had recently produced, had been translated into Japanese. Indeed, the Japanese had not only read it, they also understood it and debated it vigorously. I am not talking about just two or three chosen specialists; I am talking about the whole of the top brass of the ministry.
I have recently been impressed by the way in which Japan, notwithstanding its success in the international league tables in performance, has become concerned about its national language and mathematics and about

1525
its need to develop creativity among its people. Japan realises that its future competitiveness will depend upon that. There is also the admiration from the Japanese for the way in which we have engendered that among our people. The Japanese see us as being a creative and inventive people. Their response to that is to come here and learn.
I was invited to take part in a conference two weeks ago at which the Japanese were interested to see how they could learn from us; indeed, I was interested to know how we could perhaps best learn from their strengths. It would make for good relations between our two countries if we on our side were as anxious to learn from them as they are to learn from us. We have much to learn. For example, we are now concerned about developing citizenship, and about respect for other people and communities; in other words, a feeling of obligation to our fellows. That is engendered in children in the very earliest years in the kindergarten/primary schools in Japan. Perhaps we have something to learn from that example.
Perhaps in the British Council, for which I have much respect and admiration, we have a bridge which should become a broad highway and across which we can exchange information and learn from each other to our mutual advantage, thereby improving relations between our two countries.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like other speakers, I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for promoting tonight's debate. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for his most moving reminder to us that we must respect our veterans and that it would be an impertinence to preach to them about what they should think after what they suffered and in view of the memories that they hold.
This is a difficult debate because the truth is that such issues have to be put in separate compartments. Indeed, the truth is that these atrocities happened and unspeakable brutalities occurred. No sweet words or preaching of reconciliation can wipe those facts from the memories of families in this country, nor, indeed, from the memories of veterans. Similarly, it is not acceptable to say, as many Japanese argue, that the whole score was settled by the dropping of the atom bombs.
Nothing we say can change Japan's past. It had a dark side and a bright side. Countries are what they are and what they have grown to be. Perhaps that is something that we could more usefully remember in the European context. Cultures are important; they do not just vanish, nor can they be brushed away.
In the Imperial War Museum there is a recipe which was written by my grandmother. It explains how you can survive on the daily Japanese rations in an internment and labour camp, like the one in Shanghai where my grandmother was detained. She was dragged there by the Japanese troops when they came storming up the driveway of her home. Colonel Shingo took all of her possessions—her car, and so on—and gave her a little note, which I still have. It is a rather small note, which, curiously enough was signed by Colonel Shingo but not in Japanese, promising to return all those things at the
1526
cessation of hostilities. Needless to say, my grandmother never saw any of her property again. Incredibly, although she lived to be over a hundred, she died without having received any compensation from Japan and was penniless.
I described that because it must have been the experience of many other people as civilian property was not compensated under the 1951 treaty. I should add that, although it cannot be forgotten, nothing of this kind should get in the way of the facts of today. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, described, we have received enormous benefits from our contacts with Japan as regards their investment here. Indeed, we have learnt a great deal from our cultural, business and scientific exchanges, and we need to learn massively more from Japan about relationships in the modern industrial society. The co-operation of the Japanese with us in third world countries has been brilliant and dedicated, as well as being highly effective. Their co-operation with us in security matters is something which is often not so prominent, but in surveillance and in handling the Middle-East problems of Iraq and the Gulf War their efforts have all been dedicated and efficient.
The Japan of today may be in a different compartment to that of the Japan of the atrocities of Burma. Indeed, the people today are dedicated to helping build a better world and stabilising extremely difficult situations. Even now, with Japan in recession—indeed, perhaps more so now—this is the moment for us to build on that friendship. To put it crudely, it is directly in our national interest to do so and to gain greater access to the Japanese markets and to Japanese internal investment. Moreover, when a country is down—and we are friends with Japan—it is the mark of a true friend to offer help at that time.
Above all, at this time of very dangerous turmoil in Asia, perhaps we need to ensure that our support for, and bilateral links with, Japan reinforce degrees of stability and provide some kind of rock upon which Asia can be stabilised. As I have said before in this House, this is a moment of colossal danger. There will be many worse effects to come as a result of the Asian turmoil and there will be huge difficulties. It is vitally important that Japan should not be dragged down.
I do not agree with those who say that we should brush out the past; indeed, the past will remain fresh in many memories—and an awful past it was. In a separate compartment of life we have to build for the future with Japan, which is a brilliant nation. It has much in common with us: we are two islands with two monarchies. These people are our friends. Therefore, on that basis, we should not forget the past but we should build constructively for the future. We have an enormous amount to gain for all our people, including the children and grandchildren of all those who suffered and died, if we take a positive view.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on having introduced tonight's debate. His speech demonstrated his knowledge and experience of Japan which he brings in an unrivalled way to your

1527
Lordships' House. It is a particular pleasure also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who has so admirably led the UK/Japan 2000 Group for many years.
My experience of Japan is no doubt less deep and probably more recent than that of the noble Viscount. It goes back to 1982 when I led a small team of two to talk to the Japanese about strategic planning and arms control issues. At that time discussion of such matters with the United Kingdom was regarded in Japan as highly sensitive and almost taboo. While we had made great strides in our contacts on commercial and economic matters, this was the first time since the war that the Japanese had had direct official contacts on defence related issues with anyone other than the Americans. In 15 years we have come a long way.
A large part of the credit for this goes, I believe, to successive British Governments who have persisted in their efforts to establish not only a more open dialogue but a more co-operative and productive relationship. I recall a visit by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, in the early days of 1988 which marked a watershed in this development. Since then our contacts have grown at great speed across a whole spectrum of our relations, not just at official level. I shall not repeat the points made by previous speakers as there is not time, but I endorse the point that Japan is, and will remain, a vastly important country as regards the United Kingdom, as an economic player, as a market, as an investor, as a partner across a whole range of international issues, and as a partner too in a range of youth and cultural exchanges to which reference has already been made.
Not all of these matters are wholly, or even perhaps mainly, matters for governments. But, just as it took a concentrated effort on the part of the two governments to start a process which is now beginning to yield its fruit, so it will need the active stimulus and encouragement of governments to build on what has already been achieved. The visit to Tokyo of the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, shortly before the previous election is, I hope, a signal of the importance which this Government attach to Japan. I am confident that the Minister will be able to give us this evening an assurance that the expansion of Anglo-Japanese ties will remain one of Her Majesty's Government's top priorities.
Important as these bilateral programmes of co-operation are, they are not, however, the whole story. Other noble Lords have referred to the crisis now affecting the Japanese economy and its financial system. It is easy, not least in Japan itself, to underestimate the dangers of soldiering on, undertaking only minor tinkering with a system which has appeared to serve Japan so well for so very long. However, there is a need for major reforms, most of which will have to be carried through over the protests of deep and vested interests. It is in the British—indeed the wider international—interest that these reforms should be implemented, and soon. They will have to be targeted at the opening up and the deregulation of Japanese markets and, above all, the thorough cleansing of its financial system. The latter
1528
must include the establishment of clear and enforceable rules for the new regulatory authority prior to Japan's "Big Bang".
In this context it is essential that pressures from vested interests to delay the implementation of "Big Bang" should be resisted. The power of the yakuza or gangster must be curbed. Above all, the reforms must include legal requirements for transparency in business and banking and proper measures for corporate governance. It is a measure of how considerable these steps are for Japan that in Japanese there is no proper translation of the word "accountability".
Moreover, it cannot any longer be said that such matters are internal to Japan (or indeed to any other major economic power) in these days of globalisation. They matter deeply to the UK, to our industrial, scientific and banking businesses, just as Britain's intentions on economic and monetary union matter to Japanese businesses, particularly those with a significant investment in this country. Japan's industrial base is immensely strong, especially in industries with a major interest in exporting. But the self-perpetuating Japanese managerial oligarchies so common in large swathes of Japanese business will have to be reformed if Japan is to avoid major economic damage, with all the consequent and dire effects on the rest of the world.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has so eloquently pointed out, we have over the past two decades learnt much from Japan. I believe that there is every indication now that many influential Japanese think that they can with advantage pick our brains too. I hope that the Government will be ready to assist where they can—through sharing our experience of both general deregulation and the creation of non-governmental regulatory authorities, of the use of the private finance initiative, of reforms in systems of corporate governance and so on.
I know from personal experience that the Japanese are ready to listen to us. I hope very much that the Minister will give us an assurance tonight that this is in our national interest.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the excellent introduction to the debate by my noble friend Lord Trenchard for which I most sincerely thank him. While modern Japan has flourished economically and democratically, this debate has highlighted one hindrance to Britain's close friendship with Japan, one barrier in which a chapter of our joint history has not yet been fully closed on a terrible past. One of the most sensitive, difficult and painful issues of our time is the story of our former prisoners of war in Japan, many of whom still seek a formal and unequivocal apology from the Japanese Government as well as compensation so that those remaining survivors can end their days at peace with the past.
The pain and atrocity they suffered as captives in Japanese prison camps is still a vivid and daily experience for the survivors. One-quarter of those taken prisoner did not survive. It is incumbent on those of us too young to remember and those of us who were not

1529
yet born to ensure that we never forget what was endured by others so that we could know the blessing of freedom. In that context I fully endorse the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim.
Prime Minister Hashimoto gave an expression of deep remorse to people who suffered in the Second World War during the Prime Minister's trip to Tokyo and he announced that further resources would be made available to promote reconciliation. We on these Benches wholeheartedly welcomed that statement but regret the subsequent confusion about whether it was collective and made on behalf of the Cabinet or whether it was made personally by the Prime Minister. We on these Benches welcome the same active dedication shown by the present Government in continuing to work to resolve this most sensitive of issues. We regard the progress made on apologies as a natural advance on top of the work of successive governments.
Successive British and Japanese governments have regarded the question of compensation as legally settled by the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty which ended the state of war between the UK and Japan, although a number of former PoWs and civilian internees are pushing individual claims in the Japanese courts for additional compensation from the Japanese Government. The 1951 treaty gave the Allies the right to seize and to dispose of Japanese property within their jurisdiction, although this was done according to financial prosperity. The proceeds of Japan's overseas investments were taken in settlement of claims for compensation. However inadequate the terms may have appeared—indeed, they still appear so—Japan, economically ravaged by war, discharged its legal obligations. Whatever its historical rights and wrongs, its practical difficulties, and indeed the moral issues involved, the 1951 peace treaty continues to define the legal position on compensation today. Successive British governments have accepted that the question of compensation is covered by it.
I wish to mention the recent claims by veterans that they have uncovered documentary evidence in the Public Record Office at Kew that merits a new challenge to the compensation paid to surviving prisoners under the 1951 treaty. Article 26 of the 1951 treaty states that, should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any state, granting that state
"greater advantages than those provided by that treaty"
those advantages should be extended to all other parties to the treaty. I understand that the Foreign Office has been conducting research into the historical facts and the legal implications of the documents, which we welcome. Can the Minister give the House an update on the Foreign Office's findings so far? As I understand it, the Government's preliminary legal advice suggests that nothing has changed and there will be no reopening of negotiations with Japan over payments. However, it would be most helpful if the Minister could give further details of what the Government's legal advice suggests and when the Government will receive a final opinion.
Whatever the legal buttress of the 1951 treaty, however, the previous administration took the view that it was not enough to close this sad and shameful chapter
1530
in history. Conservative Ministers discussed former prisoners of war with their Japanese counterparts. They expressed concern and explored possibilities for alternative, non-governmental initiatives. Our embassy in Tokyo, although unable to become directly involved in legal cases, has always helped ex-prisoners of war by offering advice and arranging meetings. I am pleased that under the present Government that is continuing.
The issue is once again in the spotlight as a result of the Emperor of Japan's impending state visit. Given that the Emperor has a non-political role under Japan's constitution, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that next week's state visit of their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan will indeed be seen as testimony to the excellent state of Anglo-Japanese relations and that it will be a celebration of what the citizens of the two countries have achieved, as clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and what they can go on to achieve in the future?
From these Benches we fully support any action which ensures that while we never forget the horrors of the last war and honour those who suffered and those who died, at the same time we build strong new ties with Japan that make such hostility unthinkable in the future.
I conclude by saying that differences between our two countries, whether historical or contemporary, should not be allowed to obscure the vast amount that Britain and Japan have in common. The twin histories of our two countries have shaped a common outlook on many issues. As island powers, Britain and Japan are, by history and by nature, trading nations. We are leaders of international commerce. As constitutional monarchies, as rightly pointed out by my noble friend, we share a commitment to democracy and a respect for tradition and stability, coupled with the capacity to evolve to meet new challenges. We share a belief in the continuing role of sovereign independent states and a sense of the international duty that properly falls to any major country.
We wish the visit of the Emperor and Empress of Japan every success. We warmly welcome the good relations between Britain and Japan that the previous government worked so hard to encourage, a relationship which I hope will be equally cherished and valued by the present Government.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for tabling this debate about our relations with Japan. Japan today is a key partner for the UK. The closeness of our relationship, which was highlighted by the Prime Minister's visit to Tokyo in January, reflects the transformation that has taken place in Japan over the past 50 years.
Japan is now the world's largest bilateral aid donor and the second largest contributor to the United Nations. It is a prosperous, peaceful and democratic country. In the field of international diplomacy, our shared values and similar objectives increasingly lead us to work together, sometimes bilaterally but more often in multilateral fora such as the G8 and the United Nations.

1531
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, reminded us, in the recent Iraqi crisis, for example, it was close co-operation between our diplomats in New York which produced consensus on the final Security Council resolution. On Indian nuclear tests today we are consulting closely. That does not happen by accident. It is the result of both our countries having similar approaches to solving the great problems facing mankind today.
The close relationship between Britain and Japan underpinned the success of the second Asia-Europe meeting in London last month. As co-ordinators for the summit preparations, we were able to share with our respective regional partners our experience of co-operation and the rewards it brings.
In many other fields, we can see partnerships between Britain and Japan. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned, there are exchanges on science. Our scientists are now engaged in some 200 collaborative projects. Britain's exports to Japan have risen rapidly in recent years, reaching a record of £4·3 billion in 1996. We export innovative products at the forefront of technology as well as more traditional items. We are working hard, with the support of the Japanese Government, to promote British goods in Japan.
A natural consequence of our growing commercial links is to find British and Japanese companies working together around the world. Our overseas aid agencies have similarly found ways to co-operate on projects from Bosnia to Africa, combining our skills and resources for the benefit of other nations.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned the contribution which Japanese inward investment has made our own prosperity. Just as important, perhaps, have been the new technologies and management styles which they have introduced to Britain, as instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. This genuine partnership across cultures has been outstandingly successful.
As indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, a quiet revolution is taking place in our relations with Japan which is laying the foundations for an even closer partnership in the future. Exchanges between the young people of Britain and Japan are blossoming. There are thousands of Japanese students studying in British universities and under the Japanese Exchange and Teaching programme there are over 1,000 British graduates in Japan at any one time teaching English in Japanese schools. These exchanges are creating a pool of thousands of young British and Japanese people with direct experience of each other's culture and each other's society. This familiarity is pervading our countries, encouraging contacts and co-operation at all levels.
Japan today is going through a period of economic difficulty, but that has not diminished the long-term commitment of world-class companies such as Toyota and Sony to the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, reminded us in a timely intervention. Such companies are part of the fundamental strength of Japan's
1532
economy. And, of course, they bring benefits to us, too. Over 40 per cent. of Japanese manufacturing investment into the European Union comes to Britain. Now more than 270 Japanese manufacturers are in Britain providing employment for over 65,000 people.
Short-term economic prospects, however, have been clouded by bad debts and financial markets and the reluctance of Japanese consumers to spend. The Japanese Government recognise this and have taken politically difficult measures to address the problems. We welcome the fiscal package announced last month to boost economic activity and improve confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us, as he has done in previous debates in your Lordships' House, of the seriousness of the current Asian financial crisis. The Japanese Prime Minister, along with other G7 leaders, confirmed last weekend in Birmingham the importance he attaches to growth and stability. This is not only for our economies—that is, the G7 economies—but also for other economies in the world, particularly those in Asia.
In the medium-term Japan's deregulation programme has an important role to play in increasing efficiency and securing the economy's return to sustainable growth. Much has been done towards deregulation in Japan which we welcome. But we also have a unique expertise to share with Japan as its own version of the so-called "big bang" gets underway.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, today referred to the forthcoming state visit by their Majesties, the Emperor and Empress of Japan. This visit will be a celebration of the modern partnership between our countries and of the links which have been described in our debate this evening. The visit coincides with the British festival of arts, science, commerce and personal links which is underway in Japan. Already the festival has confirmed the rich vein of affection for Britain among Japanese people. Some 2 million of them have already visited festival events.
But, of course, there are the wounds from the past. Reference has been made in our debate this evening to the concerns of former prisoners of war and civilian internees. I am sure we all agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that we must never forget the dreadful suffering and sacrifices by those held in Japanese prison camps. The noble Viscount was right to remind us that we all owe a debt to the courage of those who fought, who died and who suffered appallingly at that time.
On taking office, the Government raised the subject with the Japanese Government and made clear the feelings which it still arouses in this country. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, other colleagues and officials had intensive talks with their Japanese counterparts. The Japanese Government said that they fully appreciated the sensitivity of the matter, but stressed that the question of compensation had been settled by the 1951 peace treaty. When the Prime Minister visited Tokyo in January, the Japanese Prime Minister responded to our representations by making an official apology on behalf of his Government for the damage and suffering of the war. He repeated

1533
that to a British newspaper with a large circulation, and he announced a new package of measures to promote reconciliation between Britain and Japan.
These developments have been welcomed by the Royal British Legion and other organisations. Of course we understand and respect the views of those former prisoners for whom all of this is not enough, but we believe that it represents a significant step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated.
As Derek Fatchett said in another place on 29th April, we will continue to raise these matters with the Japanese Government as occasion offers and we maintain close contact with all groups that represent former prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically about current legal advice on the reopening of the 1951 peace treaty. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the 1955 decision not to reopen the treaty, our legal advice is that it is not now in fact open to the Government to reopen the peace treaty, mainly because of the length of time that has elapsed.
However, I believe that there are other ways in which we can try to help. When the Prime Minister visited Japan in January, the Japanese Prime Minister announced a package for reconciliation. It included memorial visits to South-East Asia. The first of those trips is under way. The theme is remembrance and reconciliation. Groups of British and Japanese veterans will meet in Burma. There will be a chance for them to build friendships where once they were enemies. Central to this visit will be the joint memorial services in both British and Japanese cemeteries. We are very pleased that the visit is being organised by the Royal British Legion which has so much experience in arranging such trips. It offered to do so following its members' first ever and highly successful visit to Japan in March.
We have heard and discussed some of the many areas which constitute our special partnership with Japan today. There is much to celebrate when the Emperor and Empress of Japan visit Britain next week. I hope that they will be welcomed with warmth by the British people. There has been much written in the British press, and no doubt there will be a great deal more, about the tragic history of the war. We will never forget the sacrifices made by those who suffered in the Japanese prison camps. But there is also a time to look forward to the future, while never, ever forgetting the past.
I should like to end by quoting from the letter which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned at the beginning of the debate, written by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, to the Daily Telegraph last week. The noble and gallant Lord said:
"We should now be looking forward in a spirit of reconciliation … For this country's good, as well as well as Japan's, we need to extend the hand of friendship. I hope therefore that when the Emperor … arrives in London, he will be received with the courtesy and understanding for which this country is renowned".
That is the hope of Her Majesty's Government, too.

School Standards and Framework Bill
8.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 [Reserve power of Secretary of State to secure proper performance of LEA's function]:
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 46, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall by regulations specify the circumstances in which a local education authority shall be deemed to be failing to perform a function to an adequate standard.").
The noble Lord said: The clause gives the Secretary of State wide powers to intervene in a local education authority. We all accept, perhaps with varying degrees of reluctance, that those powers may be necessary. But I hope and believe that the Minister will assure us that they will be used only as a last resort.
The clause specifies that the Secretary of State may intervene in a case where an LEA is deemed to be failing to perform to an adequate standard. Nowhere in the Bill does it suggest what an adequate standard might be. It is reasonable that LEAs should know—the amendment suggests that it should be through regulation—what is expected of them and what will be deemed to be failure.
These are important and extensive powers for the Secretary of State to intervene, in effect to take away powers from a democratically elected body. I have accepted that there could be circumstances where that is necessary. However, in agreeing to the power, it is important that the Government give us some indication of what they consider to be failing to perform to adequate standards.
It is not only the view that this Government might take. I am sure that this Government will take a benevolent view and will use those powers only as a last resort. However, difficult though they might find it to believe now, there is a possibility—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, finds the concept hard to understand—that one day there might be another government who might possibly be less benevolent towards a Labour-controlled LEA, should there be such a body at that stage.
These powers are given to any Secretary of State. It is therefore beholden upon us to be clear what powers we are bestowing and what the Government have in mind when they refer to failing to perform to an adequate standard. I move the amendment in the hope that some light will be shed and to give the Minister an opportunity to explain exactly what the Government have in mind in seeking this power. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord said, the clause gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to intervene to put matters right when he considers that a local education authority is failing in one or more of its education functions. Amendment No. 45 would require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the circumstances in which an LEA may be judged by him to be failing to provide, in general or in particular, a function adequately. I understand what the noble Lord

1535
says. The amendment is no doubt intended to ensure that those powers would be exercised objectively with regard to proper criteria and with the fullest justification. We intend that to be the case. But perhaps I may give the noble Lord some reassurance about the kind of evidence which the Secretary of State would need to consider on those, it is to be hoped, rare occasions when he will need to decide on possible intervention in a local education authority.
When an LEA is thought to be failing, the Secretary of State may use his existing powers to order a full inspection of the LEA by the Office for Standards in Education before deciding whether or not to intervene. The evidence produced by Ofsted will provide an objective and comprehensive basis on which the Secretary of State may come to a decision on whether or not to intervene. Ofsted's report will be made public, making available to all the evidence on which any decision to intervene was taken. The example last year of Hackney LEA may be recalled. On that occasion on a voluntary basis the Secretary of State decided, with the agreement of the authority, to send in an improvement team to work with the LEA. That followed an Ofsted inspection that provided the Secretary of State with the evidence for making his decision. That was on a voluntary basis, but this gives it a power to do so without necessarily the co-operation of the local education authority. Nevertheless, Ofsted's criteria in all such situations are publicly available in the document and laid out in the framework for inspection of the LEAs.
Equally, the situation may arise where a seriously inadequate education development plan could trigger intervention in a failing LEA. Again there are published criteria for approval of education development plans and that again would provide some safeguards against undue interference such as the noble Lord fears. Also, to give a third example, the performance of an LEA could be questioned as a result of a complaint. Then the Secretary of State may decide to intervene, but only where the complainant can provide sufficient evidence. These powers are not new. Comparable powers already exist, and in those circumstances under Sections 496 and 497 of the 1996 Education Act.
If we were to attempt to specify all the circumstances under which an LEA could be deemed to be failing we would be faced with a substantial task. In each situation where there is failure there would be the possibility of intervention. In no case would the Secretary of State take his decision lightly and he would need to take account of all the available evidence, and much of that evidence, as I have said, would be made public. It is our contention that it would impede the Secretary of State in his responsibility to ensure that all children and all schools are receiving the education from the LEAs which they deserve if his power to intervene were to be limited to specific circumstances set down in regulations which would not be able to cover other circumstances which it may not be possible to foresee. We consider that we need the reserve power, but we cannot in regulations envisage all the circumstances where it might be required.
1536
I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Lord, and that he will accept that in all those circumstances the Secretary of State would have regard to all published criteria and would give a full justification for his intervention. In the light of these reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am rather puzzled by what the Minister said. I do not see anything in Clause 8 which would allow a Secretary of State to send in a hit squad à la Hackney. The provisions in this clause are all to do with existing employees of the authority. I do not see how under this provision the Secretary of State could, when this is in force, do with the authority of an Act what has been done in a voluntary way now. I do not see anything here which would allow that to happen, and perhaps the noble Lord will enlighten me.
Secondly, I do not see how the procedure set out here gets round the problems of a place like Hackney, which has rightly been described as "a conspiracy of incompetence", where the procedures for promoting and recruiting people were such that they made sure that nobody who was capable of doing the job better than the people who were already there was recruited. You are not dealing with a collection of people who may be capable of doing what the Secretary of State wants them to do.
Thirdly, if you are instructing on a temporary basis some employee of a local authority to do something which may be greatly disliked by the elected members of the authority, where are the loyalties of this person going to lie? Are his loyalties going to lie with the Secretary of State who has instructed him to do something or with the elected members, who after a year or two of interregnum will be back in control and, if he has done what the Secretary of State wants, will ensure his rapid departure? Surely his long-term interests will be in keeping in with the local elected members. I share the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has expressed but, listening to the explanation given by the Minister, I do not see how he thinks this clause is going to work at all.
Lord Whitty: In terms of the powers which are in the Act, the clause allows the Secretary of State to intervene to appoint persons to carry out functions which previously had been carried out by the LEA and to give directions to the officers of the LEA. Therefore, the powers are already there and there are also pre-existing powers, to which I have referred, under the 1996 Act. There is also the power to order a full inspection to provide the basis for intervention under Section 37 of the 1997 Education Act. So some of the powers are in this clause and others are in existing legislation.
The second half of what the noble Lord said referred to how officials of the local education authority, and presumably by extension schools, will react to that intervention. I think that if a local education authority were dealing with the Secretary of State in a serious way and was deemed to be failing in its function, then the responsibility of public officials, whether teachers or

1537
officials, must be to the Secretary of State's intervening measures in order to ensure that adequate education is provided within that local education area. Clearly we are hoping that in all such circumstances there would be co-operation from the local education authority, but there could be circumstances where there was a conflict. In such cases the powers are clear. The Secretary of State has the powers of direction and, if necessary, the powers of appointment within the LEA, and we would expect his directions to be carried out. Clearly the powers are there in this and existing legislation. I would hope that the conflict situation which the noble Lord outlines rarely arises but, if it does, the Secretary of State will take the necessary action.
Lord Lucas: I am sure it is my incompetence, but I should be enormously grateful if the noble Lord could point out to me exactly where in this Bill or in other legislation the Secretary of State will have power to appoint anyone to a local education authority or to give instructions to anybody who is not already an established officer or employee of that authority. I do not see anything in the Bill which enables people to come in from outside. I should be enormously grateful if the Minister could point me in the right direction.
Lord Whitty: I will give the noble Lord a fuller answer in writing, if he wishes. But under Clause 8(4) and (5) the Secretary of State can give directions to officers of the authority and can make sure that officers of that authority perform functions other than those previously designated by the authority. That can mean that an officer with the authority is given direct instructions or it can mean that somebody was put in by the Secretary of State to ensure that those functions are carried out. However, as I say, if the noble Lord, wishes to have further details I will gladly provide them in writing.
Lord Lucas: Yes; it is purely the point regarding the power of the Secretary of State to put in somebody else who is not already an officer of the authority to perform these functions. I should be happy for the noble Lord to write to me, but I should like to know exactly where that power comes from.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I hope that, when he does write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he will send me a copy because I too would be interested, although that is not strictly the purpose of my amendment.
Reference was made to Hackney. I do not want to allow myself to be distracted into discussing one particular LEA or one example. But just to make the point, as the Minister said, what happened there was done on a voluntary basis, so that under the changed administration Hackney was, I think, in the top 10 of most improved LEAs. It might well be said, therefore, that Hackney was in a good place to start from in becoming one of the most improved LEAs. But nevertheless it was moving substantially and significantly in the right direction. One lesson to be drawn from that is this: it is always better to try to do
1538
these things voluntarily rather than by imposition, whether by hit squads or local officers. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it puts an officer of an authority in a very invidious position if he has to act on instructions from the Secretary of State but in effect against his own employers, the LEA.
However, the purpose of this amendment was to seek from the Minister some idea of what the Government deemed to be a failure to perform to an adequate standard. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us information on that. Of course I accept what he says. These matters are difficult to put specifically in regulations, and one can rest assured that if regulations were drafted, very likely the first circumstances that arose would not be covered or envisaged by those regulations.
This was a probing amendment. It was an attempt for the first time in the process of this Bill to get the Government to say more clearly what they meant by an adequate standard and failure to perform to it. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We shall read it carefully in Hansard and consider whether to seek further elucidation at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Education committees to include representatives of parent governors]:
9 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 3, after ("elected") insert ("without voting rights").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48.
My honourable friends in another place are delighted, as we are, that the Government acceded to their suggestion that parent representatives on education committees should be representatives of parent governors. It is an important principle, and has already been established. My amendments build on that.
Amendment No. 46 seeks to oppose the principle of parents having voting rights on education committees. Again, the matter was discussed in the other place. My honourable friends proposed and defended that position. They felt, as we feel, that local education committees should be representative of the democratically expressed wishes of local people, and the only people with voting rights should be those elected for that purpose.
Responding, Mr. Byers thought that they should have voting rights because they are "consumers of the education service". We do not accept that argument. Challenged, he went on to say that elected members are personally liable for the way in which public money is spent, and it would be inappropriate for parents who do not carry that responsibility to vote on matters which have a financial implication. Since the great majority of decisions taken by education committees do have financial implications, it seems unlikely that the voting rights given to parent governors can often be exercised—in which case, what is the point of them?

1539
I stand on this matter of democratic principle; namely, that no pressure, or lobbying, group, however successful or significant, should unbalance the decisions of those members elected by the voting population.
The purpose of the second amendment is to probe Ministers and make sure that under present legislation the inclusion of teachers as non-voting representatives is still part of their purposes with regard to education committees.
Finally, Amendment No. 48 seeks an assertion that parent governors who have been elected or appointed by other parent governors should stay in dialogue with those who have elected them, and not, for example, with the political parties of which they may or may not be members.
It is interesting that among the papers arriving from lobbying groups is one from CASE, which very much supports this amendment. It states that parents should be both enabled and expected to consult parents in the area, and that that principle should be established on the face of the Bill. It would make clear that those representatives are expected to consult parents. It would help give the parent representatives the confidence that they speak for parents in the area. It would establish the right of parents to practical support from the LEA in carrying out their role of consulting with and reporting to parents. It would prevent cynicism eroding the initiative of having parent governors in the first place as representatives become remote from local parents.
As a member selected because of my community connections to serve on a hospital board, I have found myself in a position where I did not know whom I represented, to whom I should go or how I should consult the people I was supposed to represent. I feel strongly that this amendment addresses the difficult position of those who are not elected as representatives to a local authority or other body but who nevertheless are there as the result of a process of choice. They should be enabled, indeed required, to go back and consult with those who have put them into that position. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may address the final matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood; namely, that of the parent governor who is selected to sit on an education committee communicating with parents. It is simply not possible. I cannot think of a mechanism that would allow a single parent governor, or possibly two, since there are unlikely to be more, to do so. To take a county such as Kent, with nearly 2 million people and many hundreds of schools, what are the fora? How can those parent governors go back and consult with all the schools and parent bodies? In some very large counties we are talking about millions of parents. I cannot think of a mechanism. Are they to produce a newsletter? Are they delegates; or representatives?
My understanding is that they are voted as representatives for the time that they serve, and if parents find that their contribution on an authority is not what they want it to be, then it must be in the hands of
1540
parent governors within the authority to do something about it. Even if the consultation is only through the governors of schools, it is still a pretty tall order. They will be more concerned with taking notes and making sure that they take down all the information in an appropriate format than with making a contribution on a committee.
However, there is an important point on which I agree with the noble Baroness. I have grave reservations about parent governors being on education committees at all. There are serious problems in relation to that. There is almost a sovereign right of councillors who go out and talk to people on the doorstep and who are elected by their local communities to represent people on the education committees. I have found it difficult to remember a time during my experience on education committees when there were not parents. There were councillors who were parents, members of the education committee who were parents and officials who were parents.
As for the idea that somehow a parent is another person, when I was elected as councillor it was to represent the whole committee. When I served on education committees, one of my primary functions and concerns was how parents and their children were served by my local authority and in particular by my education committee. There is the suggestion that they should have voting rights and those rights should be confined to non-financial aspects. However, I find it difficult, going back in my memory, just as the noble Baroness did, to find any decision made by a committee that did not have financial consequences. It might have been the use of teachers' time or an aspect of the curriculum. Whatever the issue, there is a cost implication to the authority and/or the school.
It seems to me impossible to make fine judgments as to whether the people representing parent governors or parents could take part in the debate and vote. There would be constant calls on the county solicitor or some such body to make a determination as to whether it was appropriate for the person to vote. So there are huge difficulties. But there is something sovereign about a county councillor, district or parish councillor being voted in by the local community and being given the responsibility for the services of that council to the people they serve.
I hope the noble Baroness will agree with the only caveat I wish to add. There is a real role for county councils, and, within county councils, the education authorities, in meeting parents in fora and in meeting teachers. There are consultation groups in the authority I know best, Cambridgeshire, with the primary heads fora, secondary heads fora and parent groupings as well as all kinds of bodies. Public meetings are held all over the authority, some of them with statutory requirements and some being voluntary when a new issue arises. Therefore, local authorities find many ways of keeping in touch with their parent bodies. As long as they can be monitored from time to time to ensure that they are effective, that is the way to do it. The suggestion in the Bill is gimmicky.

1541
I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness. We have the Bill but the idea that such people should have voting rights would devalue the role of the councillor. I would not wish to do that.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, seeks to remove the voting rights of parent governor representatives. She is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, the Government believe that this would considerably weaken their impact on decisions taken by the LEA. We want to ensure not only that parents have a strong influence in discussions about education matters but that they can also play a full part in decisions taken by the relevant committees or sub-committees. Only by having a vote can they do so.
Parent governor representatives will be elected by their fellow parent governors from schools in the local area. They, in turn, have a mandate to represent the views of parents with pupils at their school.
We accept that parent governor representatives will make a difference to the vote on some issues. That is what we want to achieve. There would be little point giving them the vote otherwise. But we also accept that voting by parent governor representatives should not disrupt the committee's business and should not undermine local government democracy. There is little chance of this happening in practice.
Diocesan representatives already have a vote on the same committees to which parent governor representatives will be appointed. Local authorities have not complained about how they use their votes and, to the best of my knowledge, their contributions are welcomed. There will also be a number of safeguards to prevent any difficulties arising. On critical issues it is always open to a council to withdraw delegation to a committee and take the final decision itself. Also, as my honourable friend, Stephen Byers, the Minister for School Standards, pointed out when this was discussed in another place, the appointment of parent governor representatives with voting rights could not overturn the political majority on the education committee. If the size of the political majority on the committee were smaller than the number of parent governor representatives to be appointed, the council would be required to appoint more members from the majority party in order to tip the balance back again. We also propose to issue guidance at a later date which, among other things, will advise parent governor representatives on how to use their votes responsibly. I am sure that they will do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, proposes in Amendment No. 47 a requirement for teacher representation on local authority committees which deal with education business. I have some sympathy with that suggestion because teachers play such a vital part in determining the quality of education provided by schools. But parents are consumers of the service, and as such have the main interest in the range and form of provision as well as the quality of that provision. It is only right that they should therefore have a bigger say in the way the education service is run. Teachers are in
1542
a different category. Many teachers are also, of course, employees of the local education authority. They have interests to protect, but those will not necessarily always coincide with the interests of the pupils, whose needs must always come first.
Many councils have already co-opted teacher representatives on to their education committees. The Government hope that that practice will continue. Indeed, in the consultation paper issued last month, we gave a very clear signal to all authorities that we highly value the contribution made by co-opted members and that we see no reason why the introduction of parent governor representatives should result in any changes to the present composition of their committees. However, we do not propose to pursue that through regulations because of the varying range of interests which are relevant to different authorities. For example, other groups such as local business or community concerns, or further or higher education institutions could all make a legitimate case for representation on education committees. We believe that, apart from parent governor representatives and the existing diocesan representatives, co-option should remain a matter for local discretion rather than central direction.
Amendment No. 48 raises the issue of how those parent governor representatives will consult with other parent governors. It seeks a provision that would enable the Secretary of State to determine how such consultation should take place. Again, I have some sympathy with the intention behind this amendment. The Government certainly believe that parent governor representatives should not act in isolation. We believe that they should keep in touch, where they can, with those whom they represent. But we do not want to be prescriptive about who they consult or how they consult. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the practicalities of the amendment.
There are various methods of obtaining the views of local parents, for example through local parent forums or parent-teacher associations, or schools' annual parents meetings. Many options are available, and none is clearly the best. No other type of school governor or local councillor is under a statutory duty as to the way in which they are obliged to keep in touch with those they represent. It would be a mistake to introduce such a principle. We want parent governor representatives to adopt consultation methods which are most appropriate to local circumstances—in just the same way as other members of education committees are allowed to. My department proposes in due course to issue guidance on the conduct of parent governor representatives and will want to offer some suggestions about consultation, based on responses to the current consultation exercise. We believe that that should be sufficient to achieve appropriate consultation without introducing a requirement through regulations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister made a number of points and by the time she reached

1543
the end I had forgotten some of the import of what she said at the beginning. However, perhaps I may pick out one or two points.
Of course, diocesan representatives have voting rights. But the diocese provides a considerable input into church schools in the area. Therefore they have a financial responsibility for what they do and local authorities are obliged to consult and work with diocesan representatives about proposals for reorganising, closing, opening or changing the character of schools. In all those matters we are obliged to consult the diocese. The diocesan representatives therefore play a totally different role as providers of education from anybody else. They are more akin to local authorities than anybody else and I suspect that that is why they have voting rights in committees. It is a totally different matter to parent governor representatives having voting rights.
In relation to teachers, all we want to do is ensure that what is going through Parliament now does not prevent the existing arrangements whereby teachers are co-opted on to education committees. I believe that I received that assurance from the Minister. Most people who have served on education committees know how valuable the advice from those teacher representatives can be. They often know things which we do not know and, in particular, they know about education theory and how things work in practice in the classroom, which many members of education authorities do not know. I believe therefore that we have cleared up that point.
Perhaps I may return to parent governors. What we are suggesting is not that parent governor representatives on local authority education committees should be able to consult parents, but that they should be able to consult the parent governors who put them where they are. That is what the clause says. The amendment inserts,
"the way in which such persons"—
parent governor representatives—
"are required to consult parent governors whom they represent".
Members of a committee of an education authority or a committee of any local authority can usually get assistance from the local authority in getting back to the people who put them where they are now. He or she very often has the right to dictate letters or to have free postage. There are a whole series of accommodations which local authorities make for their elected members in order that they may keep in touch with their local electorate. If one has on the education committee of a county council, a borough council or a city council parent governors who are sitting as members, particularly if they are voting members—the matter becomes a little less acute if they are not voting members—they should be assisted in getting back to the people who elected them.
I do not agree that this is such a tremendously difficult thing to do. It depends on how big the local education authority is. If one is talking about matters which affect secondary schools, there will not be that many secondary schools—perhaps 50 at the most—in any major local education authority; and probably fewer
1544
because the number of secondary schools has been falling over recent years as they have been combined. It does not seem to be an intolerable thing to do to draft a letter to the parent governors in those schools who are listed in information available at county hall, the town hall or wherever it is and for them to get assistance in making sure that the letter gets to the place that it needs to get to.
That is the kind of thing we have in mind. How can representatives play a representative role if they are not assisted in getting back to the people whom they represent? Members of education committees who are county councillors, borough councillors, London borough councillors or metropolitan borough councillors are so assisted. Why should not parent governors be assisted in the same way? Why cannot we say something about that either in regulations or on the face of the Bill. This is quite an important point. I hope that the Minister will give it some consideration.
Baroness Blackstone: We have selected parent governors to be representatives and to take part in the election process because they already have a mandate from parents in their schools. That is something which the Liberal Democrat Benches both here and in another place have welcomed. But I must stress that parent governors will not go on to education committees just to represent the interests of other parent governors or of schools of which they are governors. They will be elected to represent the interests of parents whose children are being educated by the authority. Their introduction on to education committees, and with a vote, will give them a strong voice in discussions and rightly enable them to take part in decisions which affect the quality of provision and the range of provision in that local education authority. I am not sure why the noble Baroness is shaking her head.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hate interrupting Ministers when they are speaking, but the quality and range of education that is offered by a local education authority involves decisions which affect finance. Therefore, under the very principles which Mr. Byers put forward in another place, the parent governors will not be able to vote on the matter.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not really accept that. Parent governors are elected in their own schools to take many decisions of a financial kind. They play a very important role. Those who are elected to come on to an education committee should be able to do exactly the same on an education committee. We want parents to have a genuine voice and a right to participate in decisions through being able to vote. That has been welcomed by many parents around the country.
As regards consultation, I do not believe that I can add very much to what I have already said. Of course, we would expect that parent governors do their very best to consult, as appropriate, but we do not believe that it is right to specify in regulations exactly how they should do that. That would be over-prescriptive and over-centralist in the way in which they perform their

1545
role. That is as far as I can go. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young: This debate raises quite a number of rather important constitutional issues. I very much support what my noble friend Lady Blatch said. Whereas I am a complete supporter of parents on governing bodies, I am sceptical about the idea of elected parents, which, if I have understood it correctly, arises from indirect elections from parents who are already parent governors.
So there are three groups of people on an education committee: the directly elected councillors, the diocesan representatives, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, explained quite correctly, have a very real role to play, and teachers, who are there by co-option. Now there will be parents through indirect election.
Everyone in local government knows that education committees are the biggest spenders. Therefore, in financial terms they are extremely important. They spend a lot of money. There will be people on the committee who are there by indirect election and not direct election from the community. That is rather curious because I thought that the Labour Party believed in that as a matter of principle.
If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, if the parent governors were in a position to hold sway on an education committee because there was a very narrow political balance, the council would have to put more councillors on that committee. My experience of local government goes back some time, but under our standing orders the number of people on committees was laid down. The idea that one could top up a committee because it suited one's purposes simply was not possible. I would have thought that it was a very undesirable constitutional arrangement.
The noble Baroness should look seriously at what the committee will look like. It would be helpful to have a letter setting out a committee of, say, 18 members, pointing out how the Government see the 18 split, or whatever is the appropriate number of members for the committee. I was in an authority in which there was always a very narrow political balance. So this is not an academic issue. This narrow balance could be represented by parent governors and it could be in relation to the biggest spending committee. Within the council there would be the committee putting up something which, if it proved to be difficult or impossible, would be overruled by the whole council. The problems that are being created are not academic but very real. They need to be looked at. It was helpful of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to raise the issue.
Lord Lucas: I share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Young. I want to raise again the much smaller issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, raised; namely, how the parent governor representatives pay their way. If they are to talk to, say, a thousand parent governors throughout the authority on even a quarterly basis, that will cost them the best part of £3,000 to £4,000 each out of their own pockets unless they have the right to have this kind of communication
1546
handled by the council. That is not a question which the Minister addressed at all. Therefore I ask her directly: will the parent governor representatives have the right to use council facilities to communicate with the people who elected them when that is necessary, if only to give a progress report on how things are going?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness comes back on those points, perhaps I may respond to a matter raised by my noble friend Lady Young about the balance of a council and the number of people serving on committees. In an earlier response to this amendment the Minister said—if I understood her correctly—that the majority party would always hold sway because it could top up its numbers in order to counter-balance the number of parent governors. Many councils now are hung councils. One has only to consider the knife-edge balance on Islington Council, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, serves, to know that when the majority party increases by one, that has to be counterbalanced by an increase of two in the minor parties; otherwise one creates an imbalance. By "majority party", I mean not only the majority party itself but also the largest single party within a hung authority. If its numbers are increased in order to counterbalance the parent governors, an even greater imbalance is created for the minor parties because not only are they outnumbered by the majority party, but they are outnumbered to an even greater extent by the additional parent governors. My noble friend Lady Young is right. Messing around with the balance of membership on committees is not a simple matter.
In addition, it is not simply a question of looking for more councillors to serve on more committees, although that is not easy to do. County councils are very busy. They have many committees and many other departments. Trying to find more people to serve who are there only as a top-up to counterbalance the parent governors presents some real logistical problems. As my noble friend Lady Young said, they are not academic problems; they are very real, practical problems.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may deal first with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Yes, a parent governor who is elected to serve on an education committee will have the same facilities as any other councillor in terms of being able to communicate with parents, organisations, the local education authority and other parent governors. It is right that that should happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that education committees spend a lot of money—probably more than is spent by most other local authority committees. That is true and I am glad that they have reasonable amounts of money to spend because, like many other Members of this Committee, we believe in the importance of education.
The noble Baroness also suggested that perhaps I should write to her setting out in more detail exactly what would happen in a hung council or a council where there was a very narrow balance of power. I am happy to do that. However, the Government intend to ensure

1547
that the balance is not disturbed by the small number of parent governors who might become members of an education committee. It is important that we do not exaggerate the number of parent governors who will serve on education committees. The number will be quite small, whereas, in my experience, education committees tend to be quite large compared with many other local authority committees.
Noble Lords opposite have not been as willing to concede as generously as I had hoped just how valuable it will be to have parent governors on education committees. I think that they have a role to play and a contribution to make. If they are to make that contribution, they ought to be able to vote also.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who raised a point that struck me forcefully when I was listening to the Minister's previous reply but to which I had forgotten to attend. I must confess that her thoughts and mine, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, entirely coincide. I do not believe that it is possible to fiddle around with the representation of political parties on local authority committees. That is laid down in the Local Government Act which followed the Widdicombe Report. It must be proportional or as near proportional as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is absolutely right. When there is no overall political control, or a very small majority—which is the situation now in a large number of education authorities—one cannot tinker with the representation without knocking askew representation in all the other committees. It is the total number of representatives of a political party on the committees as a whole which is at stake. If one begins to fiddle around with representation on the education committee one must alter it on planning, highways, social services and whatever else.
I do not believe that this point has been sufficiently taken into account. I disagree with the Minister on other points. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. I do not exclude the possibility of returning to these points at Report stage. I believe that this discussion has exposed a number of lacunae in government thinking on this matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Establishment of education action zones]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 40, after ("maintained") insert ("school or group or).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 49 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. It will assist the Committee if at the outset I ask a number of questions. This is a policy which in terms of implementation is very well advanced and therefore information should now be readily available. I have read a number of times with very close interest in Hansard
1548
cols. 1146 and 1149 of the debate last Wednesday when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responded to my concerns about education action zones.
Based on those columns I should like to ask a number of questions. The background to this debate is important in order for the Committee to view the other amendments in the context of those answers. When did the Local Government Association request to be involved in the assessment of education action zone applications, and on what ground was that refused? Why was it considered inappropriate for the Local Government Association to be involved formally? I was not aware that there was a panel. I understand that there is now an assessment panel involving DfEE administrators, Ofsted, the Government Offices of the Regions, the task force, head teachers, directors of education of local education authorities and business representatives. Given that the predominant bodies applying for action zone status were local education authorities—that has been borne out in practice—why was it thought unnecessary or inappropriate to include them as part of the assessment panel?
Who decided that the Local Government Association should see all the applications in detail in the large box that appeared on its doorstep? Most importantly, since when have officers of the Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president, been asked to act as confidants to the Department for Education and Employment? What are my rights as a member of the Official Opposition vis-à-vis the rights of an official of the Local Government Association? Officials of the Local Government Association are no different from DfEE officials. DfEE officials are there to serve Ministers, just as local government officials are there to serve councillors.
Is it being said that Local Government Association officials have greater rights than their own councillors, or that local government officials and/or Local Government Association members have greater rights than I do as a member of the Official Opposition? At no time have I asked to see all the applications. I have merely asked who applied in the first place and have been refused that information. It is important that answers are provided to those questions. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave that information in the course of the debate on parliamentary process.
There is another piece of information which we need as background to this debate in order to clarify a matter once and for all and to lay to rest the ghost of the rumours which are flying about as a result of press comment following a meeting last week in London. What is meant by profit-making involvement in action zones? The Prime Minister said:
"Companies will he allowed to participate in the education action zones and to make a profit if they are successful".
That is private companies. He went on to say:
"Moreover, zones are run under the aegis of the education authority, so although nothing disturbs whether the company is profitable, companies will not make profits out of schools".— [Official Report, Commons, 13/5/98; col. 371.]

1549
If they are allowed to make a profit if they are successful but not allowed to make a profit out of schools, how will they make their profit if they become involved with an action zone which is part of a management which is running a school?
In the Guardian on 13th May—and I do not always believe what I read in the Guardian, but it did give direct quotes—DfEE officials confirmed that they are in talks with an American entrepreneurial company with a view to helping to improve education in failing schools for profit. The officials went on to say that they thought that the private sector running schools for profit might in fact be legal.
It is important that we understand at the outset the position in relation to the Local Government Association. We need to have clarification, for once and for all, as to whether we are talking about private sector involvement, which I know is part of the Government's planning; whether the companies are allowed to make a profit; and if they are, what are the criteria by which they would be allowed to make that profit.
Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that action zones will be subject to EDPs? From the answers which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave earlier, I believe that they will be subject to EDPs. Is it right that LEAs have powers of intervention? In order to negotiate targets and to make them part of the plans, will the LEAs have monitoring powers and interventionist powers, with however light a touch? How will this Bill interrelate with action zones?
I understand that the employers of staff will always be the LEAs, except for those staff who are appointed directly by an education action zone. Therefore, any private company or consortium, a public/private company, or an exclusively private sector company and/or consortium, would not have employment rights over those staff who had been taken on from the LEA. Am I right in that understanding?
I have set out those questions at the beginning of the debate because this policy is so far down the road of implementation that it cannot be possible for the Minister to say that the information is not available. It is important that we have that information before I speak in detail to this series of amendments to Clause 10.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has expressed her concern about the role of the Local Government Association in participating in consideration of the applications for education action zones.
A letter was sent today by my noble friend Lord Richard to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, describing its involvement in the selection of EAZs and I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to provide the noble Baroness with a copy of that letter. However, I shall refer to extracts from that letter.
The LGA was provided with details of the applications received. That was at officer level and was intended to be in confidence. I regret that that confidence was broken when an officer at the LGA
1550
wrote to leading elected members of all parties on 23rd April informing them that he had obtained a complete set of applications from the department. As a result, an official from the Conservative group office at the LGA was allowed to see the applications.
The letter says that the Government will today write to the promoters of each individual application asking whether they can seek the agreement of the parties associated with their application to make their involvement public. We welcome the opportunity to do so, but I am sure that noble Lords will understand that we do not want to be in the position of breaching the trust of those private companies which have indicated their support for this initiative.
As I mentioned earlier and, indeed, on a number of occasions when education action zones have been discussed, this is a developing area and the Government want to keep Parliament fully informed. Although the 60 applications have not yet been fully assessed, we would want to see full use made of the scope provided by Clause 10 to raise standards by introducing flexibility and innovation in schools, by tackling school exclusions and levels of truancy following the recent reports on these issues by the Social Exclusion Unit involving private partners in education and by linking with other government initiatives like the health action zones and employment zones.
The DfEE is in the process of considering the 60 applications, and, as my noble friend Lord Richard said in his letter to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, today, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and will ensure that she receives the letter tomorrow. It will give her details of the locations covered by the applications. At the same time, my honourable friend Stephen Byers will provide the same information in a PNQ in the other place, which will be repeated in this Chamber, and he will be writing to Stephen Dorrell. That will enable us to set out and list all the areas from which applications for EAZs have come.
As I said, we shall also ask the individual applicants if they are happy for their application, and information regarding those involved in it, to be made public. As I am sure the Committee will understand, we do not want to be in the position of breaching the trust of those private companies which have indicated their support for the initiative. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that it is important for us not to do so.
I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise date on which the LGA requested that it should be involved in considering the applications. However, in the letter that I shall send her tomorrow, I shall be happy to indicate when that was. I can tell the Committee that the Government did not think that it was appropriate for the LGA to be involved in going through every application and giving advice in that respect. As I have already made clear, the department will look at the applications seeking suitable advice from wherever appropriate on their quality. We did not consider it appropriate for the LGA to be involved in that kind of process. I do not believe that that would normally be the case.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that we, or officials in the department, thought that it was perfectly reasonable in terms of the good relationship that we try

1551
to maintain with the LGA to give its officers access to the applications on an "in confidence" basis. I very much regret that that confidence was broken by officials at the LGA. Indeed, that was most unfortunate. I would not want a situation to arise in which the noble Baroness, or indeed any Opposition spokesman, would be at a disadvantage in relation to elected members in local authorities who are officers or who have positions, if I may put it that way, on the LGA.
I apologise for what has happened. As I say, I wish to do my very best to rectify this by giving the noble Baroness tomorrow a list of the areas from where applications have come. As soon as we can obtain the agreement of those who have made applications to making that public, we shall, of course, also provide a list. All schools will be part of an EDP. An LEA could therefore intervene in a failing school which is part of an EAZ. I believe the noble Baroness also made reference to that.
The noble Baroness mentioned profit-making. I can confirm that a private sector company might get a management contract for a fee, but for absolutely no more than that. I hope that I have answered the questions the noble Baroness asked and that we can now consider the amendments that she has tabled.
Baroness Blatch: We certainly cannot consider the amendments I have tabled until I have been given more clarification on the points the noble Baroness has just made. As to whether a company can make a profit in this regard, the noble Baroness did not mention or clarify the words of the Prime Minister. I repeat that he said,
"companies will be allowed to participate in the education action zones and to make a profit if they are successful … Moreover, zones are run under the aegis of the education authority, so although nothing disturbs whether the company is profitable, companies will not make profits out of the schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/98; col. 371.]
The only way they can make a profit in this regard is through being involved in the action zones, which involves the running of schools. Can they or can they not make a profit in this regard? If the noble Baroness is saying that a private sector company will obtain the management contract for a fee, but no more, on what is that fee based? What is that fee for? Will it be the money that is normally allocated for running a school? Will a company be allowed to make a profit out of that sum of money?
I return to the letter that I mentioned. It is not surprising that I did not see the letter because I was already in the Chamber when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, arrived this afternoon. I was told quite firmly that the letter concerned the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The letter was not copied to me. Before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, replies to that point, I must say that the noble Baroness has not answered the questions that I asked. I asked why it was considered inappropriate for the Local Government Association to be involved formally when it was agreed that the DfEE, administrators, Ofsted, government officers of the regions, the task force, head
1552
teachers, directors of education of LEAs and business representatives were all allowed formally to be part of the assessment panel, yet it was inappropriate for the Local Government Association, which represents all of the LEAs—the predominant body that has applied for action zone status comprises local education authorities—to be part of the formal assessment. Why then was it appropriate that it should receive every single detailed application in order for the Department for Education and Employment to make assessments and evaluations? I understand that the DfEE declined to do so.
The noble Baroness has not addressed the other question that I asked her as regards a breach of confidence on the part of an official of the LGA. The noble Baroness regretted that. What is the official of the LGA guilty of? Is the noble Baroness saying that it is possible for information to be imparted to an LGA official under confidential terms so that he cannot communicate it to the very people whom he serves—the local councils? That body exists purely to serve the needs of its councillors, just as the DfEE officials exist to serve the needs of their Ministers. So is the noble Baroness saying that it was even a breach of confidence to tell councillors that those papers existed and therefore it was an even greater breach for me to know that those papers existed with the Local Government Association?
Perhaps I could say to the noble Baroness that whatever comes in the letter tomorrow, I know the locations of the bids, I know who made the bids, I know what the costings of the bids are. I have that information now but sadly, according to the rules to which the noble Baroness is now referring, I received it illicitly. So my question is: what is the LGA official guilty of and what am I, as an official Member of the Opposition, guilty of? Why is it that I, as a Member of the Opposition, cannot have the material information that is provided for a third body under what is now described as "confidential terms"?
Baroness Maddock: I do not wish to delay noble Lords for long but I am rather astonished at this debate and the secrecy surrounding it. I thought that this Government were, like us, in favour of open government. I find it extraordinary that somehow businesses who want to be part of providing government services wish their names kept secret. As far as I am aware, in local authorities when private companies are bidding for local authority business, their names are there. Indeed, they have to be on a tender list. I am absolutely amazed at the tenor of the debate. Clearly we shall not get to the bottom of the matter tonight, but I shall be interested to hear the further replies of the noble Baroness. I feel sure that we shall be returning to it at Report stage.
Lord Skidelsky: Before the Minister replies, I wonder if I can add to those last comments. It seems to me that these are the vaguest and thinnest clauses dealing with major education reform I have ever seen in a Bill. Everything that has been said confirms my view that we have not had the information necessary to debate the quality of this legislation. Not only do we not know

1553
what has been happening about the bidding; there is actually no mention of bidding anywhere on the face of the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what is the purpose of education action zones. She talks about innovation. But will those zones have any freedom to innovate? We are told that of the 60 bids the vast majority are LEA led. We are told that the forums will be subject to the education development plans. We believe that the teachers will continue to be employed by the LEAs. LEAs will be the employer of the teachers in the zones. We are told that schools in the zones can vary their national curriculum requirements. But already schools have power to apply to vary these requirements.
It is a mystery what the education action zones are designed to achieve. I agree with the noble Baroness that they should have the freedom to innovate, and that they should have the freedom to vary things and to do exciting things. But the way the scheme has been set up, or at least the amount of information given so far in the Bill, does not suggest any of that. It does not suggest anything at all. It is rather as if we are listening to "II Trovatore". All the action is taking place off stage and unfortunately the tunes are rather better than in Clause 10 and 11.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness replies, I am bound to say that this is the most extraordinary saga that I have heard in the course of an education Bill, and I have taken part in a great many in the course of my public life. I think it would be very helpful to the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is present, if he can perhaps identify what was in this letter that has apparently gone to my noble friend Lord Cranborne, not copied to my noble friend Lady Blatch, which is presumably relevant. It would be helpful if he could explain.
10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): I am delighted to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wrote to me on whichever day it was. I do not have the letter with me. A letter was drafted for me to reply to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knew that the letter was on the way. I am told that this morning she inquired on a number of occasions as to whether the letter had arrived, so it came as no great surprise to her. Of course I replied to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, because he wrote to me. After the noble Baroness's intensive inquiries this morning as to whether the letter had arrived, I am staggered that she did not receive it before the debate started this afternoon.
The letter was passed to the Conservative Whips Office in the certain knowledge, so far as we believed, that the noble Baroness would see it. I find it extraordinary. I answered a letter which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, wrote to me. Quite clearly, it was written to me at the behest of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I responded to the noble Viscount—he was the person who had written to me—and am now very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did not
1554
receive the letter about which she had been inquiring during the course of the morning. That is all I know about the intricacies of this argument.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misses the point. First, there is a courtesy that the person to whom the letter is addressed sees the letter first. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was not in the House until about four o'clock this afternoon.
Secondly, the letter was meant to have been delivered before the weekend, then Monday, Monday afternoon, and then we were told Tuesday morning. I understand that it did not in fact arrive until lunchtime today.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has now thrown the letter across the Chamber at us. We can now see it.
Lord Richard: I am sorry to interrupt. My noble friend has not thrown the letter across the Chamber to the noble Baroness. He passed the letter over because she did not have a copy. It is a pejorative way of putting it.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise most profusely for putting it in a pejorative way. I did not mean it pejoratively against the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It was clear that the noble Lord had a copy of the letter. He brought it over so that we could read it.
I have now read the letter. It throws no more light. It does not answer the questions. The questions are these. Are we creating new rules now? Is the Local Government Association officer a hierarchical animal above the Local Government Association member or an official Member of the Opposition in this House? A Local Government Association officer was deemed not fit enough to be part of the assessment panel and was then told that he could have all the applications in detail so that an assessment could be given to the DfEE. Those people, having been told that they could not be part of the panel, saw the applications. Whether or not they read them I do not know, but they declined to be part of the assessment. They then wrote to their members of all political parties and told them that they had this complete set of applications.
As I have said to the Minister, I know that they are there with the Local Government Association. Is the noble Baroness saying to me that as vice-president of the association I have no rights? Does the noble Baroness say that the local authority members have no rights so far as concerns the LGA? The noble Lord, Lord Richard, stated in his letter that the poor Local Government Association official is being blamed for a breach: that he regrets this breach of confidentiality. Of what is the official guilty? Of what am I guilty now that I have seen the information for which I asked in my Written Questions?
Baroness Blackstone: I have not suggested that the noble Baroness is guilty of anything whatever.
It is a time-honoured practice for officials to share information at an early stage when an innovation of this kind is being introduced. I do not think that there is

1555
anything particularly unusual about that. I believe that it has happened in the past. This is an important new policy development which I believe the noble Baroness and other Members of the Opposition welcome and think important. I shall return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in a moment. I believe that it is part of a mature administrative system that such information should sometimes be shared at officer level, and on that basis agreed confidences should not be breached. I do not think it should have been breached in these particular circumstances.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. We are talking about open government. We are talking about education action zones. What has emerged in the course of letters going backwards and forwards, with courtesies being observed and so on, is Byzantine in its complexity.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about entering into a Committee stage when masses of people know certain things but they are not supposed to tell anyone else. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on the Opposition Benches, knows nothing; I knew nothing until this morning beyond the vague rumours that were circulating. But, above all, this is a Government who believe in open government and this is the direct opposite of open government; and that is what concerns us. I am not interested in the letters exchanged by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord Cranborne. The concern on this side is that massive negotiations have been going on with your department—and I say this to the Minister, who is responsible, not to the Leader of the House. You are responsible for this: you did this—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a convention in this House that noble Lords are referred to in the third person.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I apologise. Indignation goes too far. Let me say calmly that open government demands a rather clearer explanation than this. I do not accept the Minister's explanation that this is the way officials in a department behave. Quite honestly, it perplexes us; it perplexes the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock; and I think it worries quite a number of us. I think it has to be faced in the directions.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I might explain again what I thought I had explained earlier. The Government did not feel it was right to provide information about the promoters of all these individual applications without seeking their agreement first. I said earlier that I think this would have been breaching the trust of those private companies which had indicated that they wanted to support this initiative. For that reason we are now going to write to all the applicants for education action zone status to ask them whether they would be willing for us to make public their application.
1556
We have to remember that some of those applying for this status will fail, and I do not know whether they would feel it appropriate that their failed application should be published in the public domain. I think it is fair that we should ask them that first.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Baroness tell me whether they were asked if they minded their applications being seen by the DfEE administrators, by Ofsted, by government officers in the region, by the task force members, by the head teacher, by the directors of education of authorities, by business representatives—but not by me?
Lord Tope: I wonder whether I might intervene, although with some hesitation, because I do not want to delay your Lordships any longer since we have already spent about half-an-hour discussing private correspondence between two noble Lords, of which certainly I and my colleagues know nothing whatsoever. As this goes on I become more and more surprised, and so I must press the Minister on this.
I have many years' experience in local government and I have never known anything on this sort of basis. When companies apply and submit tenders, they know that the name of their company is going to be made public—not the amount, for obvious reasons, because that is commercial information—but they know that the name of the company is going to be made public. That is standard practice. It would be astonishing, and indeed the Government would come down on us like a ton of bricks, if we did not publish those names.
I would have expected that anyone applying to run an education action zone would assume that their application would become public knowledge. I would not have thought that they would have expected it to be confidential. Presumably they have some knowledge of how local government works and would expect that. I cannot understand why apparently the DfEE, when inviting those submissions did not tell people that this information was to be made public. It seems extraordinary that we should be here at this time of night making this sort of prolonged fuss to persuade the Minister, tomorrow, to ask those companies, individuals and organisations whether their names can be revealed. Why was that not done in the first place? Why is not standard practice? I find it quite astonishing.
Baroness Blackstone: I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the private sector bodies involved in the education action zone applications are not tendering; they are joining in with a group of schools or a local education authority to bid for funding. That is totally different from tendering. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord would agree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that the applicants for education action zone status would not have known that there is a group of people, including DfEE officials, and a small number of advisers who have been selected because of their expertise in these matters to support DfEE officials in making judgments about the quality of these applications. I am sure that all the applicants would have thought, indeed did think,

1557
because it was made perfectly clear to them, that there would be a group of such people making those judgments. I do not think that the noble Baroness's remarks are in any way valid. She used words such as "Byzantine". I do not accept that.
To repeat, it is a central government panel of the DfEE, Ofsted, government offices, and the standards task force. Those people are all involved, rightly and legitimately, in assessing the way in which public money should be spent. That is quite different from the LGA being involved in assessing applications from local authorities. It would put the LGA in a rather difficult and invidious position to involve it in the actual process of selection. I am sure that on reflection noble Lords opposite will agree.
I wonder whether, in the light of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, we may go on to consider the amendments on Clause 10. Perhaps I may then respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the purpose of education action zones. Indeed, perhaps I may do so now.
Education action zones are at the heart of our—
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Baroness is moving on, I am afraid that I must continue to press her on this matter. She did not mention all the people involved in the assessment panel as I understand it. She did not mention the government offices, the task force, the head teacher, the director of education of an LEA and business representatives.
The LGA was not part of the formal assessment panel. That was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Therefore, were the applicants told, or asked for their permission, that their applications in total could be sent to the Local Government Association? If they were told, why was it that we could not have very modest information? I never at any stage asked to see all the detailed information-I am not making an assessment; it is being made by an assessment panel. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, I simply asked whether an application had been made by the local education authorities, non-local education authority interest or by commercial and business interest. I was not even asking who the applicants were or which LEAs were involved. However, I was told that I could not have that information.
First, were the applicants asked whether the information could be passed to a non-assessment panel member—that is, the Local Government Association? What is the convention that now says that Local Government Association officials—not members, but officials—can have information from the DfEE that is denied to their members and denied to me? Will the noble Baroness say what was so secret about the names of the applicants, or merely whether they were LEA or non-LEA interests? What was so secret about that information that it could not be imparted to me?
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think there was anything particularly secret about the applications. As I said, there was a process of consideration and
1558
assessment of 60 applications, when only 25 could be successful. In the circumstances, the Government judged that it was right and proper to wait until that assessment had been completed and then make an announcement in an orderly way about who the successful applicants were.
The question was put by the noble Baroness about whether the bidders were asked whether bids could go to the LGA. The answer is no. As I said before, the bids were sent to the LGA in confidence. The panel entirely represented central government, if I may say so. I have already listed the groups that were represented or are represented on the panel, including government officers, whom the noble Baroness suggested I had omitted.
I hope that we can now move on to discuss the substantive amendments on Clause 10. Then I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, the purpose of education action zones. We hope that they will bring additional support in areas which are facing particular social and economic challenges. In too many of those areas, existing strategies for improvement are simply not working quickly enough and we are determined further to empower local schools to put things right.
In finding new ways of working to respond to these challenges, action zones will become test beds for wide-ranging educational reform. The legislation we are debating today will provide an enabling framework for schools to do whatever works in order to raise standards. I have no doubt that a number of valuable lessons will be learned from the strategies we will see developed within action zones and we shall want to put these lessons to good use in designing the schools of the future.
For action zones to achieve their fullest potential, a great deal of work will need to be done. We shall be asking all those involved—both the schools and their partners—to give to this programme their creativity and their willingness to work together. The commitment we shall be asking for will come from all the sectors involved: from LEAs, businesses, parents, voluntary sector groups and, above all, from the schools themselves. No school will be forced to join an action zone. Indeed, schools must convince the Government of their determination to take full advantage of the funding and freedoms offered by the policy before a zone will be awarded to that area.
The recent application round produced a very healthy response from across the country and a wide range of exciting ideas for schools in zones. Indeed, in recognition of the quality of the applications we received, the Government recently decided to increase their contribution to each zone, I am pleased to say, to up to £750,000 (with up to £250,000 coming from the private sector). As well as additional funds, of course, schools in action zones will enjoy a number of additional freedoms. As the noble Lord will be aware, they will be able to vary teachers' pay and conditions in ways which will reward excellence and attract staff to consultancy posts or hard-to-fill existing vacancies. They will be able to use the forum creatively to co-ordinate the work of these consortia of schools. Some zone schools, for example, may choose to pass or

1559
formally to cede powers to the forum so that it becomes a kind of supra-governing body for all the schools involved. In other zones, governing bodies will choose to retain their existing powers but, through the forum, they will set joint targets for improvements across the zone. Finally, zone schools might opt to take advantage of the freedom to vary the national curriculum so that it better suits the needs of the local community.
I hope that that answers in some detail the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I should now be grateful if Members of the Committee opposite were able to go forward and move their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: In a sense, what the noble Baroness is saying is a repetition of what she has said before on these matters. I still want an answer as to whether or not a private contractor will be allowed to make a profit.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I have already given that answer. The answer is no. They will be paid a fee. They will not be allowed to make a profit in the normal sense. As I have said before, they will be allowed to receive a fee.
Baroness Blatch: The Prime Minister therefore was wrong when he said on 13th May that schools will be allowed to participate in the education action zone and to make a profit if they are successful.
Baroness Blackstone: They will be receiving a fee and will make money from that fee. I believe that that is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant.
Baroness Blatch: Can the noble Baroness say what is the difference between making money and making a profit?
Lord Henley: Answer!
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I answered the question.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness said that these companies will not be allowed to make a profit. On 13th May, at col. 371 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said,
"companies will be allowed to participate in the education action zones and to make a profit if they are successful".
Is the noble Baroness saying that they will not be allowed to make a profit? When she says that they will not be able to make a profit, but will be able to make money, will she define what the difference is between making money and making a profit, as the Prime Minister said?
Baroness Blackstone: I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.
Baroness Blatch: Those who read Hansard will make of it what they will. The noble Baroness gave a different answer from her right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
1560
Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 allow a single school to be taken over by a third party; whether or not that is a private concern, it is a third agency. It seems to us that it is consistent with the talks taking place in the DfEE at the moment with private bodies, with the possibility of making a profit—the noble Baroness has not yet denied that—to allow the flexibility of not simply a consortia of schools, but as few as one school to take part.
I know that talks have been taking place with the DfEE because I spoke to one of the participants who went to see the DfEE in relation to the possibility of turning around a particularly difficult school that is failing by anybody's standards—either the DfEE's or the local education authority's. On past record, certain bodies have been singularly successful in using their talents to work with a school to improve education and the great beneficiaries have been the children themselves. Given that the DfEE is apparently open-minded about the situation, we believe it to be important, at least in this Bill, to enable the possibility for one or a group of schools to be included in the new policy.
That relates to Amendment No. 49. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are consequential. There is one quite disturbing aspect of the Government's plans for EAZs. As there are only four clauses in the Bill to go by, it is difficult to make any judgment about what the detail will be. However, I notice that nowhere does it appear that the consent of parents is involved in any of this. If one accepted that a single school should be taken on by a third party, it is important that parents at least have the benefit of, first, being consulted and, secondly, having their opinion taken.
I happen to know of schools that are said to be participating in bids—I have now seen all the bids—where individual governors do not even know that it is going on. I attended a meeting in the past three weeks when participants met in a public house in London, yet a governor of one of the schools represented at the meeting did not even know that her school was involved.
Many thousands of parents simply do not know what is going on. They are not aware of the policy and they are not aware of what third parties are discussing on their behalf. There are many teachers who are hearing what is going on third hand or fourth hand and are simply not in the picture. That does not seem to be the best way of setting up a consortium which is there precisely to bring about improvements in educational standards and to improve the lot of children in those schools.
My plea is that all the governors of schools should be in the picture. Parents should certainly be in the picture and their opinion should be sought. Certainly, all teachers should be in the picture, particularly when the national curriculum could be disapplied. That would have an impact on the children, because who would determine what would take its place? In the case of teachers, pay and conditions could be disapplied. I know that in one of the back-up papers the noble Baroness said that there will be consultation at the time. I suggest

1561
that there needs to be preconsultation before an action zone is set up at all. The specific point in my Amendment No. 49 is that there should be flexibility for there to be as few as one school and as many as up to 20, which is proposed by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: These three amendments are designed to allow individual schools to become action zones in their own right. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that more schools may like to take part in an action zone, but to set up "zones of one" would be to overlook a large part of what the policy is really about.
Education action zones are about groups of schools in disadvantaged areas working together to raise standards across the zone. Action zones are intended to support and encourage the development of effective working partnerships, both between the schools themselves and with the forum members they have drawn in from the public, private and voluntary sectors. In action zones, schools will set targets for the zone together; they will devise joint strategies for improvement; they will operate by consensus through an action forum; and they will work together, across phases and institutions, on specific local initiatives.
Allowing schools to become zones individually misses the point of what zones are about. They are about partnerships and working together to come up with creative and interesting ideas. I see little point in creating an action forum, specifically designed to co-ordinate work across a group of schools, if there is only one school in the zone.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about parents and whether they had been consulted. It seems more appropriate to respond to that point when we reach Amendment No. 54A. I hope that she will find that acceptable from the point of view of trying to be orderly. In the light of what I have said about the importance of groups of schools working together, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of the answer the noble Baroness has given, may I ask her another question? It is well known that DfEE officials are actively discussing the possibility of a single school being taken on by a third party with a view to improving education for those children. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept it being called an action zone, is she receptive to an amendment being brought forward to the Bill, not under the aegis of action zones per se, but to bring forward the possibility that a single school could be taken over by a third party which could include a public and/or private or voluntary concern?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall be happy to look at any amendment that the noble Baroness wishes to bring forward either at the next stage or at a later point in the Committee. I shall be happy to examine it and see
1562
whether it is acceptable. Until the amendment is tabled it is hard for me to give a categorical response as to how the Government would respond.
Baroness Blatch: My question was whether the noble Baroness was receptive to the notion. If officials are actively considering the possibility of a single school being taken over, then all one would put into the Bill is an enabling power to allow that to happen. It does not necessarily have to happen because at the end of the day the DfEE has the final say on even the action zones, let alone on single schools. Is it going to be possible or are the people addressing the DfEE talking in a vacuum and there is no intention of permitting a positive response through this Bill to the idea of turning around a single school that, by anyone's judgment, is deemed to be failing?
Lord Lucas: Or is it that officials are discussing the matter in confidence and therefore are unable to discuss it with the Minister?
Lord Skidelsky: It is a shame in a way that the grouping has meant that we have to have two discussions on exactly the same point at widely dispersed intervals. In Clause 12 I have an alternative kind of amendment designed to achieve the same purpose as that of my noble friend. We ought to have a combined discussion. We shall have to come back to it in half-an-hour or so.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky says. In the groupings that the Government put forward his amendment was grouped with those of the noble Baroness, but then de-grouped. It is the absolute right of the Opposition Front Bench so to do.
Perhaps I may respond again to what the noble Baroness said. Of course, the Government will look at any amendments that she wishes to table, but an amendment of the kind she describes has nothing to do with education action zones. They are designed to be groups of 10 or 12 schools working together with various other organisations, perhaps one or more private companies or voluntary organisations, to try to collaborate to raise standards. What she is discussing seems quite different. There can be no question of a private firm taking over a single school.
Baroness Blatch: That final statement makes it absolutely clear. Are serious talks going on in the department with a view to a company taking over a single school? An answer to that question would be enormously helpful. The noble Baroness says that there is no question that a company could take over a single school. I accept that as a statement of fact now it is on the record. Are talks going on in the department to that effect?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that that has much to do with the amendments. If we are to make progress at half-past 10, it is right to try to stick to the amendments on the Marshalled List rather than

1563
introduce issues that do not really relate to them. Discussions go on between the department and organisations, across government and outside it all the time. As a Minister in the department I cannot comment on every conceivable discussion that may be going on. As a former Minister, the noble Baroness will be aware of that and, no doubt, is sympathetic to it. As far as I know, there is no discussion about a private firm taking over a single school.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the point that the noble Baroness has just made: she cannot be responsible for everything going on in the department. However, it seems that the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Mirror and all the other newspapers know about it.
Having said that, I am afraid that I find it almost offensive that the Minister said that that has nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment seeks precisely to allow a single school to be taken on by a third party—voluntary, private and/or public—in order to address failing schools. This part of the Bill—albeit only four clauses—is about addressing failing education. The Minister rightly said that education action zones represent more than one school and that they will be established in areas where education is failing. However, having seen some of the applications, I regard that as a loosely defined criterion. The Minister said that this matter has nothing to do with the amendment and that we should move on to matters more pertinent to the amendment. My remarks could not be more pertinent to the amendment, which relates to a single school being taken on by a third party. However, in view of what the Minister said and in the light of the unfolding saga, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): I apologise for having assumed that this amendment had been moved prior to my taking the Chair. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
[Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.]
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 52 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 9, line 42, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall extend any disapplication of statutory provisions or regulations granted to schools in education action zones to other individual schools or groups of schools which apply to him for such a dissaplication.
() Where a disapplication of statutory provisions or regulations is granted to an individual school or a group of schools without education action zone status such school or group of schools may also be granted the status of the employer of all teaching and non-teaching staff at the school or group of schools.").
1564
The noble Baroness said: As we understand it, the policy is that action zones should be located in areas of the country where education is failing. It seems to me that if one can disapply the national curriculum and pay and conditions agreements in an area where education is failing, there must be an even stronger case for saying that where a school can convince the Secretary of State that it is delivering good education which is entirely satisfactory to the Secretary of State, the disapplication provisions should apply. I cannot think of a reason why the provisions could be disapplied for failing schools in areas where education is failing but could not be disapplied in areas where education is succeeding and where good and successful schools would like to innovate further in order to be even more successful. I hope the Minister will consider that point.
Turning to the second subsection of the amendment, referring to who employs the teachers, we seem to have the worst of all possible worlds in that in come the third parties—whether that is the LEA plus a consortium of people or a private concern plus the LEA plus a consortium of people—to manage an education action zone with the LEA as the employer. If education development plans apply, and if intervention powers apply to the quality and monitoring of education within those schools, those who are innovating and who are in the business of improving standards of education in those schools are not being given a great deal of freedom if they are not given the power to hire and fire staff, both teaching and non-teaching. It is, sadly, a fact of life that where education fails that is not always because the children cannot or do not learn or because not all families are supportive. Sadly, it can sometimes be because the quality of the staff is not what it should be.
We were all depressed by the Answer the other day to a Question about the fast-tracking procedure for removing seriously incompetent members of staff. According to that Answer, it seems that that policy is some way from being implemented. It appears to be very much part of a package. If one has responsibility for running schools one must have the power to exercise that responsibility; in other words, one must not tie the hands of these people behind their backs. The very thing that they cannot do is reorganise the staff in such a way that education in those schools is improved. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may take the amendment in two parts. The first seeks to extend action zone freedoms to other areas; the second seeks to change the employer of staff. I very much welcome the support for some of the principles of education action zones which is implicit in these amendments. I, too, am keen to encourage creativity and innovation throughout the education system. My concern, however, is to ensure that change and experimentation in schools are introduced with proper care. Action zones will be test-beds for the schools of the future and as such will be expected to go beyond the many existing flexibilities that are already available to other schools. I say without hesitation that the success of zone schools will inform

1565
future education policy. We shall be keen to ensure that the lessons with which they provide us are widely disseminated to other schools around the country.
As to disapplication of the teachers' pay and conditions Act, this will help to provide models for how recruitment and retention can be improved—which is terribly important if we are to raise standards in schools—and how schools in challenging areas can have more of the best teachers than they currently attract. It is a rather sad fact that many of the best teachers are not teaching in some of the particularly challenging and difficult areas of the country. We hope that we can attract more such teachers to those areas. The education action zone experiment will, among other things, provide valuable evidence for the school teachers' review body.
But action zones are pilot programmes and are intended to be areas of controlled innovation. They are to be targeted where support is most needed. For these reasons, it is surely only prudent to monitor and evaluate progress and select them very carefully on the basis of need and the quality of proposals put forward. I am sure that the Committee agree that that is the right way to proceed.
Schools in all areas of the country were invited to apply for action zones and many of them took up that challenge. This is an important and exciting initiative and we do not want to rule out any future useful contributions. That is why, subject to the comprehensive review, we hope to expand the programme during this Parliament to include other groups of schools and other areas. I am sure that the expansion will provide us with an even wider range of new ideas and valuable lessons, but it must be managed carefully.
Turning to the second part of Amendment No. 52A, the Committee may well be aware that in practice all governing bodies act as the employer of their staff, unless they have had that privilege removed for failing to provide an adequate education or because of unfortunate financial mismanagement. In practice, this would make very little difference to an individual school. Where a group of schools applies I fear that this can lead to confusion over who actually is the employer, unless the group has a separate legal entity. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the quality of staff is very important. For those reasons, we have decided that if an education action zone wishes to suspend normal teachers' pay and conditions it can do so. Governing bodies would know that they are losing their employment powers. That would reduce the number of governing bodies wanting to take part. Given that participation is voluntary, it is important that those governing bodies have a choice. Otherwise, there may be a reduction in the number of schools applying. If they want to cede that right, that is fine and is provided for in Clause 12(2)(b). However, it is for them to decide whether they want to cede it.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I was extremely interested in the Minister's reply to the amendment. She has told us carefully that the Government are concerned to take
1566
proper care in setting up education action zones. We have made it clear that we support the aim of education action zones but throughout we have been rather concerned about how they will operate and how democratic accountability will be maintained.
My concern this evening, particularly on this amendment, is to keep democratic accountability. The Minister was obviously more concerned not to go ahead too quickly and was being cautious. But I did not hear her mention anything to do with democratic accountability.
Earlier on this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was talking about the merits of local education authorities and how they could best deal with money for buildings and so on. There were several occasions on which she was singing their praises. This measure seems to me to work against keeping good democratic control through local authorities. That is one real concern which some of my colleagues and I have about education action zones. It is a matter which we shall pursue on the next set of amendments which deal with them.
I am disappointed that the Minister does not recognise that there is a problem, if we are not careful, in relation to where that leads us in the democratic process in the future.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that that matter arises on the next set of amendments. It may make sense for me to respond to those amendments when we reach them.
Baroness Blatch: I do not see any inconsistency here. This measure will bring about a diffuse accountability. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she is in favour of action zones. There is a movement away from local authorities. Those schools will move away from local authorities. The noble Baroness will be greatly enlightened when she sees the list. The schools are to be run by a consortia of third parties. The running of those schools will be such that the LEAs will continue to involve them as part of their education development planning. They will continue to have a role in terms of intervention and monitoring the quality of education. They will continue to employ the staff.
In fact, one wonders just how radical, interesting and innovative this policy is. It sounds as though a third party is being given this exciting and challenging job to do which will change quite dramatically the quality of education in areas of the country which have dogged governments going back many years. But they are not to be given the powers to do that. One either believes in the policy or one does not. If one believes in it, then it seems to me that one should place the necessary responsibility and accountability within that body. There should not be that diffuse separation of functions. The LEAs are losing those schools in one sense, but not quite, and thap is sufficiently not quite to tie the hands of the third parties which are there taking on the job of innovating and improving the lot of children in those areas.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I believe that this is an exciting adventure. It is being implemented in the most inefficient, incompetent and

1567
secretive way. It will not work. I believe that there is serious coercion going on out there and, indeed, I can prove that that is so. It will be for me to bring forward the evidence to sustain that allegation. I shall do so. I also know that there are many people who ought to be aware of what is going on but who do not know the facts. I am not just referring to myself in that respect. I was quite deliberately slighted by the Minister. When I saw the applications, I could understand why it was that I was not meant to see them at this stage.
I have to tell the Minister that I am disappointed by what she said. It would seem that areas of the country where education is failing will have all of these powers to disapply the national curriculum as well as pay and conditions of service. However, the Minister is not prepared to consider the extension of such provisions to schools which are successful and want to be even more so, thereby broadening out opportunities for young people. I shall reflect on the Minister's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddockmoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 46, at end insert—
("() When the three- or five-year period is concluded, it shall be the duty of the local education authority or authorities originally responsible for the participating schools to devise reasonable transitional arrangements either—

(a) to return the participating schools to the control of the local education authority or authorities; or

(b) to establish by agreement with the governors of those schools other appropriate arrangements for the management of those schools.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. However, perhaps I may return for a moment to EAZs. It is not surprising that authorities and other people are interested in bidding for them because it is a way of getting more resources into schools in areas which badly need them. It is right that we have welcomed the idea behind EAZs, but it is also true to say that, during the Committee stage in another place, we proposed amendments which would have ensured that LEAs were very much part of the process and that they would not drop off the end at some future date.
Amendment No. 53 relates to what will happen at the end of the period during which schools are involved in EAZs; in other words, what will happen to the participating schools at the end of the process. The amendment is set out in two parts. The LEA, which is responsible, must devise transitional arrangements,
"to return the participating schools to the control of the local education authority or authorities",
as the case may be, or,
"to establish by agreement with the governors of those schools other appropriate arrangements for the management of those schools".
The purpose behind the amendment is to provide at least a skeleton of legislation under which those schools which have been EAZs may return to normal.
Perhaps I may point out to the Minister at this stage that what concerns us most is what will happen to LEAs in the future if many EAZs are established. For example,
1568
where is the future for LEAs? Perhaps it is part of the Government's plan that they do not particularly want to have LEAs in the future. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments in that respect because it is a matter of concern to some people.
Education action zones will be established for three years in the first instance. However, with the agreement of the Minister, they can go on for another two years. However, at the end of that period there could be a potential crisis. How will education action zone schools survive that post-zone period? It seems likely that some of their staff will perhaps have been paid rather more than other teachers. If the LEA then resumes direct responsibility for such schools, how will that financial burden be met? We cannot really expect those teachers to accept reduced salaries. So will they just leave? That is one of the areas which we are anxious to pursue when considering what happens at the end of the period for an education action zone.
Undoubtedly benefits will be gained by schools belonging to an education action zone. How can those be retained when a school ceases to belong to an education action zone? What will happen as regards the input from commerce and industry? I hope the Minister will enlighten us on those points. The amendments we have tabled propose alternatives for dealing with this matter. As I said in my opening remarks, we are anxious to get a provision on the statute book to determine the position of a school that no longer has education action zone status.
I now turn to Amendment No. 54. Under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State can add to the number of schools in an action zone, but there is no provision for a school to leave an education action zone. For example, a governing body may wish a school to be removed, or other participants may no longer wish a certain school to participate in an action zone. This amendment would allow the Secretary of State—where a governing body has asked him to do so—to remove a school from an action zone. The decision to do that would rest with the Secretary of State; there is no question of failing schools removing themselves from an action zone. I know that during the debate in the Commons the Government were concerned that schools might be able to benefit from the extra funding of action zone status and then try to remove themselves from the zone. I believe this amendment addresses that worry. In the rare instance where a school becomes unhappy in a zone and the relationship with others in the zone may have broken down to the extent that the effectiveness of the whole zone may be undermined, the Secretary of State can—under the amendment—permit the school to leave the zone. It is not expected that such a provision would be used often. It would be used only in the rarest of circumstances. Nevertheless we think that it should exist in the event that it is needed. Some discussions we had earlier tonight revealed that we need to consider much more carefully how education action zones will operate.
Amendment No. 55 seeks to ensure that whatever the Secretary of State may do in establishing or ending education action zones, the local education authority is properly and adequately consulted at each stage. We are concerned about democratic accountability in the future

1569
in the event of an increasing number of education action zones being established. The Local Government Association and my colleagues in another place have supported the Government on the establishment of education action zones, but it is clear that a great deal of detail still needs to be considered as to how schools join education action zones. Tonight some of us have been somewhat concerned at the secrecy surrounding that. There have been suggestions that I and my colleagues may be surprised to learn who is applying for education action zone status. I look forward to finding out who it is.
Obviously there is a great desire on the part of all those involved in education to improve standards in our schools. If there is an opportunity to obtain extra resources to do that and to work together in partnership with others to improve standards in innovative ways, people will want to take advantage of that. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the amendments that we have tabled. We believe they would enable education action zones to operate in a satisfactory way. It has become clear that there are grave concerns among all those involved about how they will operate. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the suggestions here which are intended to be helpful for the future of education action zones.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has raised some interesting points. Again, they are not covered in the four meagre clauses in this Bill. That there should be transitional arrangements that are appropriate is essential. If at the end of a three or five-year period these schools are to be returned to local authority rule and the education action zones do not enjoy an extension, it seems to me that there have to be proper arrangements. It is a great pity that that is not covered in more detail in the Bill.
I certainly support in principle the point that the noble Baroness is making. How it is done mechanically within the Bill I do not know. But that is simply not covered by the detail that we have before us. So I certainly support the noble Baroness in principle.
On Amendment No. 54, concerning where a governing body does not agree, what worries me is that it is possible for governing bodies in part not to agree even to go into an action zone, let alone disagree with what they see once in an action zone. Again, there is so little on the face of the Bill for us to go by. As I have already said to the noble Baroness, I know some governors of a school who are meeting clandestinely, in one case in a pub in east London, discussing all the details of going into an action zone, and governors on the same governing body are not aware of what is going on.
It seems to me to be important that if these actions zones are to work at all, there should be a body of consensus about the adventure upon which they are about to embark and there should at least be some degree of consensus that they think it is a good idea. What happens once it is up and running where governors do not agree? I understand that if they have
1570
ceded all their functions to the forum, they cannot be taken back under that arrangement. If they are partially ceded, they can do so, but if they are fully ceded there is a very real difficulty for a governing body that does not agree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, need not worry about Amendment No. 55. The noble Baroness in this amendment is saying that regard must be had to the views of representatives of the relevant local education authority. I can say that in something like 59 of the 60 authorities the views of the LEAs are well known. When the noble Baroness sees the information she will understand what I mean. There is only one case, as I understand it, where the LEA is almost hostile to the bid. The bid is being conducted by a third party completely outside the aegis of the LEA. That is a very interesting state of affairs. So in terms of having regard to the views of the representatives of the LEA, that is well known.
My Amendment No. 54A brings into the picture the people who in my view matter most; that is, the parents of pupils who are attending the schools which will be part of the action zone. Subsection (4) of this clause states that no order shall be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1), (2) or (3) except on an application made for the purpose with the consent of parents of pupils and governors at every school.
If the Government are not happy that parents should be involved in this process, then I have very real concerns about this proposition. It seems to me that parents of pupils at these schools are critical to the success of this scheme. After all, the backing that children receive from their home and their parents and/or guardians is essential. If these action zones take place without a body of consent from the parents, it seems to me that the Secretary of State will have started off with a very good, exciting idea that could go very wrong indeed. So I hope that when it comes to Amendment No. 54A, the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that it will be thought appropriate if I speak to Amendments Nos. 53A, 54B, 54C and 257F which are government amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is straightforward. An important aspect of action zones is that a group of partners work together for a set period of time. Stability in the partnership is important, but there is one particular circumstance where it may be necessary to allow a new school to enter. This is where school reorganisation has created new schools in the area after the zone has been created.
For example, if two participating schools are merged and a new school is created as a result, it is logical that the new school should participate. Amendments Nos. 53A, 54B 54C and 257F all permit the Secretary of State to include newly created schools in a zone. This could be important in some cases and I shall commend the amendments to the Committee.
Perhaps I may refer to the other amendments in the same group which have been moved or spoken to. Amendment No. 53 was moved by the noble Baroness,

1571
Lady Maddock. All these amendments concern the setting up and dissolution of action zones. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right: good transitional arrangements for action zones will be essential. We expect all applicants to have considered carefully their exit strategies before they begin. But it is not necessary to take what I fear is a paternalistic stance with these zones. The local partners, with support, of course, from the department where they want and need it, will have put forward the ideas. They will be responsible for implementing them. They will be responsible for ensuring that they are sustainable, or, if not, that they can be ended in a sensible way. To legislate for one body, as does the amendment—the local education authority—to be responsible for devising transitional arrangements to cope with the zone's ending seems to me to miss the point that this is all about partners working together.
Of course, the local authority will have an important role in this. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who knows more than I do about the applications, has confirmed that in 59 cases out of 60. But what about the role of the other partners? What about the schools themselves? I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will agree the principle that unless they are failing, schools, whether within or outside action zones, should be managed by no one but themselves.
It is important to realise that these zones are not just about additional resources boosting performance for a short period of time. The idea is that the zone allows schools in the zone, and their communities, to find different ways of working. We are looking to find ways which continue after the zone ends which can be useful models for other areas which are not zones.
Let me give some examples. Private sponsors will continue to be involved in supporting and helping to advise on the running of the schools. New curriculum models may be found. If these are successful, we would expect the schools in the area to continue to use them. We would also want to feed these findings into reviews of the national curriculum. New models for staffing may have been tried. If those are successful, we want to see whether they can be of benefit more widely.
I turn to Amendment No. 54, which would allow a school to exit in the middle of the term of an action zone. These zones are about a voluntary commitment to schools to work in partnership and try new ways to raise standards. In return for satisfying the Secretary of State that they and their partners have strong proposals for doing this, they stand to receive significant additional support. As well as funds, this will include priority access to many of our standards-raising programmes. Some of these programmes, once established, will continue indefinitely.
The Government are extremely happy to complete their side of the bargain because we know that we shall have tested the local proposals and will want to support them. But it would not be fair for a school, having received significant extra support—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, recognised the force of this point—to decide that in fact it did not want to meet the higher levels of achievement expected in zones, or
1572
did not want to continue working in partnership with other schools. Three years seems to us a minimum time for which such a commitment could legitimately be expected.
There is another issue. Zones will be set up in which each school has something to contribute or learn from. In some zones, schools will have much good practice to share with their partners. It would be a pity if such schools left when things became a little difficult. Surely it is better to stick it out for at least three years and make a real difference.
The noble Baroness explained that the amendment only gives the Secretary of State a power; he does not have to use it. It is surely important that the partners should know that they are working together for three or possibly five years. It would be very distracting if different schools were debating whether or not they wanted to continue. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that this would not happen very often, but the debate about whether or not they would continue might happen more often, and really that would not be a very good thing.
Amendment No. 55 requires the Secretary of State to consult before creating a zone. This was debated in some detail in Committee in the Commons. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment said—and I am delighted to give the same reassurance now—that:
"We have made it clear at every stage that we expect local authorities to be consulted. Clearly, if an application was made and the local authority had not expressed a view on it, we would take the initiative and ask the local authority why that was so."
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has the advantage over me. She tells me it is possible that this has occurred only in one case. I can assure her that in that case, had we not done so already, we would take the initiative and ask the local authority why it was not supporting the application. When that assurance was given in another place, I understand that the Liberal Democrat spokesman accepted that assurance and withdraw the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will do the same.
Finally, and with apologies for the length of this reply, I turn to Amendment No. 54A, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am sympathetic to the idea that parents will have an important voice in the creation and running of an education action zone, but we really do not need a parental ballot to achieve that. The governing body of each school should be close to the views of parents and of course will have direct parental representation on it. The governing body itself, as the noble Baroness knows, will have to agree to participate and the applicants will have to demonstrate not only the school's agreement but their commitment to working in this way.
We do not really want to have this kind of obsession with structure and procedures getting in the way of innovative policies of education action zones. In the applications we have received—and I look to the noble Baroness to confirm or correct what I am saying—there are tremendous examples of initiatives to improve the way in which the whole community can be involved in education, encouraging children to learn with parents

1573
and parents to further their own education alongside their children In many of the disadvantaged areas where the zones will be set up, one of the most challenging issues is how to promote the importance of education.
I urge the Committee to allow this task to be undertaken and to allow those working and living locally to make judgments about the need to apply, in discussion with parents, pupils and staff as necessary. But, please, let us not saddle the procedure with unnecessary bureaucracy.
I hope that noble Baroness will in due course decide not to move Amendment No. 54A. I commend the Government amendments to the Committee and, with great respect for the motivation of the others, ask the noble Baronesses concerned not to press them.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for the long reply he has given and for the clarification of where the Government stand on these issues. I would perhaps take issue with him on being regarded as "paternalistic". What we are trying to do is to ensure democratic accountability. I do not believe that that is paternalism. Perhaps earlier this evening we saw the Government being very paternalistic in the way they were guarding the secrets surrounding people who were applying for education action zones, and so I would take issue there.
The Minister did not quite get to the bottom of how schools would manage so far as resources are concerned if they came out of education action zones. He rather skated around the point. I shall read his remarks carefully, and we may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 53A:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert ("; or
(b) with a view to enabling it to achieve improving standards in the provision of education once it becomes a maintained school, any new school which has a temporary governing body.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 54A:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert ("parents of pupils at every school and").
The noble Baroness said: I am deeply saddened that the noble Lord has dismissed parents as a bureaucratic irrelevance. His words were "an unnecessary bureaucratic process". Those parents are likely to have children in schools with a formation which is not yet properly set. These systems will be up and running in a matter of 12 to 14 weeks' time. Parents are not aware of what is going on and are not party to the consultation. Governors are discussing the detail of the proposals without any consultation with parents.
If a school is about to become part of an education action zone where the national curriculum might be disapplied, do parents not have a view about that? Do
1574
parents not have a view as to the pay and conditions of the teachers who may or may not be pleased about that? The parents are the most important key. This very radical proposal will take schools out of local authority control and place them in the hands of third parties, some of whom the parents do not know and have never met. They do not know the background and are not party to the consultation. They should be formally consulted.
This proposal is not very bureaucratic. We are talking about a group of schools where the parents could be asked to give their consent, which could easily be done by means of one ballot box resting in the school for one day when the parents can vote on the proposition. It should be put before them in some sort of detail so that they know what to expect over a three-year and/or a five-year period. Some of these applications exist because there is money on the table. There is no secret whatever about that. Many more include European money, and DfEE project money, with the emphasis on the action zones and not, sadly, on some of the schools in the area whose needs may be just as great.
There will be endless publicly funded bodies. There will be business enterprise organisations. Lottery funding forms part of the bids. There will be training and enterprise councils. Single regeneration budget moneys, work-related learning programmes—all are involved. And there are contributions in kind. Is it not fair that the parents should have some understanding of the proposition for their particular action zone? If the noble Lord considers that a bureaucratic irrelevance, then a very distressing message is being sent to parents. Where an LEA is known to be hostile to an application, the DfEE already knows very well the views of that LEA.
[Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 54B:
Page 10, line 13, after ("Chapter") insert—

("(a) references to a governing body shall be read as including the temporary governing body of a new school;

(b)")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 54C:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("(6A) In this section "new school" has the meaning given by section 69(3).").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Establishment of Education Action Forum for zone]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—

1575
("() An Education Action Forum shall be the employer of all teaching and non-teaching staff at all schools within the education action zone.").
The noble Baroness said: The third parties are being given the power to take over a group of schools, to disapply the national curriculum, to substitute another innovative novel curriculum and the power to disapply pay and conditions of service for their teachers. Why should they not be trusted to employ the staff, both teaching and non-teaching? I think the case is very powerful and I beg to move.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I am unaccustomed to joining in an education debate and I shall try to intervene peacefully. I wonder whether the Minister can answer one or two queries about Clause 11(3)(b). It concerns a new animal called an education action forum. I understand from reading the Bill that the Secretary of State can appoint two members, while others will be recruited from the LEAs.
Are we to understand that these are to be LEAs in miniature, minuscule LEAs or will they embrace outside experience as well? For example, will the education fora simply be the current LEAs in miniature or will they have some fresh air let in from faraway experience, possibly of an unusual kind? I notice that scattered in the Times Educational Supplement last week is a whole batch of ideas on new non-local experience. In one case a teacher of phonics and word/sound association was mentioned. Another was a Scottish Office staffer with experience of school standards and effectiveness and of premier football club study centres.
Also mentioned in the Times Educational Supplement was a former ILEA chief inspector who was used to investigating institutional cultures. Are those new bodies, the education action forums, simply the LEA in miniature or are they to be LEAs plus outside experience that might enrich them? I ask this in a peaceful way, I am not trying to stir up trouble, I do not usually join in this kind of debate anyway. I hope that in the circumstances we may be given information by the Minister.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by this amendment to clarify further the employment aspects of education action zones. That said, I must admit that I have some reservations about the effect of the amendment.
The amendment seeks to make all education action fora the direct employers of staff in the zone. This means that any governing body joining the zone does so in the knowledge that it loses its employment powers. This may be appropriate for some, but not for others. As I said earlier, it is better to give a choice of routes through which to enter.
In anticipation that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may wish to come back with a further amendment offering this choice, perhaps I should say that it is not necessary. It is already dealt with in Clause 12(2). Under paragraph (a) of the subsection, governing bodies can use the forum as an agent, with the governing body retaining the legal responsibility. Under paragraph (b)
1576
of the subsection, governing bodies can decide formally to pass all their powers to the forum. That would include employment powers. This flexible menu of options is perhaps better than the proposed set meal which, I think, would deter many governing bodies from wanting to become zones.
In reply to the noble Earl, the legislation allows each governing body to put forward a member and the Secretary of State can appoint members. Other appointees may come from business or voluntary organizations—all those the applicants feel can contribute. They are not local education authorities in miniature in any way.
I have considered each of these amendments, but, for the reasons I outlined, I do not believe that they are an improvement and that the policy will be better for them. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can help me. I understand that in an education action zone the contracts of the teachers can be changed in relation to salaries and various other aspects. However, I also understand that the teachers are employed either by the school or by the local authority and that therefore their contracts are with the local authority or with the school.
If the education action zone can change that contract willy-nilly, and the teacher wishes to go to court in order to enforce the contract to which he or she agreed with the original employer, against whom does the teacher take the action? Is it the school, the local authority or the education action zone?
The teachers have no contract with the education action zone but, as I understand it, the EAZ will have the power to change the contract whether or not the teacher likes it. There is therefore a great deal of merit in the amendment. I go further. When an education action zone takes over the contracts of the teachers they should take over the existing contract, otherwise they would have to negotiate a completely new one with every single teacher.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope that no teacher who is involved in an education action zone will want to go to court about the changes that the education action zone may want to make in relation to his pay and conditions. After all, the whole purpose of the zone is to give teachers greater freedom and to give the education action zone the opportunity, if it so chooses, to pay higher salaries.
The contracts will remain either with the local authority or with the school, but it is the governing body which has employment powers. The forum does not have power over that unless the governors cede that power or the teacher takes up employment with the forum. Whoever the employer is will obviously be the agency with whom the teachers, if they wish to go to court—as I say, I hope that no teacher would want to do so—will be in dispute.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have been listening to this discussion with a bit of difficulty at this

1577
hour of the night—my brain does not seem to be functioning too well. As I understand it, in some cases teachers may be, and in others they may not be, transferred from one employer to another. In those circumstances, does the transfer of undertakings regulations—TUPE—govern the transfer of those employees?
Baroness Byford: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has again beaten me to it: I must rise more quickly, though I know it is late.
When schools come into the action zones, presumably not all the teachers in those schools will necessarily have their contracts continued. Part of the action zones' objectives is to improve standards in the school. I presumed—maybe in my innocence—that some of the teachers, and let us hope the majority, will still have contracts that continue to run, but some may well find their contracts not continued.
My question to the Minister is twofold. First, what happens to those teachers who, once the school has joined the action zone, find that their contracts are not renewed and kept up? In fact, to whom does the teacher look in that situation? At the other end-I first raised it with the noble Baroness after Second Reading and she kindly wrote back to me-what happens at the exit?
Teachers whom the zones feel will do a good job will have been taken on and presumably, as a result, their pay may have been increased. But what will happen when the zone ends? Will they revert to their previous level of pay? By whom are they employed? What will happen to their pension rights? I refer particularly to those who were not taken up in the first place and, more importantly, to those who have had an increase in their pay during their time in the zone, which will presumably have an effect on their pensions as well.
I should be grateful to the Minister if we could have a little more clarity on the matter. Perhaps it is the time of night, or perhaps it is because the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, keeps beating me in rising to speak, but I am still a little confused about what exactly the situation is for those teachers as the zones develop.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: It is not just a question of the finances. It could well be the hours of work or the length of holidays. It may well be that in an education action zone it is decided that the school day should be longer or that the school term should be longer in order to make certain that the pupils are given sufficient time to learn more. It may be wished to break up the school year not just into three terms but into four, five or six so that everything comes in short, sharp bursts and the pupils can learn together. All those points need to be taken into account. The education action zones that will be putting this into effect should be responsible. I wonder whether the Government have really thought this through yet. The idea of an education action zone is a good one but there are all kinds of other points that we need to consider.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, have posed a
1578
number of questions which need to be answered in detail. Many members of staff will be following our proceedings very carefully and they will want to know the answers to these very detailed questions on matters which will affect their careers.
The Minister said that the function of employer can be passed on or can be ceded. Perhaps I may remind her that paragraph 14 of the background paper says that the establishing of an education action zone would not alter who employs the staff. In other words, the employer of staff will continue to be the local education authority. The teachers would remain employed on contracts within the teachers' pay and conditions document unless the governing body was given permission to disapply that document and renegotiated contracts with staff. But before giving permission to disapply, the Secretary of State will want to see that consultation has taken place with staff and their representatives.
Consultation is one thing, but what are the rights of teachers in these situations? Paragraph (c) says that where governing bodies cede their powers to the forum the forum will only become the de facto employer of the school staff in place of the governing body, although the legal employer will not change. In other words, the LEA will continue to be the legal employer and that cannot be ceded to the forum, to a governing body or to anyone else. It is only for the day-to-day purposes of employing a teacher that the power to disapply pay and conditions will be ceded, and the actual legal employer will go on being the local education authority. The only way in which the forum can be an employer in the full sense of that word will be for those teachers which it employs directly.
The question posed by my noble friend Lady Byford is an important one. What will happen to them at the end of a rather short period like three years? Is one really going to find these superhero teachers, who will come in on a contract for just three years, with perhaps an extension of the contract of two years? However, there is nothing in the Bill to say that it can be extended beyond that period.
The question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is quite important. Under what we have colloquially understood to be called TUPE, does the transfer of undertakings apply? My understanding is that when public authority employees move from one public body to another or to a private body, then the transfer of undertakings does apply. It would be very helpful to know from the noble Baroness whether it applies in this case.
Lord Skidelsky: Before the noble Baroness replies, can she clear up the confusion in my mind? My noble friend has just said that the legal employer is the local education authority. The Minister has said equally certainly, in my recollection, that the legal employer is the school governing body. They cannot both be legal employers: which of them is the legal employer?
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, it is the governing body that is the employer although the contracts remain with the local authority. However, they can be with the school and it will depend on what kind

1579
of school it is. All the things that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised might happen on fixed-term supplementary contracts. If we are talking about new teachers who are taken on by a zone, they will operate on fixed-term contracts.
As regards the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if teachers return to normal employment under the existing terms of the teachers' pay and conditions set-up, when they return to work with a school governing body or a local authority they will return to the existing terms and conditions which will only be suspended while they are new teachers working for an education action zone.
I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked. As I believe I made clear, the legal employer depends on the type of school. If it is a community school, it is an LEA, but if it is an aided or a foundation school, it will be the governing body. I hope that that clears up his question.
I shall be very happy to write to Members of the Committee on both the Liberal Democrat Benches and on the Front Bench of the main Opposition party, and to Back-Benchers too, setting all this out in detail rather than, at this time of night, enter upon complex aspects of the suspension of teachers' pay and conditions under the education action zone proposals where that may happen. I hope that that will be acceptable and that in the light of it the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that it has not been possible to bring this kind of information forward. The debate was well predicted. The teacher trade unions have shown a very real interest in the answers to some of these questions. I know that education authorities are particularly interested. The DfEE knows that. It is quite extraordinary that the information has not come down to the Minister in order that she can answer some of these questions.
For example, the answer as regards TUPE must be that either the provisions apply or they do not. It would have been very helpful to have had an answer on whether the transfer of undertakings applies in this case and if not, under what powers is there exemption from it. Does not the noble Baroness agree that when one disapplies pay and conditions provisions, just like investments they can worsen or improve? The noble Baroness has spoken a great deal about teachers getting more money and more generous conditions. Equally, there is no control over that, for once they are disapplied they are disapplied. Under this application it is possible for a third party, especially if given a fee and able to make money—as the noble Baroness said earlier and as the Prime Minister has agreed, profits can be made—it will be possible to vary one way or the other. Nothing in the Bill says that pay and conditions can be disapplied as long as they are disapplied more generously. It states merely that they may be disapplied. It would be helpful if the Minister would agree that they could be more generous or even less generous.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may add to the confusion in this area. It is clear the employer is the local authority.
1580
Schedule 16, and others, contain detailed provisions whereby the school decides who should be appointed as a teacher and the LEA then has to make that appointment. Nothing in this part of the Bill gives the education action zones the right to impose on the LEA changes to the terms and conditions under which it is employing teachers. It is not clear to me, therefore, how this mechanism is supposed to work its way down from decisions of the education action zones. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, perhaps teachers will be told to attend for an extra two hours and to provide extra tuition in games after school to improve pupils' performance. Clearly, the education action zone has to have the right to tell the LEA to do that so that it can change the terms of employment of its teachers. The teachers will then have a cause of action against the LEA, which is their employer. The Government have set out the route (in Schedule 16) by which those instructions are given for the ordinary course of events, but they have not done so for education action zones, and I hope that the Minister's letter will make the way in which the chain of command will work absolutely clear.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Further to the comment just made by the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, in relation to voluntary aided schools, it is not the case that the LEA is the employer; the governing bodies of such schools are the legal employers.
Lord Swinfen: Where the LEA is the employer, the pension arrangements are probably that the LEA pays a set percentage of the salary, but if the education action zone gives the teacher an increment, who pays the extra on the pension? Will it be supplied by the education action zone or will the LEA be forced to pay the extra on the amount due as a pension? I wonder whether such points have been taken into account and properly thought through.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course that has been taken into account. I think that I have already said—if I did not, I apologise—that pensions will be unaffected by these arrangements. The pensions organisations for teachers will cover this and the employer—whether the governing body or the LEA—will be responsible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked me whether teachers' pay might go up or down. In theory, she is absolutely right: it is possible that under these arrangements teachers' pay could go down, but in practice I should have thought, as I have already implied, that it is fairly obvious that it will tend to rise. After all, we are trying experimentally to find a way to encourage good teachers to work in areas where raising standards is a big challenge. Therefore, it would not make much sense for an education action zone to lower the pay of teachers. However, I entirely accept that, theoretically, teachers' pay could go down under this legislation.
The noble Baroness also asked about the transfer of undertakings. Again, as I understand it, TUPE does not arise because employment does not formally transfer.

1581
With regard to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I shall certainly set out clearly in a letter how the change, as he put it, will work when an education action zone decides that it wishes to suspend teachers' normal pay and conditions.
I hope that I have responded to the questions that have been put, but I repeat my offer to set this out at length in writing.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We will have to wait for the letter from the noble Baroness, which will have to cover a very large number of points. In response to my noble friend Lord Swinfen the Minister said that pensions would be unaffected. How can they be unaffected? If someone receives considerably more, perhaps by way of merit pay or another system for enhancing pay, that will give rise to enhanced pension contributions, including contributions by the employer. Is the noble Baroness saying that a teacher can receive pay on a better scale and yet the pension will be frozen at a lower salary rate? I cannot believe that that was what the noble Baroness meant.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: This point is particularly relevant where senior teachers are coming to the end of their career—precisely the very senior classroom teachers who may be the most desirable ones to become involved in action zones. Those teachers' pensions will be affected. Their employer will have to pay the additional pension no matter what happens because they will have earned it. I do not see how it can be unaffected. We appear to be receiving a series of contradictory answers.
One is also concerned about conditions, for example contact hours and so on. Those teachers whose salaries are not to be raised but who nevertheless have to work in less advantageous circumstances may have their noses put out of joint, to put it mildly. Does the noble Baroness suggest that teachers who are not worth additional money—all of these expressions are in inverted commas—will be dismissed or their employment terminated in some way and only teachers who are worth higher salaries will be employed in education action zones? When one looks at the detail it is hard to see how the system will operate.
Lord Swinfen: Will the Government top up local authority funding? They will not have budgeted for the increase in pensions that they will have to pay to the pension company. They will be bound to pay that if the salaries of some of the teachers in the action zones are increased. They will be paying a proportion of that salary as pension, for which they will not have budgeted.
Lord Tope: As I listen to the debate I become more and more concerned. We will have to await the Minister's letter to make the situation clear. It has already been said quite correctly that if a teacher's salary is increased then the pension contribution
1582
increases. The teachers' superannuation scheme is a final salary scheme. The teacher will be entitled to a pension based on his best salary in the last three years, normally the last year for obvious reasons. That is an ongoing commitment.
I speak from experience as a local authority leader. One agrees to a relatively small increase in salary but when the employee retires one has a very substantial commitment to the superannuation scheme. If that is to fall on the LEA at the behest of an education action zone perhaps for very good reason, the LEA will look for considerable reassurance and, I expect, recompense for the extra costs incurred over a very long period of time over which it has little or no control.
Baroness Blackstone: I said that pension rights will continue for teachers who move from a school or LEA employer to a forum, just as if they had moved from a foundation school to a community school, when the employer also changes.
These are complex issues associated with the teachers' superannuation scheme. It would be much more sensible if I were to set out exactly what the impact of this will he on the scheme and, indeed, the local education authorities which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said will not have budgeted for such an impact. I should point out that we are talking about only 25 education action zones, a relatively small number of schools and a relatively small number of teachers who will be affected. Not all the education action zones will wish to suspend teachers' pay and conditions. It is important that we do not exaggerate the impact of such changes. But as I have already promised. I shall set this out in writing in detail.
Baroness Blatch: We shall have to wait. It is a great pity. The debate and the questions raised should have been anticipated and the information available. It was highly predictable that we should have a debate about the effect of this policy on teachers.
When the noble Baroness writes the letter covering the points raised in the debate, will she take into account also the way in which some of those outside bodies work? Certainly from the information I have already seen on the applications, longer days and more days in the year are being talked about. There is a suggestion of using hours before school starts for breakfast clubs. There is a suggestion of after-school clubs. All that will add considerably to the burden on teachers unless there are more members of staff. Therefore, it is conceivable that teachers will receive more pay. However, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, they may have to do a great deal more for it. Therefore, the benefit to teachers is neutral. They are working longer hours and therefore receiving more pay.
The noble Baroness said that pensions will he unaffected. Pensions will indeed be affected. As pay rises, so too will the contributions both from the teacher and the employer. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, we may well he talking about senior teachers because it may be the most experienced teachers who will move into those positions. Therefore, there will be an impact on pensions

1583
and final salary arrangements for local authorities. Some of those local authorities will be serving the most difficult areas. There will be pressures on them to find extra money and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that extra money needs to be found for the life-time of those teachers, not simply for one or two years. It will be well beyond the period of time during which those action zones are in place.
These are complex issues to which we need some answers. We look forward to receiving the letter from the noble Baroness. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, line 28, after ("appointment;") insert—
("() no fewer than two persons representing the local education authority responsible for maintaining the participating schools or, if there is more than one such authority, at least one person appointed by each of them;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 63 and 64. In view of the hour of night and the amount of business we have yet to transact, I shall be extremely brief because all these amendments very largely speak for themselves.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 59 are concerned to ensure that the local education authorities are represented on the education action forums. If what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has told us is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, it would be bizarre in the extreme if the vast majority of those education action zones, which are run by or involved with local education authorities, were not to be so represented. But it is appropriate that it should be stated clearly on the face of the Bill that they must be represented. Thereby they will retain the proper contact and influence that they should have, not least for the reasons which we discussed on the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 57 refers similarly to representation of teachers. They should be represented on the education action forum. That is right and proper. They are represented as of right on governing bodies and education committees. I should have thought it entirely right and appropriate that they should be represented, as suggested, also on the education action forums.
As regards Amendment No. 58, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has waited extremely patiently for a very long time to pursue the matter, not only this evening but also on the previous Committee day. I really do not want to steal his thunder by speaking to it now. Perhaps I may simply say that we warmly and wholeheartedly support his amendment and look forward to hearing what he has to say and, indeed, what the Minister has to say in response.
Amendment No. 60 seeks to preserve the general balance of interests and experience that exists at present so that no expertise and experience is lost in that way. Amendment No. 63 refers to the importance of maintaining proper interests in gender and in race. In
1584
passing, I should point out to the Committee that if there is any ethnic disadvantage these days it probably rests far more with white, young males than it does with any other members of ethnic minorities.
These are important amendments. I have spoken to them very briefly because of the hour of night. However, that should not in any sense indicate that they have any lack of importance in our view. They are extremely important and self-explanatory. I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 58 and 64, I seem to have been granted a solo spot on the Cross-Benches, which is perhaps appropriate for a rapidly ageing thespian at this hour of night. The Minister and a handful of noble Lords who were present on Second Reading, some of whom are present tonight, may recall that I confessed to studying the 248-page document while waiting for a train—any train—to get me back to Euston from Crewe. But the enforced delay did allow me to note that there were few substantial references to special schools or special educational needs in the Bill, and I reported that fact on Second Reading. The Minister responded quite positively. I shall not quote her response now because of the lateness of the hour.
As my concerns arose in Crewe and as the Government—or, rather, a senior Minister in the Government—fairly recently decided that Crewe can be bypassed, I am naturally concerned that special needs, too, can be treated in the same cavalier fashion unless specific commitments are made to them on the face of the Bill. Hence my amendments today and others for future days, or nights, in Committee. They have the support not only of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth but also from outside this Chamber. That support comes from the Special Educational Consortium, which includes such renowned voluntary bodies as Mencap, the Council for Disabled Children, Barnardos, The National Autistic Society, Scope (plus many others), as well as teaching unions and local government organisations. No one can be in any doubt as to our sincerely held convictions.
The purpose of the two amendments is as follows. Amendment No. 58 is designed to ensure that at least one person is included in an education action forum who has experience and expertise in special educational needs. Amendment No. 64 would ensure that everyone who is part of an education action forum has to have regard to the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.
I hope and believe that the Minister will accept my amendments or propose others worded in a similar vein on Report. If she does not, I can only paraphrase the late, lamented Marie Lloyd:
"Oh, noble Baroness, what shall I do?
Excellence for special needs, left behind at Crewe".
Furthermore, I think I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to use his undoubted operatic talents to underline the point in song once this session is over. That, I am convinced, will persuade the Minister; of that I am absolutely certain.
Midnight
Lord Lucas: I hope the Minister will agree with me that Amendments Nos. 60 and 63 are particularly "daffy". Amendment No. 60 suggests that the governing body of an education action zone should reflect the,
"balance of interests and experience"
of a set of governing bodies which have, almost by definition, failed in what they might have thought of as their mission to provide education up to the standard they wish. I hope that the Government will not seek to hamstring an education action zone in this way. Amendment No. 63 introduces the concept that standards in the provision of education can have due,
"variation by sex or race".
Surely no such variation can possibly be acceptable. The concept expressed in Amendment No. 63 must be totally unacceptable.
Lord Whitty: All of these amendments, directly or indirectly, deal with the membership of education action fora. Clearly we had to consider how we establish the membership, given all the constituencies which have various demands they wish to be represented. There are, however, two difficulties with the concept that we allow all such constituencies to be represented. First, the education action zone will bring together 10 or 20 schools. That could mean the membership of a forum swelling rapidly—if everyone were included—to 50 plus. That is unlikely to constitute an effective decision-making body.
The second issue is one of flexibility. Within the education action zone concept, different relationships will exist between governing bodies and the fora in different areas. As we have heard, in some cases governing bodies will cede their powers to the forum; in others they will not unless formal arrangements apply. In any case the way in which the fora will operate will require consultation and consensus so that the views of teachers and of other bodies will be represented through their governing bodies and other means of consultation within their areas. It is therefore, in our view, not sensible to lay down that all these constituent bodies should always be members of an education action forum. The compromise we arrived at was to leave membership decisions on the forum to those who were putting forward the proposals. They will know the ways of working they have in mind. It is important that we do not restrict them in that way. It is important on the other hand that we ensure that each governing body in an education action zone area which wishes to be represented should be represented. That is the only thing we have laid down.
On the point about local education authorities, we expect local education authorities to be represented on the action fora. Of the 60 applications we have received so far, LEAs are a partner in 58 of them, and so will naturally be represented on the fora. We need to bear in mind exceptions. There is the possibility that a different set of partners—for example, a group of schools working with a private sector company, or a voluntary organisation—make a strong application that deserves consideration, but which is not involved with a local
1586
education authority. In an extreme case it is possible that a local education authority is either not interested or is deeply opposed to what is being proposed. Obviously that opposition would be given due weight, but where we seek to go ahead with the education action zone it would not be sensible for the LEA to have a veto over an application by reserving to itself a place, even if all the other parties know that is done only to be obstructive. That situation is extremely unlikely. but nevertheless we must recognise that it could arise. It is certainly not borne out by the experience of the applications received under the non-statutory programme so far, but nevertheless we must preserve that flexibility.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 63 contain the phrase,
"without undue variation by sex or race".
We would expect the organisations involved in the forum to reflect the make-up of the schools involved in the wider communities in which they operate. We would not expect to see any gender under-representation.
The Minister for School Standards has already had some discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality on this issue. Sir Herman Ousley has indicated that he supports the EAZ concept. It will be necessary to design strategies to make sure that we raise achievement in particular sections of the community which are under-performing. That will be reflected in the requirements on EAZs rather than in the formulation in these amendments.
On the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, particularly Amendment No. 64 relating to the SEN code of practice, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question that regulations would allow the SEN code of practice to be disapplied or bypassed in education action zones, whether in Crewe or anywhere else. These regulations will—indeed, from the wording on the primary legislation, they can—only affect the way in which certain functions are passed from governing bodies to the forum where both the governing bodies and the forum agree that such a transfer is sensible. That does not affect the need to observe other responsibilities in other important documents and regulations which would certainly include such fundamental documents as the SEN code of practice. Therefore, in our view the objectives of Amendment No. 64 are met and the amendment is unnecessary.
We are therefore adopting a process of flexibility in this area. The prime proposals for membership of each education action forum will be from the proposers themselves. Obviously the department will have to make a judgment on those proposals, but that is the original flexibility which we would wish to see. With that understanding and that principle of flexibility, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: When inviting proposals from people who are prepared to set up special education zones and fora, will the Government be asking the proposers what their ideas and proposals are on dealing with special education needs and how they intend to handle them? I know that this only covers, as a general rule, a small

1587
proportion of pupils but it is a highly specialised and highly skilled sector which needs special handling. There is a danger, because of small numbers, that these specialist cases could fall through the net and be neglected. Although they may have special education needs, they are people who, if properly taught, could offer a great deal to the country in due course.
Baroness Blatch: When the noble Lord replies, can he also pick up my point? The noble Lord said that gender balance, ethnicity and even special needs interests would be addressed. But each school is an entity within the zone. Each school will put forward its representative on to the forum. How will it be addressed? Will the school be told, "Sorry, you cannot have another woman from your school", or "You cannot have another man from your school", because the numbers seem to indicate too many women or too many men?
What will be the means of seeing that those issues are addressed—for example, if the area has a high ethnic presence in the community but not enough ethnic people are put forward by individual schools? The schools will be dealing with the most appropriate representative of their schools. It may not reflect the local community, gender balance, ethnic balance or, indeed, specific interests in special needs. How will that be managed?
Lord Whitty: As far as gender and ethnic balance are concerned, clearly we are saying that there will be a general guidance that there should be no undue variation, but we are not operating on mathematical formulae. Therefore, any intervention would be only if there was a serious distortion of the gender balance and the community ethnic balance. We do not propose mathematical formulae here or rigid rules. But clearly one could have a situation where there is a severe imbalance which no doubt the department would draw to the attention of those proposing the forum.
Baroness Blatch: I do not follow that. Who would intervene? The noble Lord has already said that the schools are their own entities. They have control over who they put forward. The DfEE will have its two appointees. Who will intervene; and under what power will that body intervene if it believes that there is an imbalance?
Lord Whitty: There will be an ongoing relationship between the education action zones and the department. At the end of the day the department would intervene, but I am sure that these matters can be dealt with on a consultative basis. We are not asking them to meet a specific formula. We are asking them to be reasonable about the balance of the membership of the education action zone.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the issue of special educational needs would be included in consideration of the proposals from those putting forward the action zone. The curriculum still provides equal opportunities for all pupils, including those with special educational needs. Therefore any proposition
1588
would have to be assessed to ensure that it met those objectives as part of the original proposition. If it were not adequately covered within the proposition, suggestions would be made to ensure that it became part of it.
On representation, the main point is not the exact balance of the membership, but how it raises the standards for all pupils in the areas. In agreeing the membership, the Secretary of State will bear those objectives in mind rather than any mathematical formula.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask about Amendment No. 58. The noble Lord states that the Secretary of State can intervene in the education action forum if appropriate people are not placed on the body. Why cannot we make sure that someone with expertise is specifically included—someone who has regard to special educational needs? Someone in the education action forum will need to make a sound assessment of a course of action, an experimental approach—a change in staffing or a change in curricula. Such assessments require experts. They do not require a well-meaning person with some knowledge. They require someone with specific knowledge.
I accept the assurances on Amendment No. 64. However, Amendment No. 58 refers to,
"One person with experience and expertise in special educational needs".
The rejection of that amendment seems in direct contravention of the Minister's response at Second Reading when she said:
"I agree that we should be judged by our ability to meet special needs, including ensuring that they are taken into account in all education development plans".—[Official Report, 17/4/98; col. 714.]
I should have thought that the simple amendment, Amendment No. 58, which stands in my name, that of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, took care of that neatly and would satisfy the special educational consortium.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right. The commitment which the Government have given is not strong enough to guarantee that one will have the people with the knowledge to be able to respond, and quickly. If a mistake is made with special educational needs the child invariably loses years of schooling. When examinations dictate the way one's life may progress, that is an important omission. One must have a person who responds quickly. Expertise will enable that to occur. In these zones, such expertise will be vitally important. You have a person who will be under even more pressure than is normal. I would suggest that something very like what the noble Lord has proposed is actually essential.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and wish to make just one additional point. There is a vast difference between a forum listening to those who may be experts and a forum having among

1589
its membership somebody who was able to speak with authority as a member of that group. That is the point this amendment seeks to press.
Lord Whitty: The forum will have access to expertise in this area. I have already given a commitment about what the forum's proposals will need to take into account before any approval of the provision for special educational needs. It is the same commitment as that given by my noble friend on Second Reading. We are anxious not to specify too tightly the membership of the forum. Clearly, were there to be a major absence of anyone with expertise on these fora, the Secretary of State may well want to intervene, but the original proposers of the action zone will come up with their own propositions for membership, which need to be flexible.
Therefore, we are not happy about specifying in the Bill a range of people who should be represented, beyond saying that each school should have the right to be represented on that forum. Clearly, some of the representatives from the schools will have special educational needs expertise. If that should be absent, clearly some intervention would be necessary; but it is not always appropriate for a forum to have a senior representative with ESN experience. If the proposers themselves come up with something positive, then that will be part of the package that the Secretary of State and the department would have to assess. We would have to assess whether that needed to be rectified in a particular instance. However, if we put a provision on the face of the Bill, it would introduce inflexibility in an area where we want to have maximum flexibility.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for that response, but I am not happy with it. Clearly, as I am not moving these amendments I can only say that I shall have to return to this matter at the Report stage.
Lord Tope: This has been a useful debate. I can understand—indeed, I share—the Government's desire not to be too prescriptive in the membership of the forums. I can understand that each forum, if it is actually to be a workable body, should not be too large, although I could not quite understand how the Minister got to the number 50—I think he suggested it could rise to that number—because it would need to be a much larger action zone than I understood was envisaged to reach the figure of 50, even if all these amendments were accepted.
We are not talking about prescribing whether it should be this businessman or that businessman, this person from here or there: we are talking about three additional categories of people, all of which are important. One is the local education authority, or authorities if it covers more than one area, where we are talking about two people. If, as it seems, they are going to be there anyway because they are involved in the education action zone, that is good. There is no harm
1590
therefore in it being in the Bill. I did not understand why the Minister said how inappropriate it would be to have them there if they had opposed the setting up of the education action zone. If that is what he said—and I think it was—then I entirely disagree with him. He actually used the words that they should not have the right of veto, and I really did not understand that at all. It is one thing to oppose the establishment of a zone, rightly or wrongly—and the Secretary of State will make a judgment about that after consultation, and if he judges that it is right to set up the education action zone then it will be set up. The LEA will have to face the reality that it has in its area an education action zone, whether it likes it or not. It will be there.
It must be in the LEA's interests, and particularly in the interests of the EAZ and the schools, that the LEA then works co-operatively with that zone. It certainly will not have any right of veto, but it should work co-operatively. It is not too dissimilar from what has happened in a number of areas with grant-maintained schools. LEAs have sometimes opposed the establishment of a GM school; but once that has gone ahead a productive partnership has ensued. It does not necessarily mean that people have changed their original views, but they work together in partnership. I therefore suggest that having the LEA represented on the education action zone is important whatever the original stance, but it is particularly important if it has been one of initial coolness or even hostility that they should learn to work together in partnership.
Similarly, teachers are enormously important to the success of any education action zone. We are not talking about a teacher representative from every school; we are talking about two teachers from schools within the zone. If an education action zone is to be successful, it is important that the teachers "own" it; that they are part of the zone in every sense and play a part in directing the practice and policy. Therefore teachers are an important category to be prescribed.
I do not need to add anything further to what has already been said about a representative for special educational needs. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is absolutely right. The right reverend Prelate was right to say that access to expertise—which I should certainly hope such people would have—is very different from having that expertise among the membership. It is not the same at all. That is the point made in this amendment.
At this time of night and at this stage of the Bill I shall not press these amendments. However, I remain very unhappy with the replies given. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already given notice of his intention, and we shall return to an examination of this matter at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions relating to an Education Action Forum]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 104, line 31, after ("State") insert ("and to the Comptroller and Auditor General").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 62A and 257M.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 require education action fora to send their accounts to the National Audit Office and for the NAO to report on them to Parliament. It is important that the fora which run action zones are subject to financial scrutiny. That is why, as well as being sent to the Secretary of State, accounts should also be available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this way, reports on the use of funds in education action zones will be available to both Houses of Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 62A propose exempt charitable status for those education action fora. An important aspect of action zones is the partnership between the public and private sectors. We know from discussions that contributions from the private sector are more likely if the action fora are charitable. Increasingly, private sector contributions will improve the value for money of the programme. Action fora should be exempt charities, which means that they are free of some of the powers of the Charity Commission and the Charities Act 1993 because they are already accountable to the Secretary of State, and, through Amendments Nos. 61 and 62, already open to inspection by the National Audit Office. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to ask the noble Lord two questions. First, whether it is making money or making a profit, how does charitable status fit with a surplus being made from the fee that is paid for taking on an action zone? It is important to consider that point. Perhaps the noble Lord can throw a little more light on the technicality of how charitable status would work.
For example, as I understand it, there are bodies that are likely to be part of the partnerships that set up the action zones. But equally, the same bodies are likely to receive funds for providing services to the action zone. If they are already part of a consortium and are receiving funds from the consortium for providing services to the group of schools, will they receive money as though they were charities? How will that interrelate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Exempt charities are outside the supervision of the Charity Commission because they are considered to be adequately supervised. But they are still subject to the legal rules generally applicable to charities and a few of the provisions of the Charities Act 1993. For example, they must meet certain accounting guidelines, but these are less stringent than we would expect from education action fora in any case. They do not have to be submitted to the Charity Commission.
1592
The fiscal benefits of exempt charity status are the same as those for registered charities. They have relief from income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. They have exemption from inheritance tax and relief from business or non-domestic rates. They are not VAT-exempt as a class but some of their activities are.
That leads me to the second part of the noble Baroness's question. As she knows, many charities which are themselves unable to make a profit—and the education action fora will not be able to make a profit—are able to have trading arms which are companies usually in charitable circles limited by guarantee. Alternatively, they are private companies to which the charities contract to perform a service for them as could, for example, the Prince's Trust. Those private companies can make surpluses on the fees they charge. I hope that that answers the questions put by the noble Baroness. I should be glad to go into more detail if she needs it.
Baroness Blatch: No, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. However, if the companies are part of the consortium and provide services to it and they are allowed to make profits for the services they render to the consortium as members of it, they will be making profits from schools within the consortium.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has left the Chamber. He has been advising me on this matter and is a great expert on it as the Committee knows. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said in response to an earlier discussion, what happens is that the trading part or private companies who are carrying out contracts on behalf of the fora can charge fees. Part of those fees can be a profit, but the fora, because they will be exempt charities, will not be able to make a profit.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I understand the explanation which the noble Lord gave about charitable status. I welcomed the first two amendments. If I remember correctly, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Tope referred to the desirability of involving the Auditor General. I am happy to see the two amendments.
I am much less happy about the charitable status element of the group for a much more general reason than the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady B latch. It seems to me rather curious that in education some organisations have charitable status and some do not. Private schools have charitable status. I think I am correct in saying that grant-maintained schools have charitable status. I believe I am also correct in saying that in this Bill foundation schools, which are the successors to grant-maintained schools, will have charitable status. But ordinary maintained, about to be called community, schools do not. That is quite indefensible. Either all education establishments ought to have charitable status or none of them. I urge the Government to think carefully because the matter of

1593
rates is important to large secondary schools. It is not a small amount of money in terms of the business rate paid by large secondary schools out of the funds given to them by local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness is tempting me way outside the scope of these amendments. They are about the charitable status of education action fora. If the noble Baroness wants to have a debate on charitable status for schools, let us have it at some decent time of day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 104, line 39, at end insert—
("() The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him in pursuance of this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 105. line II. at end insert
("Charitable status
An Education Action Forum shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act I993.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule I, as amended, agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Clause 12 [Functions of Education Action Forum]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 11. line 25, at end insert
("(7) A Forum may lease out any school in its zone designated by the Chief Inspector for England as failing to an approved educational body on such terms and conditions as it may specify.
(8) A school leased out under subsection (7) above shall remain accountable to the Forum but shall not be subject to its direct management control.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to return to a subject we started two hours ago. We just have to continue with it.
The aim of Amendment No. 64A is to use the machinery of the forum which Clause 12 of the Bill sets up for a rather more flexible purpose than envisaged by the clause. I move the amendment in a constructive spirit. I would have moved exactly the same amendment had I been on the Benches opposite and I hope that the Minister—I do not know which Minister is to reply; perhaps I should say the ministerial zone—treats it no less sympathetically because I am here rather than there.
The amendment seeks to give effect to what I believe was the main idea behind the action zone concept; that is, to give the worst performing schools new leadership and fresh ideas. That is what Mr. Blair proposed in his
1594
Ruskin College speech in December 1996 and somehow it has been lost in the complicated legislation before us tonight. I want to put it back.
Action zones are defined as clusters of schools up to around 20. Not all of those schools will be failing. No doubt the whole zone might benefit from what the Minister called improvements across the zone. That is not in dispute. But seriously failing schools may well require special treatment—often a different school ethos; often a different, special kind of stimulus for that specific school which might in turn light the way for other schools.
Mr. Stephen Byers talked about beacon schools. Schools such as those I am proposing might become beacon schools—beacons to others throughout the land—and the amendment is designed to make that possible. Why should not groups of teachers, parents or other educational bodies be allowed to bring their enthusiasm and energy to bear on the task of raising standards in schools which, year after year, defy the best efforts of local education authorities to do that? We know that that can happen.
We have heard of the spectacular successes of the charter schools. There are now 1,000 charter schools in the United States; it is the largest growing educational reform movement in that country. We have seen what can he done by dedicated groups of teachers in East Harlem. In all those cases, school district boards have been courageous enough to say to the proposing group, "We think your ideas are worth a try. Here are your targets. You have three to five years to achieve them. Get going." But that movement could not have got going with this legislation.
The trouble with the present legislation is that no educational trust, no groups of parents and no groups of teachers can ever get into the bidding system. They cannot apply for a charter to run an individual school as they can in the United States. I am appealing to the Government to be bold enough to allow a charter school movement to develop in this country out of the idea of the education action zone. There is a great deal to be said for studying how charter schools in the United States deal with the difficult problems of pay and conditions, which were raised earlier in our debates.
My amendment has roughly the same purpose as Amendment No. 49 moved by my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Pilkington, but with this difference, which I want to stress. My leased out schools will be inside the action zone forum framework set up by the Bill. The individual school will be in the zone and responsible to the forum. It would be the job of the forum to decide which of its schools to put out to tender and on the terms and conditions of the charter, if I may call it a charter. The school will he responsible to the forum for its results but it will not be managed by the forum. It will be the proposer's task, and the proposer's task alone, to make a success of the job, and the proposer will be accountable to the forum for results but

1595
not for processes. I believe that this extra flexibility is needed to round out what is a valuable concept—that of the education zone—to make sure that the seeds which Ministers have talked about actually fall into fertile beds and not on stony ground. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support my noble friend. The flexibility which he proposes is entirely within the aims of the Government. The Government want to see education changed and standards raised. If the forum has determined that it would like to take this route, and if it is to be trusted to raise standards and to retain the responsibility for seeing that that happens, there is nothing to fear and everything to gain by accepting the amendment.
Lord Whitty: This amendment deals with the leasing out of schools already covered by an education action zone. Action zones are partnerships which cover whole areas. We are building those partnerships between all the schools in the zone, between the wider partnership with business, with parents, with the voluntary sector and with the local authority and other aspects of the public sector. This proposition effectively sees us hiving off one school out of this partnership and asking it to work to a different set of rules without the support of its neighbours in the zone. Having established the zone with a coherent approach and a partnership base, it seems to me that what is proposed would have a negative and divisive effect.
Having said that. I think that some of the objectives alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, can be achieved within the existing proposals. We do not want unnecessarily to restrict the freedom of the forum to take decisions to improve the management of particular schools. Clearly, there will be many situations where they wish to improve the management and other forms of expertise available to those schools. If the governing bodies of an action zone have chosen to cede their powers to the action forum, that forum itself will already have the authority to subcontract strands of work within its schools to a private educational consultant. That could include an educational management consultant. But the point is that under our proposals all the schools would remain within the action zone and the consultant would work directly to the forum rather than manage a hived-off school. In those areas where the governing bodies have not ceded any of their powers, a private educational body could still be hired by the forum to act on its behalf either across the zone or in one particular school. Of course, where the governing body retained its powers the consultant's powers would be more limited than in the first example. Nevertheless, they could be brought in to improve the management and the leadership of the particular schools and schools in general.
The ability of the forum itself to bring in expertise is a better solution already available within the rules we are proposing than the idea of leasing out, hiving off or pushing away from the forum's general approach to a separate organisation as suggested in the amendment. There is already substantial flexibility in the rules and
1596
I do not believe that we need to go that one step further. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: I appreciate that reply which is sympathetic to the purposes I put forward. Has the Minister considered at all seriously what has been achieved by charter schools in the United States? Has he looked at what has happened in Springfield, Massachusetts, and East Harlem where spectacular results have been achieved by exactly the method I have been talking about? That success has been achieved precisely because they have been able to bring in fresh energy and commitment by groups of people to a single school. That is worlds away from the language that the Minister used about bringing in management consultants and that kind of thing.
As explained to me, not in this House, but outside, one of the main philosophies of the education action zones seems to be to rationalise services across the area. That is why a company like Capita is involved in so many of the bids. I am sorry; I am revealing something. I know that to be the case. It is a management consultant body and believes that one should rationalise services across the forum such as financial, administration and management services. It has a good case.
However, that is not what I am talking about. It worries me that in his reply the Minister should talk about consultancy and management skills. I am talking about the energy, enthusiasm and zeal of groups of educationalists who believe they can turn a school round. I want them to be given a chance. If one says that that will be possible within the forum structure I would be very happy. But the Minister needs to say more than he has said to persuade me that that would be possible.
Lord Whitty: There is quite a degree of flexibility built into the action zones in bringing in anyone—educationalists, management consultants or whoever—who can offer expertise. To some extent the noble Lord is addressing a slightly separate and different problem. We are debating here action zones directed at changing the educational attainment of whole areas and co-operation between schools. I believe that what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind is the question of failing schools where clearly innovative measures would be contemplated. Indeed, any measures which offer improvement for failing schools identified by the department and the local education authority would be contemplated on a one off school-by-school basis. That seems to me a slightly different issue than how we conduct the education action forum and zones.
Certainly, we are deeply concerned about failing schools and the need to turn them round. We would welcome expertise and innovative ideas in those areas. We are dealing here with the management of the whole of the education action zone. That concept requires co-operation and, to some degree, co-ordination, but not necessarily uniform co-ordination, across the schools rather than having established an education action zone and then removing one school from that approach. The whole question of failing schools was addressed earlier

1597
in the debate. I take some of the noble Lord's points about the issues and expertise which exist in America. That is relevant in that area. As I say, I do not believe that it is relevant here or appropriate.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Skidelsky: I shall make just this one further intervention and then I shall shut up in order to allow the debate to go forward. If it were true that all the schools in an education action zone were of the same kind and were roughly of the same standard, there could be uniform treatment. If 10 people were suffering from the same disease or were in the same mediocre health, you would give them one medicine and they would all improve. The Minister talked about education action zones as though they contained schools of a similar type. That is not true. Within any education action zone some schools will be failing. The whole object of education action zones is to target some of the worst schools—and some of the worst schools in the country will be in the education action zones.
My proposal was to use the machinery which the Government have created in order to enable those schools to be dealt with. I was not trying to use machinery that is not in the Bill. The machinery is there; it is set up. Charter schools have been successful. I emphasise that failing schools will not be chucked out of an education action zone; they will remain in the zone and will be accountable to the forum for their performance, but they will not be under the same degree of management and control precisely to allow some new flowers to bloom.
I cannot believe that the Government do not intend that to happen. However, I do not think that the machinery is sufficiently flexible at the moment for it to happen, and I am suggesting a way in which it may be made so. If the Government felt that there was a different way of achieving this, for heaven's sake I wish that they would say so. At the moment, a bit of stonewalling seems to be going on, with the Minister saying, "I share the objectives, but they can be met within the existing framework". I am not sure that that is true.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps the Minister would like to take the opportunity to enlarge a little on what exactly the regulations under subsection (3) of Clause 12, but possibly also under subsections (4) and (5), will look like. Will they be regulations which will allow a great deal of flexibility? Will they allow an education action forum which wishes to experiment with one of its schools to say, "What happens if we let this group of teachers take on the school in their own way and see where it goes? Why do we not try that in this school, see whether it works and take that experience around the rest of the zone?". Will that be allowed, or will the regulations state that all that is allowed is to pursue initiatives across a range of schools, and that those initiatives will have to be fairly universal and similar within the zone?
If the regulations are to allow a lot of scope for a forum to decide that it will pursue individual experiments—or trials—of particular ideas, ways of
1598
managing schools and degrees of freedom and innovation within an individual school to see whether they work (with the support of the rest of the zone, but with the rest of the zone looking on and learning) perhaps we can do something to make possible my noble friend's ideas within the perhaps regrettable limits of this initiative, but at least allowing it to happen, if that is what is wanted.
I am concerned by all the fog and uncertainty surrounding the regulations. Having heard the Minister, I was uncertain about whether the regulations would be drawn in such a way as to allow that to happen or whether they would be so restrictive in terms of how a zone may operate that no initiative of the sort proposed by my noble friend would ever be possible.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure why noble Lords give the impression that I have suggested that education action zones should treat all their schools in a uniform way. Clearly, there will be a mix of schools, attainment, performance, demography and history. All of those schools will be treated differently. As to the regulations, they will provide a very high degree of flexibility. Neither I nor the regulations advocate—and the Bill does not imply—a uniform approach. The bulk of the regulations will be procedural rather than substantive and a good deal of discretion will be left to the education action zone. A substantial amount of innovation about how the schools are run will be available to the forum in the individual zones. Nevertheless, the zone consists of a number of schools which support, challenge and learn from one another. The forum will be responsible for the education attainment within the zone as a whole and therefore it must be approached as a whole. That does not imply uniformity or exclude the input of energy, initiative, ideas, new management and educational techniques for which the noble Lord is looking. Indeed, quite the opposite. We hope that the education action zones will deliver those differentially according to the needs of the schools in their areas.
What we do not want to see, and fear slightly given the noble Lord's amendment, is one school completely outside that mutually supportive system dealing with an entirely different management structure. Nevertheless, I believe that most of the objectives of bringing in expertise and so forth can be achieved within the structure that we propose.
Baroness Blotch: In the light of the answer just given by the noble Lord, and as I understand my noble friend's amendment, it is only if the action forum, having looked across the diverse range of schools, decides that a particular school has specific needs that it goes to a third body to which it will give its authority. It will stay within the family of the zone but will buy in expertise, turn that school around and give it different measures from those required by all the other schools because the forum has defined it as a specific issue. It is the forum which gives birth to the proposition and retains control, because that body will be accountable to the forum for as long as it exists. If that is so, what is there to fear? It is not outside the control of the forum because the

1599
forum has the final responsibility to ensure that education is improved in that area. That will be the contract between the forum and the body given the specific job of turning the education around in one of its schools.
Lord Whitty: Certainly, there is no barrier to the forum bringing in particular expertise and managing the school in that way, subject to its overall control. It may be that the terminology adopted in the noble Lord's amendment gives us greater cause for concern than it should. However, "lease out" means that for a period one can lease out a school to a separate educational institution. Although it will remain accountable in that it must fulfil its contract, it will be separate from the overall structure of the education action zone. Perhaps there is some terminology that is half-way between us, but the concept of leasing out gives the impression of not simply an arm's length relationship of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred but one in which the school is treated completely outside the education action zone when we want to see a mutually supportive system between all the schools in the zone.
Lord Skidelsky: If there is some terminology that is half-way between us, why do the Government believe that it is not appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill?
Lord Whitty: It may be that that is something which will be covered by the regulations and I shall think about that proposition. However, I am not sure that we want to start hares running by suggesting a new approach which would mean that an individual school could be treated separately from the whole action zone.
Lord Skidelsky: I welcome the assurance that the Minister will reflect on the matter and possibly go half way somewhere in the Bill to meet the arguments which my noble friends and I have been putting forward. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disapplication of pay and conditions order in relation to teachers at participating schools]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 11, line 26, leave out ("For") and insert ("After").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 and 158. If I understand the Bill correctly, if Clause 13 is passed in its present form there will be a substantial invalidation of part of the 1991 Act which deals with disapplication of pay and conditions in existing participating grant-maintained schools.
As the Minister will see from my amendments, I wish to ensure that grant-maintained schools do not disappear in the course of the new proposals. But whether or not they do and whether or not we succeed in convincing the Government, we believe that those provisions should be transferred to the newly formed foundation schools.
1600
One argument used in the past by the Minister and no doubt destined to be used again is that although there has been this provision for grant-maintained schools, not many of the schools have made use of it. If only one finds an advantage doing it, first, there is no fear on the part of the Government that it will be operated wholesale; and secondly, the fact that it benefits one or two schools seems to me an argument for at least allowing the flexibility for that provision to remain in place.
My case is that that part of the 1991 Act should not be repealed. Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 158 seek to preserve what has existed in the past and what we believe will still be a useful facility for schools, particularly as we now have this widespread facility for action zone schools. It may be that if the provision works for action zone schools, it will become more popular over time. But whether or not it becomes more popular and whether it is taken up by one or 101 schools is not relevant to the case I am putting. I am simply saying that the facility has been beneficial, has done no harm, and does not get in the way of good education. Perhaps the Minister has interpreted the disapplication measures as meaning, in practice, better pay and conditions for teachers rather than a worsening of the provisions. I await her response.
The case is a good one. It would be unfortunate if that part of the 1991 Act were to disappear. Therefore, I wish to ensure that those provisions are retained in addition to the Clause 13 provisions. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: It is important that education action zones are able to apply to opt out of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act, even though there is considerable flexibility within the legislation. However, these amendments are about allowing other types of school to opt out. Grant-maintained schools are already able to do so, but, as the noble Baroness admitted, only two schools have in fact taken up the opportunity. She is absolutely right to anticipate that, in these circumstances, the Government do not think it right to continue with the arrangements.
The Government do not want to extend those freedoms to large numbers of individual schools at present. It would be more appropriate for schools working collectively in education action zones and with additional resources to have that added scope. I make the point again that EAZs are for experimentation of this kind; they are a test bed. They may well point the way to the future, as the noble Baroness suggested. For all I know, there may well come a time when large numbers of schools will benefit from greater flexibility in teachers' pay and conditions. However, these are pilots. I really do believe that it would not be right to allow any grant-maintained schools to do so; that is, if they were to survive. I know that the noble Baroness has tabled further amendments in that respect. The intention is that they should become foundation schools. It would not be right at this stage for any foundation or voluntary school to be able to opt out. We must wait and see how a properly monitored and evaluated experiment operates

1601
before we move down that particular path. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: That was a deeply disappointing answer. This is not an experiment, nor are we asking for schools to opt out. We are saying that schools should have available to them the facility for disapplying the pay and conditions of service for teachers. There is no question of schools opting out and no question of experimentation. Indeed, this has been tried and tested over many years since grant-maintained schools were established. Therefore, we know the consequences of disapplying, albeit in two schools. Nevertheless, we have seen it work in practice and observed that it actually means a better deal for teachers when it happens.
I took note of what the Minister said. She said specifically that the Government do not want to extend this to a large number of schools at the moment. But that is precisely what the Government are doing: they are extending it to cover over 300 schools. If there are to be 12 zones with a possible number of 20 participating schools in each zone, that is nearly 300 schools, with another 325 schools in a matter of six months' time. So the contention that the Government do not wish to extend this to a large number of schools at present is simply not true.
There is a proposition built into the Bill that this facility will be afforded to hundreds of schools. So, first, it is not an experiment because it has been tried and tested. Secondly, it has not been a great threat to teachers. In fact, those teachers who have enjoyed the benefits of it have received more generous pay and conditions as a result of the move. I simply cannot understand the arguments put forward by the Minister. I am clearly not making much headway with the amendment, but I shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 67
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("by them") and insert ("at the school").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. These are technical amendments, which are necessary to ensure the effective working of Clause 13. The clause is most important because it will allow governing bodies to apply for permission to opt out of the teachers' pay and conditions document in order to find new ways of working with and rewarding staff. It will also help governing bodies to improve the recruitment and retention of staff, and to make effective and flexible use of the school's human resources.
The amendments will give governing bodies which use the clause the power to offer alternative contracts. Amendment No. 69 clarifies that existing contracts will continue to have force until any new contracts are put in place. It ensures that, where the LEA is the employer, it must implement the decisions of the governing body.
1602
That is, of course, already the case where the pay and conditions document is in place and the school is operating a delegated budget. This is an important clause. In order to ensure that it works effectively for all types of school, I ask Members of the Committee to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to discuss Amendment No. 70 which in many ways is closely connected with the amendments just spoken to by the Minister. We are concerned that councillors, governors and teachers are fully consulted when new arrangements apply within an education action zone to suspend the present teachers' pay and conditions. As the noble Baroness has said, under Chapter III of the Bill education action zones are established and there are powers to disapply the teachers' pay legislation. Many people are concerned about that. As the Minister said earlier, no one is particularly anticipating that teachers will receive lower pay, but the consequences of this measure may be serious for local authorities, particularly as regards teachers' pension rights.
I appreciate that the Minister will give us further information on this matter after today; namely, how the provision will affect local authorities. Important matters are involved in the provision. The Minister recognises that there must be some consultation. However, matters remain to be ironed out, for example the responsibilities of local authorities in this area, particularly any extra financial responsibilities they may incur. I hope that at a future date the Minister will give us further information on this important matter.
The Minister referred to the recruitment of teachers. That is a matter of concern. I do not think I am as optimistic as the Minister. Schools already have considerable difficulty recruiting teachers. I have received quite a long letter from the headmaster of a school in Southampton that my children used to attend which mentions his concerns about this Bill. He states that the school is experiencing considerable problems at present recruiting teachers even where additional salary points have been awarded. He wrote that the school had sometimes advertised twice for staff but had received only three applicants for a post. I can confirm that it is a reasonable school. In the foreign languages department of that school only four candidates applied for a fairly attractive job. As I said, I am not as optimistic as the Minister on this point. I believe there will be problems in recruiting teachers.
We should all be concerned about what may happen to schools adjacent to education action zones if teachers are attracted to schools within those zones. People must be consulted properly on this important issue. As I said, we must consider the knock-on effects on schools adjacent to action zones as well as the effects on teachers within action zones. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. As I said, I realise she may not be able to say too much tonight as she will write to us on some of these matters in the future.
Baroness Blackstone: We are strongly in favour of consultation, and indeed applications to opt out will not be considered without evidence that this has taken place.

1603
I hope that is helpful to the noble Baroness. We maintain that the requirement to consult is best placed on those putting forward the proposals, not on the Secretary of State. It makes no sense at all for the proponents to put forward a proposal without discussion with teachers. That is why the requirement is built into the Bill.
In terms of the consultation we would expect to see from the governing body when it applies for this opt-out, the Minister for School Standards has made it clear that he expects consultation with teachers, teacher representatives and LEA representatives if the LEA is the employer. There may be other groups which are particularly relevant in some local contexts, such as diocesan bodies, parent groups or governor associations. However, there is no reason why this needs to be on the face of the Bill. Assurances have been given that we will expect consultation of all those affected, and that the Secretary of State will take account of this consultation in reaching a reasonable decision. But this will vary depending on the type of school which is putting forward the proposals and the nature of what is proposed.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Maddock: We have only one amendment in the group; the others belong to the Minister. Our amendment has not even been moved. But in replying to the Minister's response to our amendment, let us get it right. It is ten past one in the morning. I hear what the Minister says. In view of the discussions we have had tonight, we shall all need to look carefully at what was said and at further information we receive from the Minister on some of these issues. When we reach the Report stage we may wish to tidy it up a little more. But we shall have to look carefully at what has been said. There has been a great deal of discussion about this matter tonight. I know that we shall be getting further information so I shall not press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 68:
Page11, line 46, leave out ("by them") and insert ("at the school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 10, at end insert—
("() Where by virtue of an order under subsection (4) above a pay and conditions order ceases to apply in relation to any school, the statutory conditions of employment of the school teachers employed at the school shall be—

(a) such as may be determined by the governing body, or

(b) so far as the governing body have not made any determination with respect to any such conditions of employment, those having effect under the order immediately before it ceased to apply;

and (so far as necessary) the local education authority shall give effect to any such determination of the governing body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Cases where LEA may exercise powers of intervention]:
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 13, line 11, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72. I can be brief. These are minor drafting amendments to make explicit the need for the LEA to put in writing the warning notice and the intention to use the powers available. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 13, line 32, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of LEA to appoint additional governors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 73, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 74, 75 and 76. Amendments Nos. 77 and 77A are in the same group, but before responding it might be better if I wait until the right reverend Prelate has spoken to Amendment No. 77.
Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75 and 76 put right an omission in the Bill. They are concerned with the period immediately following failure when a school and its LEA have to send plans to the Secretary of State for improving the school: these are the school's action plan and the LEA's statement in response.
The effect of our amendments would be to bring into line the point at which the appropriate appointing authority for voluntary-aided schools can use its powers to appoint governing bodies with that already in the Bill for LEAs to exercise their powers. In both cases, this will be 10 days after the Secretary of State has received both the action plan from the school and the statement from the LEA. That was unfortunately omitted from earlier stages of the Bill, but it replicates existing arrangements in the School Inspections Act 1996.
Amendment No. 75 provides for the same 10 days waiting period before, in the case of voluntary aided schools, the appropriate appointing authority uses its powers to appoint additional governors. The other amendments are matters of drafting following on from that. I shall gladly respond to the right reverend Prelate when he moves his amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 77 which stands in my name and also Amendment No. 77A which amends my amendment.
Amendment No. 77 refers to the provision which enables the Secretary of State to appoint additional governors to a failing school. This measure replaces the

1605
existing provision for the Secretary of State to appoint an educational association. Under the existing provision, the authorities referred to in my amendment have to be consulted before the Secretary of State takes that decision. There is therefore a prima facie case for the same arrangements to be in place.
The argument for doing so is not that these authorities should sway the Secretary of State in a decision to appoint additional governors, but to allow the Secretary of State access to local knowledge in deciding whom to appoint. The appropriate authorities may feel that they know the person they think would be right to sort the matter out. But they may have no power to appoint such a person. Amendment No. 77 requires the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate diocesan authority so that with local knowledge of the situation that authority can advise the Secretary of State.
The Minister may say that with good practice this would happen. However, under this provision the foundation majority on the governing body of an aided school would be lost. It seems only proper that consultation should be a right, as is the case at present. The Secretary of State does not have to listen when he consults; he will be free to take whatever action he chooses. But the provision allows him access to local knowledge. It is in everyone's interest to deal with a failing school. A partnership is more likely to achieve a successful result.
On Amendment No. 77A, I entirely welcome the intention of the amendment. I believe that the point is already met by paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 77: that the person or body that appoints the foundation governors would be the appropriate authority in the case of all other religious schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that explanation. I am not certain that that position is true in every case. The governors of each of the schools may be the appropriate body, but there may be the equivalent of a diocesan authority for Jewish or Moslem schools. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is not with us, but he has a number of amendments down to protect the interests of Methodist schools. There will be others too.
I do not wish in any way to take issue with the right reverend Prelate. However, when the Minister responds, I wish to be absolutely assured that paragraph (b) totally subsumes my Amendment No. 77A and that no single denomination other than the Anglican and Catholics will be left unprotected by these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Baroness for explaining their amendments, and I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate for this opportunity to record the valuable role played by the Churches in supporting their weak and failing schools. They strengthen the local partnerships needed to raise standards.
The power to appoint additional governors is an important element in the range of measures needed to provide support for schools in difficulty: failing schools
1606
need outside help. In a voluntary school, both the diocese and the LEA can bring in support and expertise by appointing additional governors to the governing body. Where this, and the support of the LEA more generally, is clearly not working the Secretary of State needs the flexibility to move quickly and decisively to bring in extra help.
Before deciding that appointing additional governors is the right course of action, there will already have been discussions with and about the school. Having decided that additional governors would help to improve the school, we shall need to find out about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing governors, to make sure that we appoint the people who can make the necessary contribution. It is inconceivable that we could do all of this without talking to the LEA and the diocese. This will have to be a temporary solution, because the Secretary of State will appoint his governors for a fixed term. What this will be will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
This is not a permanent takeover of the governing body. To be brutal, the school will either be improved or it will face closure. The comparison is made with the power to set up an education association. I suggest that a closer match to this power lies in Clause 19 of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the closure of a school. Before issuing a direction to the LEA, the Secretary of State has a duty to consult the appropriate diocesan authority, among others. If the Government were to accept the case made for this amendment, consistency would seem to dictate that we would need to have a parallel provision for LEAs to be consulted. The need to consult would have to be extended to all categories of school and not just voluntary-aided schools.
I think this could complicate what ought to be an informative dialogue to find solutions which, up to that point, all parties have failed to find. I am not convinced that a duty to consult placed on the face of the Bill will increase the pace of the improvement of standards in badly performing schools, which is at the heart of this clause. So I am afraid I must ask the right reverend Prelate not to press his amendment.
So far as Amendment No. 77A is concerned, of course I accept that schools of a religious character, other than those listed in Amendment No. 77, provide a valuable contribution. I will certainly ensure, in accordance with the assurance I have already given to the right reverend Prelate, that in appointing additional governors for any such schools, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Methodist or whatever, we shall be in dialogue with the appropriate authority for the school.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance about consultations that will take place. However, I have to say that I am disappointed that he is not willing to see this on the face of the Bill, and I do not immediately accept his argument that there would necessarily have to be parallels in other cases. I do not intend to press the amendment, but reserve the right to return to this issue at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 74 to 76:
Page 15. line 22, after ("may") insert ("(subject to subsection (9A))").
Page 15, line 23, at end insert—
("(9A) The power conferred by subsection (9) is only exercisable if the following conditions are satisfied, namely—

(a) the relevant document has been sent to the Secretary of State;

(b) the appropriate appointing authority have received a notice in writing from the Secretary of State informing them he has received that document; and

(c) a period of not less than ten days has elapsed since the date of the notice.").

Page 15, line 45, at end insert
("(13) In this section "the relevant document" means a copy of a statement prepared—

(a) under section 18 of the School Inspections Act 1996, or

(b) under section 17 of that Act, if the school does not have a delegated budget within the meaning of Part II of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg to move these three amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Power of Secretary of State to appoint additional governors]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 77A:
Line 6, after ("authority") insert ("and in the case of all other religious schools, the appropriate authority").
The noble Baroness said: I share the right reverend Prelate's disappointment with the answer that he received. The confidence of the denominational sector would be much increased if this provision appeared on the face of the Bill. If the right reverend Prelate returns to this matter at another stage, I may well seek the same assurances as I have sought this evening.
[Amendment No. 77A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [New categories of maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 18, line 9, at end insert—
("() grant-maintained schools;").
The noble Baroness said: Late as the hour is, this amendment is extremely important to me and to my colleagues. I ought to deal first with Amendment No. 81, which is coupled with this one, since in a sense that is the way I wish to approach this amendment.
School by school, across the country, sometimes against the most incredible physical, as well as mental, opposition to becoming grant-maintained, grant-maintained schools were established and were democratically voted for by bodies of parents. Parents painstakingly went through all the processes that it took. Under this Bill, at the stroke of a pen, or so it seems, they
1608
lose their status and their autonomy. There is absolutely no case whatsoever in a modern democracy where the views of parents has been cast aside in such a cavalier way The least that can be offered to these schools is that, should they wish to become foundation schools, controlled schools or voluntary aided schools, it should be a matter for the parents to make that determination. It may well be that overnight the schools will all want to become foundation schools. It may well be—though I suspect that it is not entirely true—with all the measures in place for foundation schools, which are meant to be the successors of grant-maintained schools, although I see a number of significant differences, that all the 1,000 to 1,200 grant-maintained schools will wish to become foundation, or community, or voluntary schools. If that is the case, and the parents support the decision, so be it.
In these two amendments, and in Amendment No. 81 in particular, I ask only this. The parents, of their own volition and against considerable opposition on occasions, having opted for the schools to become grant-maintained, it is only right and democratic that there should be afforded them the opportunity to give up that autonomy and return to local authority control.
The noble Baroness has read a letter a number of times which was written by the Grant-maintained Schools Triumvirate Association. That organisation and many individual grant-maintained schools have viewed realistically the Government's majority. They know that whatever we do in this place, however well we argue our case and whatever the strength of the intellectual underpinning of any argument advanced, another place will reverse the amendment. They do not agree with that; they do not like it. But it is a fact of political life and they have accepted it. They have therefore fought for the best deal possible. It is very much second-best. For many of them, it is decidedly second-best. What they would really like is for the schools to be left as they are, as grant-maintained schools—which surely must be open to them if that is what parents voted for. There is nothing in this Bill which gives parents a pre-eminent role—not in the creation of action zones or any other measure.
In the formation of grant-maintained schools they were given a pre-eminent role. The parents themselves elected that the schools should become grant-maintained. I am simply asking that they should be afforded that privilege, to exercise their own preferences, and for the schools either to remain as grant-maintained or to become foundation, community or voluntary aided schools.
Amendment No. 78 makes it technically possible. It retains the category of grant-maintained school which may or may not disappear over time, depending on how parents exercise their choice. No doubt the noble Baroness will find some argument that, however undemocratic it is, for the purposes of deciding what kind of school it shall be the views and preferences of parents do not count. That will be a great pity. It was a unique opportunity for those parents to vote for the schools to become grant-maintained. I believe they should be afforded an equal opportunity to determine their fate in the future. It may well be that they will want to go down

1609
the road that the Government wish, which is that they should become foundation, community and/or voluntary aided schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I wish to support my noble friend Lady Blatch. It seems to me ironic that we have just spent the early part of this evening debating the education action zones which give freedom and independence to achieve excellence in schools. Now we will debate reducing that opportunity for grant-maintained schools. I know the time is late, but it seems ironic.
I also support my noble friend Lady Blatch in her request that if this is to come about, whatever we say on these Benches and whatever happens in the other House, at least the parents should be able to have a vote on the outcome. All in this Committee would acknowledge the good academic record of grant-maintained schools. It has not happened overnight; it has been worked at steadily. It seems to me a great pity that we will dismiss the very success that the schools have built up over recent years. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I begin by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I shall not read out the same letter again. I read it out at Second Reading and I do not wish to repeat myself. The noble Baroness made much of the success of grant-maintained schools, and of course the Government agree that there are some aspects of the grant-maintained initiatives that were positive. For example, it demonstrated that schools are capable of managing their own affairs. It showed that schools welcomed greater responsibility in controlling their budget. That is why the new schools framework will retain the best aspects of the grant-maintained initiative. As school self-management and greater budget delegation are key principles in the new framework, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, so is a much more sharply defined role for LEAs.
Intervention in schools will be kept to an essential minimum, with a code of practice on relations between LEAs and schools. There will be no return to the kind of unnecessary intervention by LEAs in controlling schools, as sometimes happened in the past.
However, there were also major flaws with the grant-maintained initiative. The GM/LEA divide was not a sensible basis for a school system. Opting out divided school from school and schools from LEAs. I think it led to a rather unhealthy preoccupation with structures and status which distracted schools and LEAs from their central task of raising standards.
The new framework will promote partnership and stability. We believe that it is based on principles of fair funding, fair admission, partnership and equal treatment. There will not be preferential treatment for a few schools at the expense of the many. That was one of the problems that marked the GM schools: they were getting preferential treatment in certain ways, which was unfortunate.
Every school under this framework will receive fair funding through new local management of schools' arrangements. Every admission authority, whether the school or the LEA, will have to follow the code of practice
1610
on admissions. All schools will work together in a local partnership to raise standards. But each category of school in the new framework will be distinctive. The foundation and voluntary aided schools will have many of the characteristics that grant-maintained schools value most. Foundation and voluntary aided schools will own their premises, employ their own staff and take primary responsibility for their own admissions arrangements. Again, I say specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who was implying if not actually suggesting that grant-maintained schools that become foundation schools will lose all those aspects of their independence, that they will not.
The noble Baroness has criticised the Bill for being focused on structure and not on standards. It is therefore surprising to hear that she believes that grant-maintained status in itself raised standards. Of course it is true that on average grant-maintained schools have achieved better test and examination results than LEA-maintained schools. But there is no evidence that that has anything to do with their legal status. Grant-maintained schools have tended to serve more advantaged areas than LEA schools. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' most recent annual report confirms that when similar schools are compared, quality of teaching and progress made by pupils in the grant-maintained and LEA sectors are very similar.
That is not to deny the success of some grant-maintained schools. The Government praise all successful schools, whether they are grant or LEA maintained. We want our standards agenda to help all schools, including former grant-maintained schools, to go on performing well and, where possible, where they are not performing so well, to raise their performance.
Grant-maintained schools have nothing to fear from the new framework. Our manifesto promised that they would prosper, and we will deliver that promise. We have been working closely with the organisations representing grant-maintained schools. In their own words, they are looking forward to the new framework and not backwards to old divisions. That is a reassuring response from them.
In contrast, the amendments of the noble Baroness seek to allow repeated ballots about whether or not a school should remain grant maintained. They also attempt to enable other schools to change category to become grant maintained. That would perpetuate the very divisions which the new framework is designed to heal. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before I respond more fully, will the noble Baroness give me specific examples of the preferential treatment that GM schools received and therefore what they will lose as a result of the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: Over a number of years, grant-maintained schools—I use this word with some hesitation but I believe it is the case—were bribed. Many schools were bribed to become grant-maintained schools by being offered generous capital provisions. They were far more generous than those for local education authority schools. We will have a fair system for the treatment of schools.
Baroness Blatch: Apropos that answer, perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness if it is right that earlier today the

1611
noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, boasted of a £1.2 billion capital allocation which he said was extremely generous—more generous than the previous government had made available to grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Blackstone: I completely reject any suggestion that he boasted. He was giving factual information about a decision the Government have made. The Government will apply capital in a fair way to all schools with improvement needs whether in respect of science labs, repairs to leaking roofs or any other aspect where they are not up to scratch as a result of neglect by the previous government.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I make the point only because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he treated grant-maintained schools in terms of capital allocation more generously than the previous government. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot accuse us of having treated GM schools more generously and then boast, as they did earlier today, that they are treated more generously by the new Government than by the previous government.
This policy was so successful that the Prime Minister—not simply because he sent his children to a grant-maintained school—was attracted to it. Hence an aversion to perpetuate something invented by the previous government and therefore labelled a Tory policy. But in fact an attempt was made to reinvent it.
I happen to believe that there is a real tension between the Department for Education and Employment and Number 10 about the understanding of just how similar the foundation school provisions are to those for grant-maintained schools. I know, for example, that the Prime Minister is under an illusion that somehow or other what the Oratory enjoys as a grant-maintained school will be enjoyed by foundation schools. I can say to the noble Baroness that that is not the case if one reads the Bill and if one reads the distinction between grant-maintained schools and foundation schools.
The Oratory school, as a grant-maintained school, will not be as free to run its own affairs as it would as a foundation school under the provisions of the Bill. Hammersmith and Fulham, which has no role whatever in the Oratory school at this time, will indeed have an involvement under the new arrangements. So I am saying that this policy was very attractive to the Prime Minister; so much so that he actually sent his children to such a school. The same applies to Ms. Harriet Harman. She sent her children to a grant-maintained school because that school was attractive to her. And I say strength to the elbows of parents who look around for what they consider to be the best school available.
Perhaps I may also say to the noble Baroness that it is not just this Government who praise all successful schools, whatever their character—whether they are denominational schools, LEA schools, grant-maintained schools, special schools, or whatever. Wherever good education resides and wherever schools are well run, we
1612
equally would wish to recognise that. But we did see very real distinctions and we did see very real benefits with them becoming grant-maintained schools.
However, my amendment is not about that. It is a matter of record that grant-maintained schools have worked. It has been a very successful policy. It has moved forward the way in which LEAs manage their own schools. The amendment says that these parents chose the status "grant-maintained" and some of them went through great difficulties to become grant-maintained schools. We are simply asking the Government to afford them the same privilege to stay as they are. If the foundation schools are so attractive in the way that the noble Baroness has spelt out, and if they are to enjoy almost the same facilities as they do now as grant-maintained schools, there is really nothing to fear. The chances are that they will all accept that option and become grant-maintained schools. But it was a democratic right that they had to become grant-maintained schools in the first place and therefore that democratic right should be afforded to them in the future.
The noble Baroness invoked the code of practice as one way of saying that grant-maintained schools should not fear this new government policy, as the exhortation in the code of practice, which I have read from cover to cover, is that intervention should be in inverse proportions to needs. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that that is all it is. The code of practice is mere exhortation. It says to the local authorities that they must have regard to the code of practice. There is no penalty for not doing so. There is nothing in the Bill to explain what would happen if a local authority were more heavy handed then it ought to be. There are so many clauses in the Bill which give local authorities a rationale for intervening in a school.
For example, if the local education authority has a responsibility to monitor, and if the LEA has a responsibility to be concerned about good education in the local authority area, it does not wait on the outside until the school has failed. If it is doing its job properly, it will argue—and I think with some force—that it ought to be on the inside of those schools where it thinks the problems are beginning to happen in order to intervene early.
In the discussions on a previous amendment we were talking about the virtue of early intervention to deal with disruptive behaviour. The earlier one intervenes, the more likely one is to remedy the problem. The same will apply for local authorities. They will have a legitimacy in making sure that those schools perform well. Some local authorities which gave the schools a particularly hard time when they became grant-maintained will have a very real opportunity for some score settling. Far from the tension being resolved, as the noble Baroness said, I can say that in some cases tension will increase. I know of a number of grant-maintained schools which are very worried about returning to local education authorities which were very threatening at the time they became grant-maintained.
I do not believe that the foundation schools necessarily offer the same facilities and opportunities as grant-maintained schools. But that is not my central point. It is that under the Bill there will be a range of schools. I am simply saying let that range of schools include the existing grant-maintained schools, but give the parents the opportunity to exercise their own choice.

1613
My final point is in the form of a question to the noble Baroness. She emphasised the point that these schools, particularly foundation schools, will be their own admissions authority. I believe that was in response to my noble friend Lady Byford. Will the schools be subject to the admissions code of practice or exempt from it? If they are their own admissions authority and are exempt from the admissions code of practice, then the answer is that they will have control. If they are subject to it, as I believe they are because there is nothing in the Bill that says they are not, the fact that they are their own admissions authority will not be worth the paper it is written on because it will be possible for the organisational committees and the all-powerful adjudicator to have the last say. Therefore, it will invalidate their freedom to have control over their admissions.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I can answer straightaway the last part of the question asked by the noble Baroness. They will be subject to the admissions code of practice. The Government consider that is the right thing to do in order to secure a fair deal between different categories of schools.
Perhaps I may put her mind at rest. There is absolutely no tension, conflict or disagreement between the Department for Education and Employment and No. 10 on this matter. That is pure fantasy and I do not know where the noble Baroness got it from. Grant-maintained schools will really have nothing to fear from these changes. I can only repeat what I have said, but I do not want to at this time of night.
I also dispute what the noble Baroness said about score settling by local education authorities. That is very unfair to LEAs. I do not believe that any LEA would want to indulge in such behaviour. I am sure that they will not. The Secretary of State would take a very dim view were it to happen.
Many of these schools will be foundation schools rather than community schools. Grant-maintained schools will have a choice of category in the new framework. Parents of such schools will be able to secure a ballot on the schools' future category by presenting a petition. The rules of the ballots will be very similar to the ballots for the grant-maintained schools. Those schools will not have the choice of remaining grant maintained. As I have already explained, that would simply perpetrate the divisions within the school system which the new framework is designed to heal. In the light of that answer, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may intervene in the dialogue that has been going on. I am sure that it will come as no surprise that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches strongly oppose this amendment. That will be self-evident both from what I have said on many occasions and from the amendments which are to follow on the issue of foundation schools.
We are not talking specifically about grant-maintained schools. I accept that most of them provide an excellent standard of education. I do not deny that, but rejoice in it.
1614
To my belief, had they had the same leadership, and even more particularly the same resources within the LEA framework and worked within a proper partnership with it, they would have achieved at least the same success and excellence. One could argue that it would be even more so. It is not a question of being jealous or envious of GM schools or of wanting to destroy them. Of course we do not. We are as much committed to excellence as everyone else. As the Minister said, this is about the framework within which GM schools operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made much of democracy. When schools opt out of LEA control and take GM status, that has an effect also on neighbouring schools, on pupils and on parents who have been unable to send their children to GM schools. They have had no part in this "democracy". They have had no say in whether a GM school would opt out or on the impact of that on their area, their children and their opportunities. That democracy applied only to parents who happened to have children in that school at that time. Because of the nature of such schools, many of the parents of pupils would not have lived within the LEA area. That was certainly the case in my borough. "Democracy" is a much over-used and misunderstood word, and in this case the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is using it in a particular and extremely limited way. It is not the sort of democracy that I recognise.
Similarly, I find it impossible to understand why the Conservative Party when in government (and now in opposition) proclaim GM schools as a great success. I have acknowledged that individual schools are successful, but it is wrong to suggest that the policy was a success. When it was launched, it was expected that vast numbers of schools would leap at the chance of GM status and that before long virtually all schools would have opted out and become GM schools. That is what was proclaimed. I wish that I could remember the figures that were quoted when the policy was launched. It was said that there would be thousands. However, in spite of all the increasingly desperate inducements over the years, only a tiny number of schools opted out. Most did so solely for financial reasons and because of the inducements offered. A number opted out because the LEA was attempting to reduce the number of vacant school places, or because of other particular problems. Nevertheless, only a tiny number (relative to the total) opted out. In recent years, almost no schools have opted out.
I really do not understand how the Conservative Party can claim that GM schools were a great success. To my mind, it was one of the biggest failures of a much proclaimed Conservative government education policy. It did not work. It did not happen. Most schools decided that they were very happy working within an LEA partnership and chose to continue to do so. Quite a number of schools which tested the opinion of parents found that they too shared that view and so the school stayed within the LEA.
I reject the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I reject the concept of GM status, as I always have. As we may discover in a few minutes'

1615
time—personally, I hope that it will be in a week or so—we have considerable differences with the Government in their view on foundation schools.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Tope. I quoted earlier from a letter from the Cantell School in Southampton. The headmaster has written to me at some length about the Bill. He is extremely concerned and makes some important points about the role of LEAs and the effects on other schools of a school being able to opt out of LEA control. Perhaps I may quote from the headmaster's letter. He is writing on behalf of his staff, governors and the community that they serve because this issue has been discussed in the community. He states:
"We want equitable funding for our children; we want to be part of the developing education ethos of the City of Southampton. I would not wish Cantell to be resourced at the expense of neighbouring schools when I believe in the opportunity for all children in all schools".
That is a very important point and one that we have been making for some time in the debate about GM schools. That headmaster gives good examples of how LEAs help schools and how schools work together in Southampton, stating:
"Southampton schools share a significant amount of teacher in-service training especially at Key Stage 4; the structure of post 16 education in the City demands collaboration at Key Stage 4. Southampton Secondary Hcadteachers' Conference is a powerful expression of partnership with the LEA for the improvement of education achievement in the City".
I know that to be so. He goes on:
"I strongly request that there must be strategies to enhance the resourcing of ambitious and successful schools which will reinforce collaborative education".
That has been the theme when this House and another place have discussed this Bill. He goes on:
"My conviction is that disintegration of partnerships within the Local Education Authority will only serve to weaken a structure which could offer answers to other challenging issues".
He refers to inclusion policy and continues:
"My concern is that schools like ours should be able to secure substantial resourcing within the context of local partnerships. I believe"—
this may be relevant to discussions later tonight or at another time—
"that we should not have to follow a shadow 'grant maintained' route which from experience we know puts at risk the welfare and opportunities of other local schools and their communities".
That explains the fears that many Members of the Committee have expressed about what happens if certain schools receive special treatment and funding. It means that somebody else misses out unless one puts into education a lot of extra money.
Baroness Blatch: I am not surprised by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, because they do not believe in foundation schools either.
Baroness Maddock: The contribution came from a headmaster, not me.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Baroness say that she supports foundation schools? I have looked at some of the
1616
amendments on the Marshalled List. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are to table amendments intended to take foundation schools out of the framework.
Baroness Maddock: I made it clear where we stood on foundation and grant-maintained schools. I merely point out that the evidence I gave the Committee this evening came from someone other than a politician; namely, someone who ran a school and who had been on the receiving end of changes he did not like.
Baroness Blatch: The point is still made for me. My understanding is that the Liberal Democrat amendments are intended to take foundation schools out of the framework. Therefore, a letter such as the one just quoted which refers not only to grant-maintained schools as they presently work but the perception of how foundation schools will work under the new framework is not surprising. I repeat that I was not surprised by that contribution.
I must press the noble Baroness. If the noble Baroness offers the one example which clearly in her perception is one of the differentials between grant-maintained schools and the funding of other schools—the initial capital funding—will the noble Baroness confirm whether there are any other distinctions that are unfair in terms of funding? I do not mean "unfair" because more of the central moneys go to grant-maintained schools simply because they take on those central responsibilities. Is the noble Baroness saying that there is any other feature of the funding of grant-maintained schools which creates disproportionate unfairness for other schools? If so, the corollary is that under the new framework grant-maintained schools will lose some funding. It would be helpful to have that quantified in some way by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, condemned the idea that grant-maintained schools were a success. I will have to leave him with that view. I believe that they were a success. As to their number, I do not want to get into the arithmetic and discuss whether there were 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000. Those who made the transition to grant-maintained status did so entirely of their own volition. The school in Southampton made it clear that it would not wish to go down that road. That must be a matter for the school. I believe in choice. That school made its choice and I support that.
But the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did not have the experience that I had in the department when these ballots were taking place. On one occasion I invited to my office a group of head teachers who had undertaken the balloting process and lost. They came to talk about that experience. I can honestly say that I have never been more moved than when listening to the horror stories of how it was that they lost the ballot. Colleagues in the LEA and even colleagues in other schools made threatening phone calls in the middle of the night and were carrying out the most awful,

1617
and sometimes physical, threats on key members of the schools and sometimes even on the head teachers themselves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Did they go to the police?
Baroness Blatch: They tried very hard indeed to identify where the threats were coming from. They were frequently anonymous. They were frequently not able to identify the people involved. In some cases they tried to go to the police and certainly in Birmingham I know that a case was pursued but it never came to anything because it was always difficult to pin down the people involved.
On one occasion, I asked the head teachers what they would have done to make things different. One reply that I received was that in another situation the school would never remain neutral. "We believed it was the best way forward for our school but we played fair by the parents. Parents contacted us, as head teachers and members of staff who supported the proposals. They asked us for our views". But in order to play fair, the head teachers said, "I must not influence you in this decision. It is something about which you must make up your own mind".
Parents are often greatly influenced by head teachers. Head teachers did not wish to influence them unduly and parents became suspicious and did not vote. I am merely saying that considerable distress was caused. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants evidence of those incidents, he could talk to some of the head teachers, chairmen of governors and governors who went through extremely difficult times. Many members of staff in those schools did not like what was happening and made life difficult for them. Many of them changed their minds once grant-maintained status was secured.
Therefore, I am not surprised that some schools saw what was happening and did not want to go down that road because they felt that it was too difficult and controversial a road to follow. Others tried and failed. Very often they failed for what I regard as the wrong reasons.
Lord Tope: I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that I do not, for one moment, condone the sort of behaviour which she is talking about. I accept that, sadly, in a number of cases—although, I suspect, exaggerated—it did happen and condemn that at least as strongly as she does.
I am sure that she will accept that, equally, I could swap horror stories with her—and I do not intend to do so at this time of night—about some of the threats, intimidation and wild exaggerations that were made by some of the more extreme proponents who wished to opt-out. I am afraid that it was the divisive nature of the whole practice that caused some of the more extreme proponents on both sides to behave in ways that none of us would condone.
However, I wish to return to the so-called success of that policy. I am not arguing about whether GM schools, as schools, have been successful. I question whether the policy has been successful. The noble Baroness does not wish to swap numbers with me and I do not wish to become involved in a numbers game either. The noble Baroness could not remember whether it was 1,000,
1618
2,000 or even 3,000. From memory, I believe it is nearer 1,000 than 2,000 schools which have opted out. Even if we accept the suggestion that a number of others have either chosen not to do so or have lost on a ballot because of whatever fears they may have had, there are more then 24,000 schools in this country. The noble Baroness cannot be suggesting to us that more than 10,000 of those have been intimidated into not opting out.
The reality is that out of 24,000 plus schools, just over 1,000 have chosen to opt out. To me, that is not the mark of a successful policy.
Baroness Blatch: I was not ignorant of the numbers. I know the numbers. I was simply saying it was irrelevant whether it was 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000. That is not the argument. I am one of those people who genuinely believes in choice. If a vast majority of the schools do not wish to go down that road, that must be for them. I support that. I support the freedom to choose. That has always been the basis of the policy.
It may only be about 1,200 schools, but about 25 per cent. of those are secondary schools. A very large proportion of secondary schools are in the grant-maintained sector. With my amendment, I am seeking to allow the parents of those schools to exercise their choice.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for saying that he would not condone such practices, but they were very widespread. Indeed, there are officials sitting not too far away from me tonight who know about some of those practices. They were aware of them in the department. If the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to discuss the matter with officials, I have no doubt that they will be told about some of the difficulties, especially as regards the early schools which opted for grant-maintained status.
I can remember the chief education officer in my local authority handing round anti-GM leaflets at public meetings. I did not regard that as fair game when the schools themselves were not allowed to present their own case, particularly when the head teachers very often played it fair and were neutral in these cases. I support the principle and the policy that fairness should be applied in the first instance and that the schools which chose of their own volition to become grant-maintained schools should be afforded the opportunity to exercise the choice of whether to remain grant maintained, to become foundation schools, or, indeed, to become voluntary aided and/or community schools.
However, with the great Lib/Lab alliance which is alive and kicking both in this and another place, it is clear that I shall not make much progress on the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I shall return to the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 18, leave out line 11.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I feel that I should pronounce the end of the Lib/Lab alliance that the noble Baroness seems to have spotted. We have consistently held the view—and, indeed, still retain it—

1619
that there should broadly be two categories of school; namely, what are now to be called community schools, with which we are content, and voluntary schools along with the categories which fall within that sector.
There should not be three categories of schools. I believe that that is a view which is shared widely within the maintained education sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said that she sees many differences between foundation schools and grant-maintained schools, although, perhaps out of deference to the time of night, she did not elaborate on the nature of those significant differences. I am bound to say that they have eluded me. The only significant difference that I can see is that they have a different name. There is very little other difference between the two.
It is the view of my party, and remains so, that schools which are not voluntary aided should come within the framework of a light-touch LEA working in partnership with those schools. I acknowledge that not all LEAs achieve that goal. In my view, all LEAs should achieve that and I hope that the better parts of the Bill will enable them to do so. That briefly restates my party's principled objection to the concept of foundation schools.
I am moving the amendment at this stage because it seemed to be the most appropriate place in the Bill to do so. In the unlikely event of our amendment being accepted, I acknowledge that there would need to be other consequential amendments throughout the Bill. However, I did not feel it appropriate either to trouble the Public Bill Office or, indeed, the Committee in trying to move every conceivable amendment to delete every reference to foundation schools, or anything consequential upon it. I recognised that fact but just wanted to move the amendment, although I had hoped to do so rather earlier in the night and at greater length. Nevertheless, I wanted to put that on the record.
I move on to the other amendment which deals with the new concept of foundation special schools. That is something which, in a way, concerns me even more. We have had a difference of view with the Government about foundation schools ever since they proposed the concept when in opposition. It is a different matter with foundation special schools. In common with everyone else, we believed that the Government did not believe in foundation special schools. That belief was based not only on their statements when in opposition but, more importantly, on statements made since they have come into office. The White Paper Excellence in Schools, issued only last year, proposed that special schools would become community schools, and the Green Paper regarding excellence for all children also proposed community status for special schools.
Therefore we had the belief—as did everyone else and particularly those working in that sector—that that was what the Government were proposing. All those who were in agreement with that had nothing to say because they agreed with the Government's stated view. If I remember correctly, on Second Reading the Minister in
1620
addressing this point said that the Government had changed their mind and had decided to go for foundation special schools because of representations received from grant-maintained special schools. However, that comprises a small number.
That seems to me to be rather strange. It is inevitable that those who have some disagreement with a proposed policy will say so, but to change the policy without giving those who had assumed the Government would stand by it an opportunity to express their views seems to me to be rather less than fair. There are many reasons—they have been stated previously and will be stated again—why it is particularly inappropriate for special schools to have foundation status. One of the most important reasons is the need for LEAs to be able to plan and to target their special needs resources effectively. That is difficult under any circumstances, especially as resource demands seem to be growing enormously, but it is even more difficult when a special school is no longer properly within the LEA framework. It is much more difficult to plan and to target scarce resources so as effectively to meet the broad range of special needs that need to be met today.
While I have no grounds for optimism that our plea on foundation schools will fall on fertile ground, I urge the Minister, and the Government she represents, to adhere to their original view of only a few months ago that they expressed for the reasons they gave in both the White Paper and in the Green Paper, and to reject the concept of foundation special schools. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In the spirit of a Liberal Democrat Party of Wales alliance I rise to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and to speak to Amendment No. 82 standing in my name which is grouped with them. This is concerned with the position of grant-maintained schools in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, claims that they were a roaring success in England. However, a total of 17 schools opted for grant-maintained status in Wales. That is fewer than 1 per cent. That is hardly a success. The majority of the schools that adopted such a status did so because they were faced with closure because of falling rolls or because they were denominational schools seeking particular advantage in capital funding arrangements. Those issues have been covered earlier in this discussion.
The new foundation category—New Labour, new foundation, I am tempted to say—introduced by the Bill is certainly designed to accommodate the substantial number of grant-maintained schools in England. I believe it makes no sense in the context of Wales to have such a category. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that it makes little sense in England either. As regards my amendment to Schedule 2 I argue that this category should not become primary legislation in relation to Wales and to the work of the national assembly, which will be responsible for implementing the Bill when the Government of Wales

1621
Bill passes through all its stages in this Chamber and the assembly is established in a little under a year from now.
Therefore there is no case to legislate formally for a category which appears to me to be redundant both in terms of numbers and in terms of a principle. It makes little sense to establish a category in law to indicate the position of such a tiny minority of schools. I am much in favour of diversity of provision—as mentioned in later amendments to this Bill—but it seems to me that this category is not really about diversity; it is a complication in the structure. What is important is that all the schools in Wales are perceived to be of equal standing within the maintained sector of schools. It is not helpful therefore to have such a category. This is the position also of the Welsh Local Government Association. I hope that for all the reasons I have mentioned the Welsh Office and the Minister will consider this provision sympathetically.
Baroness Blackstone: We are committed to creating a new school framework which strikes a better balance between the interests of individual schools and those of pupils and schools collectively. To do that we need to start from where schools are now, not where they were 10 years ago. The school system in this country has never been monolithic, and we value the principle of diversity. Schools have traditionally had different degrees of autonomy. But in the past these differences have almost always been linked to religious character.
GM status gave secular as well as religious schools greater autonomy, and a fifth of all secondary schools took up the GM option. But as we have already discussed in dealing with the last group of amendments, grant-maintained status was a flawed initiative, although it demonstrated clearly that schools are willing and able to run their own affairs.
Our new framework is designed to preserve the benefits of self-management while removing the divisiveness of opting out. Creating a new foundation category is essential to achieving that. It will allow former grant-maintained schools to retain many of their existing characteristics—employing staff, owning premises, acting as admission authorities—within a framework based on fair funding, fair admissions and partnership between schools and LEAs. In time, the foundation category will also give community and voluntary controlled schools the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities.
The alternative would be to deny schools this choice and to force most GM schools into the community category. Apart from being intrinsically undesirable, that would create substantial practical problems. It would mean the transfer of land ownership and staff employment at around 1,000 schools. That would create an unacceptable level of turbulence and distraction for these schools when they should be concentrating their energies on raising pupils' achievements. I am sure that cannot be what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, wants.
1622
The noble Lord has said that LEAs were initially opposed to the foundation category. It is true that in responses to the White Paper and the technical consultation document a number of LEAs expressed reservations about the three categories of school. But much of their unease came from the proposals to require all schools to choose their new categories simultaneously. They felt that this process would create too much turbulence.
We listened to their concerns and have phased schools' choice of category. Only grant-maintained schools will have a choice of category when the new framework is implemented. LEA schools will be assigned to the nearest equivalent category. All schools will be able to seek an alternative category, if they wish, from a year after the new framework is implemented.
I turn now to those amendments concerning the foundation special schools. They would deprive special schools of any choice by removing the foundation special category. Our White Paper and technical consultation paper suggested that there were advantages in all special schools becoming community special schools. But of those who responded to that suggestion, the majority said that it would be wrong to deny parents at grant-maintained special schools—who had voted for greater autonomy for their school—the right offered to parents at mainstream schools to participate in choosing the school's future category. That was a powerful point, and the decision to give special schools a choice of category was made in that light.
We are very conscious of concerns about foundation special schools developing in ways that do not reflect local plans for SEN provision. We thought about those concerns carefully before deciding that special as well as mainstream schools should have a choice of category. In the new framework, both community and foundation special schools will be expected to participate in and be bound by local and regional planning arrangements.
I turn now to Amendment No. 82, which is about changing indicative allocations in Wales. Schedule 2 provides for grant-maintained schools—special as well as mainstream—to be indicatively allocated to the new category which most closely resembles their current characteristics. For example, former county grant-maintained schools employ their own staff and own their own premises. The nearest equivalent category is foundation, not community. That is just as true in Wales as in England.
The purpose of indicative allocations is to simplify the process by which GM schools move into their new categories. Schools which accept their indicative allocation will move automatically into this category. But governing bodies will be free to choose an alternative category if they wish.
With only one exception, all the grant-maintained schools in Wales are ex-county or ex-voluntary. We understand that most of those schools are content with their indicative allocation to the foundation category. Grant-maintained schools and LEAs in Wales are

1623
starting to work together. So transition to the grant-maintained category should be achieved smoothly in virtually every case.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would mean that to become a foundation, grant-maintained schools in Wales would have to choose the foundation category as an alternative category. Their final category would then have to be decided by the Secretary of State for Wales. This would cause complications, much uncertainty, and delays, which are unnecessary.
In conclusion, the foundation and foundation special categories are integral to the new framework for the organisation of schools. They will minimise disruption when the new framework is introduced. In time they will give community schools an opportunity to seek greater autonomy while maintaining their partnerships with LEAs and other schools. The amendments seek to remove that opportunity or to complicate the process by which schools choose their new category. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, responds, can the Minister confirm when the Government will allow community schools under the new framework to opt to become foundation schools?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot confirm the precise date. If we have a precise date I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I asked the Minister to confirm the date because during the course of speaking to the amendment the noble Baroness referred to a year after the Bill comes into force.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry. I think the noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is the period of time which we shall deploy.
Baroness Blatch: This is important. It is a fact that one year after Royal Assent for the Bill local authority community schools will be allowed to make a choice, if they wish, to become foundation schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes.
Lord Tope: I predicted that we were unlikely to reach agreement here. However, I was encouraged to hear that the Minister is concerned about turbulence in the education sector. The relative turbulence of 1,000 schools across the country returning over a period of time to LEA seems fairly minor compared with the welter of new initiatives pouring out of the noble Baroness's department every day: the creation of education action zones; the development—which we support—of education development plans, and so on. The added turbulence, to use her word, of a relatively small number of schools in a relatively small number of areas returning to the LEA framework, it is to be hoped in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, will be minor. That is not an argument I accept.
1624
We have a difference of view about the desirability of a foundation status. I hold to my original view. I regret even more the response on foundation special schools. I make the point again. Had the Government indicated in their White Paper or Green Paper that they were in two minds and had a balance of view, I am certain that the responses they received would also have been more balanced, and more accurately weighted in favour of simply having community special schools.
I did not expect to win the amendment at any time, let alone approaching half past two in the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Lord Whittymoved Amendment No. 81 A:
Page 18, line 42, after ("day"") insert ("(except in Schedule 31)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 81A, and in doing so I need also to refer to the large batch of amendments grouped with it. For the record, these are Nos. 83A, 83B, 85A, 90A, 90B, 90C, 90D, 90F, 90G, 91B, 91C, 114A, 114B, 122A, 129A, 145A, 156A, 206A, 206B, 256B, 257C, 257E, 257G, 257J, 257L, 257N, 257P, 259A.
Following that, I have seven pages of notes explaining what each of the amendments does. However, I would hope that at this hour your Lordships will accept my assurance that all are technical and consequential, intended to clarify the Bill's substantive provisions relating to the new school categories. None of the amendments makes any additional substantive changes not already dealt with by other amendments. I am of course prepared to answer any questions on any of the amendments to the best of my ability, but I hope that the Committee will accept that they are technical and so allow us to proceed to the rather more substantial amendments which are to follow.
Baroness Blatch: I do not rise to ask for the seven pages of explanation regarding these amendments, but I do ask this. Consequential on what? And in relation to what?
Lord Whitty: Consequential on the definition of the new schools framework, with definitions of the new foundation schools. They also relate to timing and provisions on property and status.
Lord Lucas: I, on the other hand, would like to ask the noble Lord a few questions. It may be convenient if I do so amendment by amendment. I start with No. 145A. My question is: like what? As I am sure the noble Lord realises, the amendment introduces additional words, in this case "rights and liabilities". Therefore I ask: like what?
Lord Whitty: The whole amendment deals with property transfers and makes it clear that rights and liabilities which are attached to properties will transfer with such properties. That is what Amendments Nos. 145A and 90C are about.
Lord Lucas: If the noble Lord would prefer to write to me I will allow him to, but I should like to know: like

1625
what? What sorts of rights and liabilities which were not subsumed in the original wording are now brought in by this wording? I cannot think of any, because "property" subsumes it all. Doubtless the noble Lord knows, though he may not be able to recall the knowledge at this time of the morning, and I would be happy for him to write to me. But I do wish to know.
Perhaps we can move on to the next one. I very much welcome his removing the wording in Amendment No. 114A, which was extremely obscure. I should also very much like to understand Amendment No. 206A and what exactly has been done there. It appears that some tax or rating concession has been removed from schools, but the noble Lord will doubtless be able to inform me better.
Lord Whitty: I regret to say that the noble Lord will have to rely on a letter from me because I cannot immediately find the necessary information among my notes. I can inform him about Amendment No. 206B, but I will write to him about No. 206A.
Baroness Blatch: This is actually a rather serious point. I accepted what the noble Lord said at the beginning, that these are minor technical amendments and entirely consequential, but if one reads subsection (2), which is to disappear from the Bill, it says that:
"The code may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters in relation to the discharge of their functions under this Chapter by local education authorities and such governing bodies.
It shall he the duty of…the bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (1) when exercising functions under this Chapter, and…any other person when exercising any function",
and so on. These provisions are more than merely technical, minor and inconsequential. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree—because we do not want to hold up the progress of the Committee—to write with an explanation to my noble friend and have the letter copied to other noble Lords, and we will deal with these amendments at the next stage and, it is to be hoped, without any difficulty.
2.30 a.m.
Lord Whitty: I am happy to confirm that I will write to the noble Lord. The bulk of these amendments are fairly straightforward. I have now found my briefing on Amendment No. 206A in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That relates to the issues arising from discussions with the charity commissioners. I will put all this in writing to the noble Lord, with a copy to the noble Baroness.
Lord Lucas: If I have a full explanation of all the amendments in this group I shall be content. But there are certainly others on which I had questions.
1626
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will remember the trouble he gave me in the past on technical amendments. It is a lesson I learnt well at his hands. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be better prepared—as I learnt to bev—on a future occasion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I doubt whether I did that at 2.30 in the morning.
Baroness Blatch: On more than one occasion when I was a Minister noble Lords opposite did that at 2.30 in the morning.
To put the record straight, I read from page 59, not page 57. The section I ought to have read was that dealing with mandatory and discretionary rate relief, a point raised by my noble friend.
If the noble Lord was not prepared to write ahead of our voting on these amendments, then we should feel it necessary to vote against them tonight.
Lord Whitty: The only amendment moved is Amendment No. 81A dealing with the question of the appointed date, simply making the difference between that referred to in Clause 20 and the same expression used in Schedule 31 dealing with transitional provisions. It just makes the point that these are different appointed days. That is the amendment that I have moved. The other amendments are within this grouping. No doubt if my letter does not satisfy the noble Baroness or any other noble Lord in the interim, they will return to these matters on a subsequent Committee clay.
Baroness Blatch: Am I mistaken? I understand that we are going as far as Amendment No. 96, which means that Amendments Nos. 81A, 83A, 83B, 85A, 90A, 90B, 90C, 90D, 90F, 90G, 91B and 91C would be dealt with this evening.
Lord Whitty: My recollection is that none of those amendments was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I will move them at the appropriate point if the noble Baroness wishes to come back on them. The amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were beyond Amendment No. 96.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is missing the point that we are making. Because my noble friend has raised at least a couple of points that do not fit the description of minor, technical and no more than consequential amendments, they raise issues for debate, of which rate relief is one, and there may well be others. We took it as read that that was of no consequence. We believe now that it possibly is of some consequence. The noble Lord has promised to write to those of us on this side of the House, including those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, so that we understand what these amendments are about. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to spend all night reading out these matters. It would be a very minor matter, and I suspect that these amendments will be passed when we have all received a proper explanation. But perhaps he will let us have

1627
that proper explanation and allow the amendments to be dealt with at the next stage of the Bill. Otherwise, we have to accept them without question.
Lord Whitty: I do not know what the noble Baroness means by her reference to the next stage of the Bill. I will certainly provide subsequently tonight an explanation of all the amendments which are within this group. It will then be up to noble Lords as to what they do at a subsequent stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Once we agree tonight, there is no subsequent stage for these amendments. If amendments up to Amendment No. 91C are dealt with and are accepted, then they will be part of the Bill. I am simply saying that it would be helpful to have the letter of explanation and then deal with the voting at the next stage of the Bill. Nothing is going to happen in relation to these amendments between now and the next stage of the Bill. They will be dealt with relatively quickly because we will have had a detailed explanation from the Minister.
Lord Whitty: We may proceed as far as Amendment No. 96 tonight. I have already moved Amendment No. 81A and if the noble Baroness objects to any subsequent amendments being moved, she can do so at that point. Either she can return to the issues at Report stage or I can do so. I do not see the difficulty. I suspect that had I read out the seven pages, we would still have the problem, but I now wish I had read them out. Nevertheless, if we proceed we will see which ones the noble Baroness or any other noble Lord objects to.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may help my noble friend on the Front Bench. It seems to me that we are talking about government amendments about which the Opposition have some reservations. They seek explanations for them, but the amendments have been put down and debated. If they are moved and agreed at this Committee stage, then if, following the further explanation which the Government have said they would provide to the Opposition, the Opposition has further difficulty with the amendments, then further amendments altering them could he put down for Report stage. That would satisfy all parties.
It seems to me to be quite in order for the Committee to agree to the government amendments at this stage, with the opportunity for the House to consider the Bill prior to Report stage. If the Opposition or even the Government, following further consideration, felt that other amendments should be made, that could be done at Report stage.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may suggest a compromise. We are all facing the fact that it is the middle of the night. The amendments are technical and it is highly probable that a letter would do everything. Possibly we should postpone these technical amendments; it would not affect the Government's business and they would pass without
1628
trouble. I am sure that when the arguments are written down, without the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reading them all through, we are reasonable people on this side of the Committee and we would accept them. I think a letter on the technicalities would solve the problem. I assume, from what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said—which I accept absolutely—these are legal matters relating to property and similar technicalities. But doubts have been expressed; people will worry about them. I suggest a letter. Then assuming that what the Minister said is correct that no whale is hiding behind the amendments, that course is the one we should take. That is what I suggest, otherwise we will be here until 5 o'clock in the morning, and at my age that is more than I can take.
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that. However, in the circumstances, in order to make progress, if we withdraw the amendments for today we could undertake to bring them back at Report stage, following a letter. But we should not then have procedural difficulties in the Government bringing amendments forward at Report stage. If that is understood between us, on that basis I shall not move them, but I intend to re-submit them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Allocation of existing schools to new categories]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 106, line 14, after ("paragraph") insert ("1 or").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 83 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 84 to 90. They were tabled because I believe it is necessary to give the local education authority schools (what will be community schools) an opportunity to exercise their choice as to the kind of schools they would like to be on Royal Assent of this Bill. It is an amendment which I should still like to succeed. However, I am much heartened by the previous statements of the noble Baroness that at least the end is in sight for local authority schools and they will have an opportunity to exercise their choice within a foreseeable length of time.
Baroness Blackstone: I want to clarify a point I made earlier where I may have given inaccurate information.
The noble Baroness asked when local education authority schools—community schools—could change categories; whether it is a year after Royal Assent. It is in fact a year after the new framework comes into force, not a year after Royal Assent. The new framework will come into force in September 1999, so it will be one year after that, in September 2000. But that is quite soon.
Baroness Blatch: That is unacceptable to me, and I will go back with full force to my amendments.

1629
I do not understand the turbulence argument. There will not be any ballots; the schools will not have to go through great procedures; they simply choose whether they want to be a community or a foundation school.
The Government's supporting argument for foundation schools has been that they are part of the family of LEA schools and it gives them a greater degree of autonomy—I do not know to what extent because it is difficult to work out precisely what that will mean. But I do not understand the turbulence argument.
I agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the pressure from LEAs was because they did not like the policy for foundation schools. However, given that there are going to be foundation schools and given that grant-maintained schools are to be given the option to become foundation schools, I see no reason whatever why community schools should not also be given the option. It may well be that none of them wants to take the option; it may be that many of them do. But there is no good reason why they should be at least two years away from making that decision. The schools should be given an opportunity as soon as the framework comes into being. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: We are all committed to giving all schools a choice of category. The problem that arises is the problem to which my noble friend alluded. It is true that in our technical consultation paper last summer we proposed that all schools should have a choice when the new categories of school were introduced. However, it was quite clear from a large number of respondents to the consultation that they were concerned that making all 23,000 schools choose simultaneously could he extremely disruptive. We have taken that into account and revised our proposals.
All schools will have a choice of category in the new framework, but the opportunity to make choices will be phased. GM schools will have a choice of category under Schedule 2 at the point when the new school categories are introduced. That is because the new framework involves more changes for GM schools than for LEA schools. Parents were balloted when most schools became GM, so we believe it is right for them to have an opportunity to express their view, through a ballot, immediately.
Conversion of LEA-maintained schools is different. The new framework will involve little change for those schools, so they will be assigned to their nearest equivalent category when it is established. After the moratorium referred to by my noble friend, any school will be able to change category under the provisions of Clause 34 and Schedule 8. That moratorium, I repeat, will last for one year after the new categories are introduced, after which community schools will be able to propose changes to their status at that point or at any time thereafter. That will give all schools time to experience their new categories and make a considered decision as to whether they want to change. By then the new system on local
1630
determination of statutory proposals should be operating. So the Bill provides for changes of category proposals to be dealt with in the same way.
All schools within the framework, whether they were formerly LEA-maintained or grant-maintained, will be free to consider a change after that period. In contrast, these amendments, if adopted, would force all 23,000 schools in the system to undertake their choice and to go through the choice process at the same time. We do not believe that would be sensible. We agree with the aim of giving all schools choice, but we cannot agree with the method proposed by the amendments. The 23,000 all deciding instantaneously would not enhance the introduction of the new framework. A year's moratorium seems to us to be a sensible process. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that all schools will, after that moratorium, have the choice.
2.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is not surprising that GM schools are being given that opportunity early. It is not that they are being given it out of the generosity of the Government's heart. It is that the Government cannot wait for the GM schools to disappear from the scene. They have made no secret of that. That is why grant-maintained schools are going to be first in line.
Will the noble Lord point me to the specific place in the Bill where the commencement order for the framework in terms of the particular date is set out? Perhaps I may also correct something the noble Lord said. He said that my amendment would force all schools on day one to make the choice. My amendment does no such thing. My amendment and the amendments coupled with it simply make the provision available. Schools may not exercise it for years, or perhaps never. It is simply there as an option. There is nothing in my amendment, unless the noble Lord can point me to it—in which case I shall go away and make sure that it is removed—to force schools to make a choice to become foundation schools.
Lord Whitty: On that point, they are not forced to make a decision. They are required right at the beginning to decide whether they wish to take the category of community school or not.
Baroness Blatch: There is nothing in the amendment to require them to do anything of the kind. If they do not want even to give a passing thought to it, they will not have to give a passing thought to it. But if they want positively to give a passing thought to taking on the new status, they are free to do so. There is nothing in my amendment, unless the noble Lord can point me to it, that requires them to do anything whatever once the Bill comes into play. But it would help me to know where in the Bill I can find the commencement date for the framework and where in the Bill I can find that one year after the commencement date for the framework

1631
the opportunity will be given to local authorities to make their choices if they wish to become foundation schools.
Lord Whitty: The framework date is the date designated the appointed day in Clause 20(6). The moratorium is not defined as one year, but we are indicating the intention that it would be one year after that appointed date.
There is at least a passive decision required of community schools to remain community schools if the amendment were carried. That is why I am saying that everyone would have to make a decision. All 23,000 schools would have to make a decision. Clearly, the vast majority would be expected to take the decision to take on the community status that they had been assigned. Nevertheless, they would require to take that decision. The clause under which the moratorium date is specified is Clause 34(2).
Baroness Blatch: The subsection does not name the appointed day, it simply states that the power to do so shall rest with the Secretary of State. Nowhere in this Bill does it say that the moratorium will be one, two, three or four years. I would like to have confirmed yet again the precise date that the Secretary of State intends to put into regulations for the commencement of the new framework, and also to have it put on record that it shall be one year after that date that local authorities will be free to make a choice.
Can the noble Lord point to anywhere in my amendments where local authorities have positively to make any decision or choice whatsoever? If on day one they carry on as now and they do not think positively about anything and take no action, such inaction is entirely acceptable under my amendments. Action or inaction is acceptable. Local authorities do not have to make a choice, unless I am misreading my own amendments. I ask the Minister to point to where in my amendments a choice has to be made.
Lord Whitty: I thought I had made the point that a passive choice is a choice, as in many things in life. They have to have made that choice before the framework comes in or not challenge the framework. That would have to apply to 23,000 schools which the authorities would have to assign to one category or the other rather than the automatic assignment to community schools which applies under our proposals.
As regards the date, if we ever finish this Bill, the date proposed by the Secretary of State for the commencement of the framework will be September 1999. It is the intention under Clause 34(2) to specify that the moratorium before which community schools can propose changes will be one year. That would be provided in regulations under that clause.
Baroness Blatch: This is positively my final question. Will that include all community schools?
Lord Whitty: I am not quite sure what lies behind that question. All community schools would be able
1632
to propose a change from that point or from any subsequent point. It does not mean that at that point all 23,000 schools would have to make a decision.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83A to 90A not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Kinds of foundation and voluntary schools and types of foundations]:
[Amendments Nos. 90B to 90D not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 90E:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert—
("(aa) with respect to the revision or replacement of the instruments of government of schools joining or leaving the group in such circumstances and the reconstitution of their governing bodies;").
The noble Baroness said: The Government have considered what the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers says on Clause 21(7). We accept that the scope of this clause needs to be narrowed and have brought forward Amendments Nos. 90E and 91A to address fully the concerns raised by the committee.
Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the establishment, membership, functions and winding up of group foundations. As it stands, subsection (7) enables those regulations to apply or modify any part of the Bill for those purposes.
Subsection (7) was intended to make it possible to do three things for schools joining and leaving group foundations. First, to enable the Education Transfer Counsel to help with land transfers; secondly, to apply the provisions of Schedule 21 to such transfers. Schedule 21 sets out rules for land transfers, but it applies only to transfers made when the new framework is implemented. Ongoing provision for transfers linked to group foundations will be needed. Thirdly, it was intended to deal with changes in instruments of government and reconstitution of governing bodies.
We have thought very carefully about these three functions in the light of the committee's comments. We have concluded that the first two could be dealt with in other ways and that the provision required to deal with governance could be much more specific.
I will be proposing a new schedule to the Bill, dealing with the functions of the education transfer council. Among other things, this will enable the council to help with land transfers for schools joining or leaving group foundations. As for the rules applying to land transfers, the regulations made under Clause 21 will provide for those directly by including provisions based on the relevant parts of Schedule 21.
This leaves governance. Amendment No. 291 adds a new paragraph to subsection (6) of Clause 21. This enables the regulations to provide for changes to

1633
instruments of government and the reconstitution of governing bodies where schools join or leave a group foundation.
Amendment No. 294 removes the present subsection (7) and replaces it with a much narrower provision relating to a single paragraph of Schedule 12—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister, but those amendments are not in this group. As far as I know, we are dealing only with Amendments Nos. 90E, 91 and 91A. At this hour of the morning it seems inappropriate for the Minister to introduce many other amendments that we have not even considered.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept what the noble Baroness says. Unfortunately, my speaking note seems to have gone beyond the grouped amendments I believe that the amendments to which I have spoken meet the Select Committee's concerns about subsection (7). In doing that, they cover the same ground as Amendment No. 194, which has been proposed by the noble Baroness, so I hope that she will feel able to withdraw that amendment. Once again, I apologise for speaking to amendments which are not in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for the efforts made by the department to respond to the scrutiny committee's report. My copy of the Bill now resembles a Damien Hirst exhibit for an art exhibition. I have tried to make sense of the amendments that have been tabled to this part of the Bill in response to the committee's report. I do not know what was intended by officials when they designed the note without giving us the benefit of knowing that the Minister would speak also to other amendments. I accept the Minister's apology, but it is now difficult for us to make sense of the limited amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 90E, 91 and 91A.
I turn now to the proposals by which I am unnerved and about which I should like to think a little more. I refer to the Secretary of State's powers and functions in relation to modifying, changing or amending the instruments of government. I do not quite know the implications behind that suggestion. I am concerned about instruments of government, to which we shall come later. I am particularly concerned about the idea of having model instruments and articles for all schools. Different schools will have different requirements and will need tailor-made instruments. I am not sure whether this provision cuts across that. I shall need to concentrate on that point a little more. Unlike the other very large group of amendments— we have yet to learn what they mean—
I shall not object if the Minister moves her amendments and they are accepted on the face of the Bill as long as the Minister accepts that I may well have to return to this and possibly table an amendment at a later stage.
3 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The intervention of the noble Baroness is helpful. The problem is that the amendments in my speaking note are wrongly numbered. To return to
1634
instruments of government, Amendment No. 90E adds a new paragraph to subsection (6) of Clause 21. This enables the regulations to provide for changes to instruments of government and the reconstitution of governing bodies where schools join or leave the group foundation. Amendment No. 91A removes the present subsection (7) and replaces it with a much narrower provision relating to a single paragraph of Schedule 12. This is needed to allow a revised instrument of government to be made before a school joins or leaves the group foundation so that changes to the governing body can be arranged in advance. The previous instrument of government would continue to determine the composition of the governing body until the date of the change. That would be incompatible with paragraph 1 of Schedule 12— hence the need for regulations which could modify that paragraph in relation to instruments of government.
I believe that these amendments meet the concerns of the committee, but in view of the muddle I shall understand if the noble Baroness wishes at a later stage to return to her amendment. But I believe that when the noble Baroness has a chance to study this matter she will discover that we have fully met the suggestions of the committee and that what we put forward is in line with her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 90F and 90G not moved.]
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 91:
Page 20, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: I believe that Amendment No. 91 is subsumed in Amendment No. 91A.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 20, line 30, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (6)(aa) may, in connection with the making or variation of instruments of government in preparation for schools joining or leaving the group, modify paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 in its operation in relation to such instruments of government.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91B not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91C not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Funding of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 111, line 1, leave out ("new").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 92 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. In anticipation of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. Amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 94 are technical amendments that clarify that where a local

1635
education authority has a duty to provide an additional or alternate site for a voluntary aided school, the authority must always transfer ownership of the site to the school trustees or foundation body if there are no trustees. The amendments do not change existing responsibilities for voluntary aided schools but simply put the provisions and existing practice beyond doubt.
Amendment No. 95 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not take account of the grant payment system and therefore is defective. In practice, payment and acceptance happen simultaneously because grant is paid direct to school governors' bank accounts by the Bank Automated Clearing Service. I understand that the noble Lord seeks to protect voluntary aided school governors by offering them an opportunity to consider the grant conditions before accepting payments. I reassure him that we recognise the implications of the grant condition systems for school governors. We shall ensure that, where a condition of grant is to be applied, the governors will fully understand and can comply with the requirements being stipulated before any building work starts and grant is paid. In those circumstances, I hope that when the noble Lord comes to speak to his amendment he will understand the points that we make.
Amendment No. 96 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon is concerned with the grant condition system. The grant condition system will protect public fund investment in voluntary aided schools. Where any voluntary aided school property is bought or enhanced with public funds and ceases subsequently to be used for a maintained school, we want to ensure that if the assets are not recycled within the maintained school system, public funds will be appropriately compensated. The Churches have always made it clear that they support that principle.
I understand the right reverend Prelate's reservations about the Secretary of State's power to set a condition of grant after the grant has been paid. Therefore, I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report which I hope will meet his concerns. We cannot agree to forfeit completely the power to set a retrospective condition of grant. However, we expect to use the power rarely and only when it is reasonable to do so. The amendment I shall table will modify the power so that it is exercisable only where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is reasonable to set a retrospective condition.
It may help if I give a couple of examples where we judge that it will be reasonable to use the power; for example, where, as a result of clerical oversight, the grant condition is excluded from the formal grant letter which sets out how much grant is to be paid. In such a case, the governors will already be aware of the intention to set a condition and it would be quite reasonable, in our view, to correct the error and set the formal condition after grant payment has commenced.
Another example may be that when grant is requested, the school trusts appear to secure satisfactory recycling and a condition is not set. However, it may be
1636
that the terms of the trust deed have been misconstrued or that the trusts are subsequently changed and satisfactory recycling is not secured. In such circumstances, we should want to have the power to set a condition after the grant has been paid and we believe that that would be entirely reasonable.
As I have said already, we expect such cases to arise rarely. I do not consider that there is a real threat to Church schools. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept my proposal for an amendment on Report and therefore will in due course see fit not to move his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: After the disappointment of Amendment No. 77, I am delighted at the announcement by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As he said, the Churches have always accepted the principle that if public money is used to enhance trust assets and those trust assets in due course may be realised, then any public money should be returned. We have no difficulty with that.
The difficulty lay only in the power of the Secretary of State to impose requirements at any time after the making of a grant. Once again, we accept entirely the situation which the noble Lord has described, that there may, on occasions, be administrative oversights, and in those circumstances we are prepared to accept that a retrospective imposition would be right.
However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance that he has given that that power will be rarely used and for outlining the amendment which he will bring forward on Report to make it clear that such a retrospective condition would be imposed only when the Secretary of State regarded it as reasonable to do so. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
As Amendment No. 96 is the last amendment which we are considering this evening, I should say that at least one of your Lordships will be returning home tonight with a lighter heart.
Perhaps I may also express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and her colleague, the Minister for Schools, for their graciousness in receiving representatives of the Churches to attempt to sort out some of those difficulties. Also, I thank the officials of her department for the way in which they worked so closely with staff of the Board of Education, the Catholic Education Service and the Free Church Federal Council. I believe that those consultations have enabled us to iron out most of the remaining difficulties that we have in this Bill, and I am delighted by the announcement made the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, this evening.
Lord Lucas: I should just like to thank the Minister very much for what he said. Indeed, I am quite content.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 111, line 14, leave out ("new").
Page 111, line 22, leave out ("new").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past three o'clock.